It's Official...

This country still has the unrivaled ability to depress me. Two years and still there are some things I don't miss.

6669

Everything comes apart if you find the strand.

Picks of the Week: Fifty Six

The Argument Against: I vaguely remember the furor that occurred several years ago –late 2007, I believe- when the then Home Minister of Malaysia banned the usage of the term ‘Allah’ by a local Christian publication. The issue must not have struck me as having any particular import for I cannot remember if I had a specific position on the controversy. Ah, the follies of my youth and political naivete. But the appeals system of any judicial system has the distinct advantage of allowing even fools like me a second crack at picking sides. On New Year’s Eve, the High Court of Malaysia ruled that the ban on the usage of ‘Allah’ by The Herald was unconstitutional. Now, the tapestry that is Malaysian society would not be quite as colorful or as interesting without its usual histrionics. So, in the wake of the ruling there were the customary demonstrations by advocacy groups, fist-wringing by religious leaders and even the establishment of a Facebook group which counts one polarizing columnist as well as a deputy Minister as its members.

Central to the argument for the imposition of such a ban is the exclusive association between the term ‘Allah’ and the religion of Islam. According to this argument, non-Muslims should not be allowed to utilize the term ‘Allah’ especially in circumstances when the term is used to reference a non-Muslim deity because the reference would be misleading to Muslims who commonly associated ‘Allah’ with the Muslim God. Even former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has weighed in on the issue by suggesting that the usage of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims might be abused by parties who do not fully reflect the views of Islam. The culmination of these factors would then lead to discord between Muslims and non-Muslims.

On the other side of this issue is the Catholic Church of Malaysia who publish the Herald. The Church argues that the term ‘Allah’ has historically been and still is used by East Malaysian Christians to refer to God. This is a practice that even pre-dates the inclusion of the East Malaysian states into Malaysia. In addition to that, the Church has argued that the term ‘Allah’ is used by adherents of Abrahamic religions –including Muslims, Christians and Jews- worldwide to refer to God. Thus, Muslims have no exclusive claim to the usage of the term.

Legal arguments are beyond the scope of my humble knowledge; but there are several important issues central to this debate. The first pertains to the exclusivity of the term ‘Allah’. I submit that in many cultures –especially in the West- ‘Allah’ is almost synonymous with the religion of Islam. However, it is also important to note that ‘Allah’ is the standard Arabic word for a monotheistic deity, God. Thus, for many, ‘Allah’ is no more specific to a religion than ‘car’ is to a particular build or model.

In addition to that, we must also consider if the long-standing historical usage of the term ‘Allah’ by Muslims entitles them to some form of property rights in regulating the usage of the word by non-Muslims. Is the basis of this right merely a function of time? For if it is, then an equally compelling argument can be made by the Eastern Malaysian Christians who have long worshipped under the name of ‘Allah’ to be allowed to continue with their practice. In comparing time based rights, what makes one claim stronger than another? Do others have greater claims to citizenship and all of its privileges simply because they are older or have been in the country longer than I have? And even more importantly, should rights even be determined based on any time scale? If it should, then doesn’t an illegal immigrant who has resided in a country for over two decades and who has established strong social ties to the local community have a greater claim to citizenship than a new-born infant? It is on this logic that I reject a claim of exclusivity based on historical use.

There is also a parallel rights argument that compels our attention, that of the freedom of expression by the Catholic Church. Contained in this right is the ability of the Church to effectively and freely spread their religious message to the masses so long as this is conducted in a manner that does not violate the rights of others. If a subsection of their congregation practices religion in the Christian tradition, adhering to all of the religions beliefs and teachings, then the Church has in its interests, the role of nurturing and encouraging the actions of this subsection. In this instance, this role entails the publication of a newsletter in which terminology most familiar to the congregation is employed: ‘Allah’. There is no inherent contradiction between the word ‘Allah’ and Church teachings –the authorization of the term by an official Church sanctioned publication says as much. This is merely a semantic device for the dissemination of Church doctrine. There is plenty of historical examples of religious evangelism in which evangelicals of all religious persuasions spread their teachings in foreign languages. The Government has argued that in the Malay language, there are many translations for God other than ‘Allah’ that are perceived as less Islam specific. Yet this argument misses the point of using ‘Allah’ specifically. ‘Allah’ is employed not only because the Church has deemed the term consistent with its teachings but also because its Malay speaking followers have historically referred to God using this term. By forcing the Church to preach to its congregants in terms unfamiliar to them circumscribes the ability of the Church to properly fulfill its role vis-a-vis its believers. If believers do not fully associate themselves with the teachings –some steeped in centuries of worship- then they begin to question their faiths. This would be a violation of the freedom of expression that the Church –as a religious group- is entitled to constitutionally.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that the Arabic word ‘Allah’ has always referred to an Islamic God. Then, do we not have a duty to ensure that the word whenever employed, is employed to reflect its true sense? For in religion, where textual purity and sanctity is imperative to protect its foundations, we should not tolerate deviations that discredit the true teachings of our prophets. Censorship would then ward off the ‘abuse’ that Tun Dr Mahathir referred to. Even this argument I resist because censorship does not address the underlying causes of abuse and even if it does, it obligates the Government to a position of mass censorship reductio ad absurdum. Abuse and the mischaracterization of any set of religious beliefs is caused by misinformation and libelous discourse. Common law provides plenty of protection against such violations against freedom of speech. When the Government determines that it must intervene to prevent such abuses, it takes on a proactive position of legislating the conduct of religious groups. While the Malaysian Constitution does contain an Establishment Clause –separation of Church and State- like the US Constitution, Article 11 of the Malaysian Constitution does protect the right of religious groups to manage their own affairs. If the State intention is to preserve the true meaning of words with specific religious connotations, then it must oversee the usage of all religious terms of all religious groups. This would mean the formation of a religious language police that would arbitrate over disputes which pertain to words as opposed to doctrine. When religious debates are reduced to such superficial facets, spiritual growth is almost certainly stunted. And the worst consequence of this censorship is that dissent will be killed swiftly and there will be no improvement in our understanding of important issues. I refer you to the writing of Mill for he is a man more eloquent and informed. 

Picks of the Week: Fifty Five

Anyone who follows the on-goings of the Malaysian media should be sufficiently familiar with a certain Dr. Mohd Ridhuan Tee. The man, in my opinion, can be described as a polemicist at best. Opposition MPs and bloggers frequently take pot-shots at him. Utusan Malaysia, a local daily, likes him enough to make him a columnist. If there ever was someone in the local public sphere akin to Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, this man would be it.

Now, college education has taught me enough that I try to be fair to the views of others, even to those I find intolerable and distasteful. Dr.Tee most certainly irks me to no end. It’s not merely his hypocrisy of accusing others of the very sectarian politics that he so cavalierly practices that enrages me. It’s also the manner in which he shrouds his speech in pseudo-intellect in order to give it credence that is so repugnant.

Take his latest column in the Utusan Malaysia (here I link his English blog entry). He rather audaciously –and in keeping with the spirit of the Grinch- suggests that we allocate religious holidays and other religious liberties based on the demographical distribution of religious adherents in Malaysia. This point of view shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, considering Dr. Tee is an ardent advocate of the supremacy of Islam in the country. To be fair to his writing, he does support religious tolerance, but takes the view that all other religions must be subordinate to the concerns of Islam and its adherents.

It is only when I try to reconcile this view with the rest of his writing that I am taken back by the inconsistency of his views. In the same column, he argues that the advantages accorded to the religion of Islam are incontrovertible and unquestionable because they are enshrined in the Constitution and agreed upon under the Social Contract. Bear in mind, Dr.Tee has a BA in Political Science and holds a PhD in Politics and Government. His credentials should convince the casual observer that his utilization of the term ‘Social Contract’ aptly encapsulates the primacy of Islam. But being the incorrigible fool that I am, I am not taken in by his academic superiority. I am but a lowly undergraduate student, but even a pauper is allowed to accost a prince. I wonder to myself then: what Social Contract is he referring to? For the Constitution most certainly doesn’t explicitly state the existence of a Social Contract of any sort. If he is referring to Article 153 of the Constitution that grants special privileges to Malays, he would be looking under the wrong rock. That Article sure gives a lot of privileges to Malays. It mentions scholarships, positions in the public service and even permits and licenses. But there is no mention of religion at all. The constitution in Article 3 does say that Islam is the religion of the country, but it also mentions that everyone has a right to practice and profess her religion (Article 11). At this point, I am desperately seeking textual evidence to support Dr.Tee’s claim that the citizens of this nation and its forebears have agreed under some “contract” to the supremacy of Islam over other religions. In fact, I am eager to informed as to the Constitutional provision under which our religious liberties are to be distributed according to demographics.

On the other hand, Article 11 explicitly protects the rights of religious groups to manage their own affairs, to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes as well as to acquire and own property and to hold and administer it in accordance with law. As an ode to state neutrality, Article 11 also states that no one can be coerced or compelled to pay taxes the proceeds of which are to be allocated in full or partially to financing a religion other than her own. In his article, Dr.Tee observes the vast burial grounds owned by non-Muslims in the country and applauds the munificence of the majority for allowing such tracts of land to be owned by the religious minorities. Yet, he also laments the shortage of land area and speculates on the sustainability of their generosity. I do not know what is implicit in this discourse of his, but I hope that he is not suggesting the expropriation of land from religious minorities in an attempt at redistribution. That would be a blatant violation of property rights as well as a violation of the Constitution itself. But an informed academe such as him would surely not propose abuse as flagrant as that.

The State most certainly does not have an obligation to its citizens to provide for equal resources to each and every religious group. But it also has no business interfering in practice of such religions especially when it is conducted in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution. When pedagogues are granted very public platforms to make controversial and highly suggestive comments about religion in the country, the public sphere is muddied by inaccurate and contradictory claims. This has the effect of binding us in a continuous cycle of facile and uninformed arguments. Why do we allow ourselves to be fractured so easily by these enemies of the State?  

Picks of the Week: Fifty Four

The Argument Against: It’s been awhile since I’ve written anything under this heading. I must make an effort to do so more often. I came across this report by AP regarding a secretly shot video within a large poultry farm; the contents of which I can only describe as disturbing. It shows male chicks –yes, tiny yellow cute chicks- being killed because they don’t lay eggs and they don’t develop quickly enough to yield much meat. I’m embedding the video below. While it’s not extremely graphic, you may or may not find it disturbing. I would advise discretion when viewing it.

I’ve seen my share of animal cruelty videos in addition to documentaries detailing factory farming practices. I’ve read numerous articles and editorials explaining why we should turn into vegetarians. These are far too many to list in one blog post. But I will share this article written by the supremely intelligent Peter Singer. While he didn’t coin the term, Dr.Singer has been one of the most influential academics to speak out against speciesism, which is basically discrimination based on species. His article is a good starting point because he argues using both practical and philosophical positions, which makes the content very lucid and accessible.

However, I am not left without doubts as to his ultimate position. He argues midway through the article that we should not treat animals as mere objects, ignoring their interests in exchange for our benefit. There is more than a tinge of Kantian reasoning in this argument, in that we should not treat others as mere means but we should regard them as ends of themselves. But not more than a few lines later, when addressing the morality of consuming even any meat at all, he makes a consequentialist prescription: that we should act in a manner that would reduce or contribute the least to animal suffering. Most basic moral philosophy courses teach that Kantian ethics and consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism are contradictory. Of course, there are notable exceptions –my professor thinks that Kant was actually a consequentialist and even wrote a book on it. But the disconnect lies therein –and I simplify the argument greatly: if all beings are to be treated equally as ends and never as means, how can it be that we should act in a manner that determines good based on an aggregate of utility; a system that clearly advocates the welfare of the many, at the expense of the few or even the individual. And more importantly, on a practical level, if we accept the Kantian conception of meat consumption, would it mean that in all circumstances it would be immoral to consume meat or meat products? I may have butchered Singer’s arguments. Let me know if so. Best if I get my hands on a copy of Animal Liberation.

Picks of the Week: Fifty Three

A Day in the Life: Exactly a year ago at approximately this time, I boarded a series of flights that would take me through Singapore, Japan, Chicago in the US and finally into Portland, Maine. Since then, I have not seen my home. I remember that night at the airport, not a tinge of fear inside of me. I was about to leave my home of twenty years for a country halfway across the globe but instead of fear, I felt excitement. As I walked into the departure hall, pass the security checkpoint, I didn't even turn back to glimpse my family for one last time. It was a single-mindedness that even I did not realize, but one that never escapes the attention of a mother. I wonder if my parents, watching from above as the back of my frame moved away further in distance, wished that I would turn and wave. But the farewells I wanted to say had been said and the ones that were unspoken would have a lifetime to explain themselves.

It's a been a full year since that night. Happy anniversary.

Picks of the Week: Fifty Two

A Day in the Life: So, a day after reading this groundbreaking expose by The Star regarding purchased paper qualifications –seriously, it’s an open secret that our dear friends at the daily only recently thought would merit their journalistic attentions- I stumble across this report on a similar degree for sale scheme in Germany. As with most dodgy degree boutiques, you can even get a doctoral degree for a price. This I find out a week after discovering that in Germany, it’s not illegal to masturbate or have sex while driving. Really gives rise to the notion that Germany is the coolest place on Earth.

Also, as a matter of detail, one of the degree mills mentioned in The Star’s report is the impressively named European Business School Cambridge of European Union. Who in their right mind would want a degree from a place with that name? Please take note, if you want to set up a degree selling scam, at least take some initiative and come up with properly good names –or at least ones that make sense grammatically.