I first watched Les Misérables at the West End of London some time ago. This is one of my favorites songs:
[youtube]1VR1bOha40U[/youtube]
Categories
Some ideas are vague for a reason. In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the majority is afraid of commitment and responsibilities. It is simply impractical to have clear opinions or positions. Consistency arising from those opinions and positions is a barrier to success. One has to be pragmatic to be successful. Vagueness allows such pragmatism. To put it bluntly, it creates contradictions.
That is not too far off from the truth in our world. That is not too far off from the political culture in Malaysia. There are vague positions and from those ambiguities, contradictions.
1Malaysia is an example. Despite all efforts to explain it by far too many sides, 1Malaysia is still an ambiguous concept. It appeals to the idea of inclusiveness and equality, yet those with distaste for these very liberal ideas are the ones promoting it. There are of course true blue egalitarians within Barisan Nasional who are also promoting 1Malaysia but when both racialists and egalitarians are able to appeal to 1Malaysia in contradictory terms, the concept itself cannot escape the accusation of being ambiguous.
In the early stage of 1Malaysia, one particular idea was floated around to justify its vagueness. It was ”strategic ambiguity.” It stated 1Malaysia was made ambiguous on purpose so that it could be used to appease all sides. All sides can take ownership of 1Malaysia by applying to it their own definition.
That and its vagueness mean 1Malaysia is both everything and nothing, neither here nor there. Its ambiguity means it is not opposable. Given the feudalistic culture that prevails in Malaysia, in BN and in UMNO in particular, there is an imperative to support it just because it came from the top.
With nothing to oppose and everything to accept, it was good for BN and UMNO in a time when both are just emerging from a relatively disastrous infighting. They needed a rallying call. A vague call seemed fine.
Perhaps in its pretension that BN is a perfect replica of Malaysian society, they might have thought that what works for BN might work for Malaysia. The Malaysian society is more diverse than BN however. And because many Malaysians are outsiders to BN and are less enamored with feudalistic culture, they are more demanding in knowing why they should be on board with 1Malaysia. At least, for those who care, anyway.
After persistent ambiguity, many have become disinterested in defining 1Malaysia. They have moved on. At the same time, 1Malaysia sees relegation from a grand ambition contributing to national identity to a mere economic programme troubled by inconsistency.
Today, in fact, 1Malaysia is all about the Economic Transformation Programs and nothing else. It is about projects. It is about buildings and infrastructure. It is about cold hard cash.
But because the programmes are ultimately derived from the vague 1Malaysia, it suffers from contradiction. The ETP are market-driven but both embrace government intervention; price controls are everywhere. The ETP is privately sector-driven but these drivers are government-linked companies: Menara Warisan comes to mind. The best epitome of inconsistency is the term ”market-friendly affirmative action.”
Again, 1Malaysia in the end is about projects and cold hard cash. There is no principle governing it. Anything goes.
To prove that this is really a prevailing political culture rather than merely one belonging exclusively to BN, members of Pakatan Rakyat themselves are not doing well in terms of ambiguity. The ”negara berkebajikan” introduced by PAS is the latest example.
What is it exactly? So far, the buzz has it that it is Islamic, it is not an Islamic state, it is not the welfare state concept and it is different from the system practised by the BN-led federal government. There is little clarification on why it is Islamic, why it is not an Islamic state, why it is not the welfare state and why it is different from BN policy. Apart from several key terms, it is ultimately vague.
To be fair, PAS must be given time to articulate the idea, especially since the idea is creating a competition to the political centre. Nevertheless, the fact that concept was released before its articulation makes it susceptible to the same criticism directed against 1Malaysia. Unless the articulation lifts the veil of ambiguity soon, ”negara berkebajikan” will be a potpourri of contradictions, much like 1Malaysia.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on July 6 2011.
As the Malaysian Parliament planned to vote out Singapore from the Malaysian federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman said this in the Dewan Rakyat:
…On the other hand, our relationship with Sabah and Sarawak has been excellent. We are desirous of carrying out extensive development programme in these two States, because we realise that under the colonial rule the development in the two States had been neglected. We know that they had joined us on their own accord and of their own free will, in hope that they would enjoy not only the independence, the prestige, which freedom brings with it but also to enjoy other fruits of freedom. They fit into the pattern of administration with the rest of the States of Malaysia so admirably well; and unless we can carry out some development however small it may be their hope and trust in us will, I am afraid, inevitably lessen… [Hansard. Parliament of Malaysia. August 9 1965]
Categories
[2390] A disappointing Bersih compromise
Despite what I wrote yesterday, I have to agree that the stadium option is probably the best given the circumstances the electoral reform group Bersih faces.[1] It is a safe compromise for everybody.
The ultimate purpose of Bersih is electoral reforms. It is not a purely civil liberty organization. It is not bound to push through its right to freedom of assembly. It loses no ground in choosing the stadium option while backing down from its initial intention to march the streets peacefully. As as I have written earlier, because Bersih explicitly makes the King their referee, they are bound to the King’s words. The King views the peaceful march negatively.
I planned to attend the now-cancelled street march. With all the news of possible disturbance and threats issued, quite honestly I was afraid for my safety. I am sure many felt the same way. They were afraid. Afraid but brave, nevertheless.
So, the compromise is a relieve. Now they know for certain that they will not face any water cannon or arrest. There is no need to call for courage now.
Still, I am disappointed. I know, there are various arguments out there portraying the compromise as a victory. It may be a victory from various point of view but from a libertarian one, I see it as a defeat.
I see Bersih as a vehicle to push the envelope in the illiberal Malaysia. With a successful exercise of freedom of assembly, I had hope for Malaysia to become less illberal and more tolerant towards peaceful protests.
That scenario will not play out and instead, we will see a compromised scenario. That is a compromise on individual right.
Lastly, I have to say that I am not a fan of protests per se. I always try to judge the worth of a protest based on its agenda. But that statement has a qualifier: only under liberal environment where freedom of assembly is guaranteed.
Without the guarantee, the suppression of that right is enough a reason for me to sympathize with any protest exercising freedom.
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, July 5 — Bersih 2.0 will continue its rally for electoral reform but in a stadium and not on the streets, the group said today fresh from an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in Istana Negara. [Syed Mu’az Syed Putra Ambiga: Bersih to rally in stadium, not on streets. The Malaysian Insider. July 7 2011]
I give my support to Bersih. As far as the rally goes, that support is based on the idea of freedom of assembly. That however does not mean I fully agree with everything that Bersih does. Specifically, I disagree with its appeal to the King.
Bersih now finds itself in a quandary. The King has just spoken up against its planned protest in downtown Kuala Lumpur.[1]
For a libertarian like me, the King’s speech should not matter. For those in Bersih who makes the King their arbitrator, it does.
Bersih binds itself to the words of the King and not primarily to the principle of liberty. That binding makes the words of the King as an imperative that Bersih must follow, if these monarchists are true to their conviction. And the King’s words have not been favorable toward it. That is the peril of making the King the referee.
Because of the King, I would imagine that there is a conflict between monarchists and civil libertarians within Bersih.
I take comfort seeing Bersih finding itself in a quandry because, again, I disagree with its appeal to the King. I have been so from the very beginning, even back in 2007 in times when many believed that the monarchy was an important balancing mechanism, especially after they observed how the Thai King helped toned down the political conflict in Thailand.
I have argued that that appeal would only politicize the monarchy and bring the monarchy into politics in times when the status quo has a republican bias. At the time, however, my argument ran against the grain. I lost because they said, “look, the model works”.
Not after a while though. These believers of the monarchy as an arbitrator have been discouraged by the sultans of Perak and Selangor. Today, they have been discouraged by the King of Malaysia. The model does not work.
So, while I sympathize with the political fortune of Bersih in light of the King’s statement, but I shall enjoy my little cake nonetheless.
[1] — “The fact is, street demonstrations bring more bad than good although the original intention is good. Instead, we should focus on our main objective to develop this country, and not create problems that will cause the country to lag behind. [Statement by Agong on Bersih Illegal Rally. Bernama. July 3 2011]
p/s — have a happy fourth of July.