Confessions of an Atheist

I am an atheist. I don’t believe in god. But don’t fret because I’m not the devil and I’m not about to pollute your mind with heresies. You don’t have to pity me as well because I am doing fine, thank you for your concern. However, if you have thoughts of impaling me, stoning me, or are imagining me burning in hell, I hope that you would find the kindness in you to erase them because that is just plain rude.

You see, I don’t believe in god because I don’t know how to.

Surely I can’t just pick one religion and go along with its message of salvation, what about other religion? I can’t follow every religion known to man as well, for I’d be a very confused person. And I am not that arrogant to think that I am intelligent enough to tell with certainty, which religion is truer than others. While I can choose to go with the majority, but then again, despite being an atheist, I am still affiliated with a religion in official registry, so statistics do lie don’t they?

But of course not knowing which religion is the word of god does not an atheist make. I am an atheist because I know that there is no god, just as much as you know that there is a god; and you can’t make me believe, just as I can’t make you into a non-believer. You can force me to submit, but that is not faith now is it?

If you are worried that tolerance for people like me will result in the degradation of morality, I’m afraid that your concerns are misplaced. Atheists are not people who leave religion out of disappointment or angst; we are atheists because we know there is no god. People who are angry or disappointed with god are not atheist because you can’t be angry at something that does not exist, that’s just silly.

But in case you wonder, I do have a set of morality, but not all of which corresponds with prevailing social norms. For example, I think it is immoral to question what consenting adults do in their bedroom; On the contrary, I do think that civil disobedience is not only a right, but a moral imperative if lex is void of jus.

Most atheists that I know are people of principles; you have to be if you want to call yourself an atheist. While I can’t speak for all, I can speak for myself – that I am a responsible, law abiding citizen; I care for my parents and love my country; I would not do onto others what I would not want done to myself; I have made mistakes and will continue to as long as I live, but I do try to recognize my mistakes and when I do, I have regretted and learnt from them.

But I am writing this not only as a confession, but also as a plea for empathy for believers.

You see, I’ve come to realize that it is rather odd being an atheist. Think about it, we define ourselves by what we are not, not by what we are! It is like saying I’m a non-coffee drinker, I’m a non-smoker or I’m a non-Malaysian. There’s just too much negativity built into the concept of atheism, can we really blame people when they shun us?

As such, what do we stand for? Is it truly our desire to see every individual on earth turn from their faith? I personally find it too great a responsibility to turn a person away from his/her religion, as the resulting product of faithlessness can range from great enlightenment to grave disaster. On top of that, the emotional costs in ‘preaching’ atheism are often too much to pay for our ‘perceived gain’. In ‘preaching’ atheism, you uproot a person’s believe system that has been nurtured since young, you are shattering their truth, their foundation all in the name of what? Our version of truth?

Surely you can see that a generous amount of grief, distress, animosity, even hate would be generated by such an endeavour. And how many of us can engage in intellectual debates without emotional attachment? And when emotions are involved, what are we atheists reduced to even if we manage to silence our opponents with pure logic – belittling their intelligence, knowledge and exposure?

What joy has ever come from ridiculing your ‘inferior’? What dignity has ever come from insulting your ‘defeated foes’? No, only regret and remorse awaits in hindsight.

And if we pride ourselves of our rationality, then it must be evident that the human condition necessitates truth to be subjective. The human mind is so infinitely powerful that each of us creates for ourselves separate truths and realities; we create in our minds more universe than the dimensions of the multiverse could ever contain. Such is the beauty of the human condition.

However, this infinitely powerful mind is also potentially nihilistic, as it can entertain thoughts beyond the basal instincts of most of our animal brothers. As such, our mind is capable of producing great acts of altruism, but at the same time; it can be an agent of destruction, bringing pain and suffering for no apparent reason at all.

As such, emotional enlightenment and self-actualization is part and parcel of the human condition. It is a human reality to want, to need and to seek spiritual enlightenment.

To those who believe: Just because we take different paths to god does not mean your path is better than mine does it?

To atheists: A little white lie doesn’t hurt anyone does it?

It is only when we wear our truths on our sleeves like a Nazi wear his Swastika armband that we commit the greatest act of arrogance, blinding us from the myriad of truths, the beauty of diversity and individuality so fundamental to our human condition.

So what would atheists stand for if we were to redefine atheism in the positive sense? For a start, let’s look at what binds us together. For one, we pride ourselves of our rationality and we ‘preach’ rational thought because we care for the wellbeing of our fellow human kind. We are acutely aware of the differences between impossibility, possibility and probability and we do not waste our intellect grappling the impossible and the improbable. Instead, we promote universal humanistic values that matter to our brief grip on consciousness. We are also aware of our mortality, that there’s only non-existence before and after this consciousness.

There’s no salvation and no second chance, every action matters and cannot be undone.Have you contributed to promoting positive humanistic values today?

A tribute to Merdeka

The wind of change is nigh – the horizon crackles with spontaneous energy feeding into its impending arrival. You can feel the pressure in the atmosphere; sense the electric in the air; hear the whisper of random gusts, all gathering momentum for the coming storm.

Something changes in you too. Excitement gushing through you veins, your instinct thumping to be released; and your feet answered the call. You are now moving to the rhythm of your instinct, the rhythm of the storm! Before long, thousands are running with you, sweeping you up in the stampede for liberty, for freedom, for Merdeka!

*****

Your forefathers undertook a similar journey 55 years ago, but they fought a different enemy then. They struggled against a corporeal form, an external threat, and their victory has been well documented in the lore of your people. The narrative of their struggle forms part of the collective psyche of your community, binding the diverse into a congruent unit. But for too long, your people have relished in the success of your forefathers, reciting the narratives of their struggles until the morals were wrung out of it. Soon the spirit of camaraderie settled; and a mist of content blanketed the horizon.

The seed of your new enemy took root under the veil of this mist, poisoning the soil beneath your feet as you slumbered, feeding your dreams with prosperity and pride. It is also amidst this dream-time that you were born. No, you are not to blame as you could not have realized the insidious influences of the enemy. It has no name and cannot be seen, yet it nourishes you, poisons you, as it slithers its way to encompass your psyche.

*****

The procession grows in strength as more and more awakened from their slumber to join the march for liberty; but your weary body is taking its toll, your pace diminishing, and soon you were left behind. Slowing to a halt, the thunderous roar of the procession retreated into the distance, leaving only the rhythms of your laboured breathe and throbbing heart audible. You contemplate on the journey thus far – What was it that beckons your feet? Who or what is the enemy?

The retreating mist reveals a landscape scared by years of neglect; the empty shells of your kinsmen that have yet to awake stand testament to the corrupting influences of your enemy. You call on them, beckon them to join you in your march for liberty, but their hollow shells did not react, they hear but do not listen; they see but are not aware.

*****

As the horror of the corruption of your people lays bare before you, a realization struck – That the enemy has neither name nor form; it can neither be pinned nor struck down. Yet it is omnipresent, constantly turning unity into dissent, ambition into greed; pride into arrogance; tolerance into apathy and wisdom into ignorance. The enemy is within you, it feeds off the idleness of tranquility, yet it seeks to destroy the only thing that is important – peace. You finally understood, the enemy cannot be defeated, but only enlightenment can keep it at bay.

The struggles can never be over; the march of your forefathers is but the beginning, the narrative of your people does not end with the defeat of colonialism but it must be written by every generation to come, each adding depth to the collective psyche of your people. The struggle against corrupting influences is an ongoing endeavour and only through enlightenment can true liberty be obtained.

*****

Raindrops greet your dusty cheek and cleanse your soot stained body, breathing renewed vigour for the march ahead. The rain has also awaken your kinsmen, their feet fumbling as if uncoordinated; but you know they have heard it as well, the rhythm of their instinct, the rhythm of the storm! You extended your hand and called on them once again, and this time they listened.

The wind of change has arrived. Tens of thousands are now running with you, for enlightenment, for freedom, for Merdeka!

Merdeka means independence, not only from colonialism, but also of the mind from the shackles of ignorance. The essay is dedicated to the fighters of our new Merdeka, to those who labour out of conscience to build a shared future, of tolerance, understanding and moderation. You may get tired along the way; you may get frustrated at times, but know that your work has not gone to waste, it only takes one candle to bring light to absolute darkness.

Lua Bo Feng

22/8/11

Proportionality - The Magic Word for Interfaith Harmony

You really have to respect PAS for their single-mindedness. At a time when you would expect the opposition to put up a common front, PAS leaders were loyal to their cause to a fault. While PAS youth support of JAIS’s raid on the church reminds us of the transient nature of the Pakatan alliance; for PAS, this is a stark reminder to their supporters that they do walk their talk.

PAS youth leader, Nasrudin Hassan’s statement (reported by the Star 10/8/11) is a carefully postured response to the raid. In an attempt to douse the potentially inflammatory topic, he reminded critics to remain impartial as JAIS was only carrying out their duty in policing the akhlak of Muslims and protecting the sanctity of Islam. Such posturing highlights a common theme in interfaith and interracial conflicts in Malaysia – ‘Group sovereignty and autonomy’, in simpler terms – I take care of my problem, you take care of yours.

We see this in the politics of Barisan Nasional, where each race has a representative component in the alliance, each component looking out for the interests of their subjects.

We see this in the education system of Malaysia, where vernacular schools cater for the educational requirements of each linguistic group in the country.

We also see this in our legal system, where a parallel Syariah court was created with exclusive jurisdiction over its own subject – Muslims.

Such policies are pervasive in our society because it provides a platform for a multiracial community to reconcile their differences – by not dealing with it. Nasrudin’s statement echoes this theme of unity through division by justifying the church raid with legal authority while sidestepping the central reason for the conflict – the need to strike a balance between different groups’ rights and needs.

Worst of all, Nasrudin’s support for the church raid is counterproductive to his party’s newfound progressive image. It is a natural conclusion to Nasrudin’s statement that the rights of Muslims not to be proselytized overrides any other groups’ right to practice their religion in peace and harmony, and all other religious practices had to be subjected to disproportionate disruption at the hint of the possibility of proselytization of Muslim.

Article 3(1) of our constitution reads:

‘… but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.’

Not

‘… but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony with Islam in any part of the Federation.’ [Emphasis and italics added]

To subject other religious practice to JAIS’ raid every time a suspicion of proselytizing of Muslim arise is a fundamental breach of article 11 freedom of religion, article 10 freedom of assembly and article 5 liberty of the person, of our constitution. The magic word for balancing rights in a multiracial society is ‘proportionality’. You don’t raid a church based on suspicion of proselytizing of Muslims; you raid it because proselytizing is happening and there is no alternative measures available.

There are those who argue that there could have been proselytizing of Muslims happening, and we can only conclude whether to support JAIS’ action or not depending on the evidence collected. This kind of arguments are not worthy of a reply because such arguments ignore the most fundamental concept of procedural justice – that innocence is guaranteed until proven guilty.

Also, the argument that JAIS was merely doing its job is the same kind of argument the government used to defend the police high-handed measures in the crackdown of Bersih 2.0. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if the police exercise their power to arrest a gathering of more than 5 persons without permit arbitrarily, I personally would have been arrested many times over. It is a common understanding in legally developed societies that power conferred by legislation cannot be used like a blanket bomber; just because the law allows you to conduct raids does not mean you do it whenever you can. Such arguments are suitable only for Neolithic societies.

Democracy is not about the submission of minority to the views of the majority. It is about tolerance and balancing rights of diverse opinions. We do not live in autonomous bubbles of reality; Malaysia is a conglomeration of many diverse societies that seek to live in harmony with one another. As such, to expect submission every time our bubbles cross path is not the recipe for a harmonious existence. This is tyranny of the majority.

Lua Bo Feng

14/8/11

In the spirit of Ramadhan, let's address the white elephant in our constitution

The constitution is not supposed to be something difficult to understand. It is written (in large parts) in plain language, it is relatively well structured – 13 parts with 13 schedules, and most importantly, it is not the thickest of documents I’ve had to read. But it is often made difficult by politicians, lawyers, judges, and people like me – teachers.

We made it difficult because we tell you first; you must go through years of legal education to understand fundamental legal methods and logic. Then you must not read the constitution at face value – there are methods of interpretation, aids to construction, intrinsic principles of constitution, volumes of case laws, journals, and the historical backdrop of the formation of the constitution to digest before you can say anything accurate about the constitution.

While all of the above is true, we must never forget that our constitution is not some grandiose tome meant for legal elites only, it is a document for every Malaysian. In fact, we lawyers can learn a thing or two if we only remember not to over complicate things when reading the constitution.

The simplicity we must never forget is that our constitution says what it says. We see ambiguities and conflicts because we presume what the constitution should say. Take for example, article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Those who want Malaysia to be an Islamic state argue that this article is an unequivocal statement that Malaysia is an Islamic state. This is not correct. While what amounts to an Islamic state is a debate in itself, an Islamic state’s constitution should recognise the supremacy of Islamic laws; and any laws that contradict basic Islamic tenets should be null. Just take a look at articles 1 & 2 of the Iranian constitution and the stark differences with our constitution cannot be ignored.

On top of that, article 3(4) of our constitution specifically provides that Islam being the religion of the Federation mentioned in article 3(1) cannot be used to trump any other articles in the constitution. (As anyone with logic should know, a specific provision trumps a general provision.) This affirms the inferior status of article 3 to article 4, which provides for the supremacy of our constitution over any other laws in the Federation.

On the flip side, to say that Malaysia is a secular state is also rather farfetched. Again, what amounts to a secular state is also subject to debate, but central to secularism is the idea that religion should be separated from politics and the day to day running of the state.

Article 3(3) of our constitution identified the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the ruler of each of the Malay states as the head representing the Islamic religion. While the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution omitted Islam as part of the Federal legislative jurisdiction; it specifically provided that Islamic laws are within the purview of states’ legislative function. The subsequent creation of a Syariah Court by article 121(1A) further blurs the separation of religion from the governance of a state.

So, what does our constitution actually say in regards to Islam and the Federation? Not a lot really. It says that we have something to do with Islam, but it definitely does not say that Islam is the ‘official’ religion of the Federation; neither does it says or even suggests that we are a secular federation.

Too often we read the constitution looking for what we want to find, but it is not always there, and it does not always say what we want to hear. We cannot expect our constitution to be complete or be too specific about everything, it says what it says, and that’s it. It leaves large amount of empty spaces between the specifics, for us to breathe maybe, for us to grow, perhaps?

LBF

1/8/11

This article is written, and also meant to be read, over a cup of coffee. To treat everything said above as absolutely true would do injustice to the reality that you really do need a law degree to even begin to understand the constitution, and most with a law degree still don’t. For a more accurate account of article 3 of the Federal Constitution, see the tome of an article* written by Tommy Thomas found at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law/is_malaysia_an_islamic_state_.html

(*caveat: for lawyers only)

The virtues of being selfish

Let’s be honest, we are all selfish beings, constantly making choices that maximize benefit and minimize harm. But at the same time, we are complex creatures and our selfish or selfless behaviour are often difficult to differentiate.

Instinctively, pleasure is derived from play, but too much play and no work challenges our existence, so we make small tradeoffs – balancing play and work for survival. Then our small tradeoffs started producing some unexpected by-products; a deeper pocket, acknowledgement for our achievements, and maybe some healthy boost to our ego. As a result we constantly alter our understanding of pleasure to involve a multitude of what would otherwise be considered pain. Before long, our confusing psyche produces workaholics, philanthropists, religious scholars, pro bono lawyers, activists, and our beloved politicians.

As such, the constant demonising of our politicians is rather unfair. They are just like you and me, with interests to protect, benefit to anticipate and pain to avoid; except maybe wealthier and more obtuse.

Marina Mahathir wrote in The Star – The Polarised World of Politics (20/7/2011):

“Politicians of every stripe have two bad habits. Firstly, they think that those who don’t belong to any political party are incapable of having a single political thought. Secondly, when non-politicians think of a good populist idea, politicians of all stripes rush to hijack it.”

But when the opportunity for glory arises, how could we not expect the politicians to “hijack” the bandwagon? In fact, more often than not, we vote our MPs into parliament because they have been so successful at “hijacking” our great idea that they embody our ideals, saying exactly what we wanted to hear.

I would be surprised that any political party would not want to “hijack” Bersih 2.0. Their ideals are so universally uncontentious that it side-stepped the racial and religious line that has come to define the division of the Malaysian society. If I am a corrupt politician, I would be the first to embrace Bersih 2.0. The logic is really quite simple – Bersih brings me pain, but crushing them brings joy to my opponents. Embracing Bersih is still painful, but at least I deny joy to my opponents, which brings me joy, and survival. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

I wrote in my blog, The Pillars of Tomorrow – Bersih is not the beginning, we haven’t even started yet (17/7/2011) suggesting various “selfish” methods in dealing with Bersih:

“... the government could have employed a typically (just as counter-productive but less suicidal) Malaysian way in engaging Bersih – Setup an ‘electoral reform task force’, give them a task so enormous nothing could have ever come out of its pipeline. Let them berdebat till the cows come home... Publish their findings and further berdebat in the parliament, pretend to make some changes that don’t really matter. In the mean time, conjure another sex scandal and give the finger right back to the opposition.”

But instead, they chose the most selfless act – suicide.

Being self-serving is intrinsic in our very nature because our selfish gene is the code for survival. But as our society evolve and mature, our “selfishness” takes on ever more complex dimensions and manifest itself in surprising ways. While the division in Malaysian society is the product of our selfish gene in identifying racial and religious cliques; the camaraderie of 709 is also the product of our selfish gene in identifying a common threat to our existence, unifying us in spite of our colour, religion and political views.

We cannot change our instinct, but we can change the system we live in. The human ingenuity lies in our ability to learn, to adapt and to improve our environment. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: How do we strike a balance amidst the chaos of selfishness?

Alexander Hamilton asked a similar question in The Federalist Papers No. 51 (1788):

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

If the government is the greatest of all reflections on human nature, then we must abandon our quest for the benevolent politician. Instead, we must focus our effort in creating an environment, where selfish ambitions are made to counteract selfish ambitions, returning the delicate balance to our governing institutions.

LBF

22/7/11

Bersih is not the beginning, we haven't even started yet.

Jalan Raja Laut

Emptiness

FRU fellas

"Scary..."

‘We don’t solve problems on the street. That is not us, nor our way.’ NST – 7/7/2011.

Not that our tendency to let problems slide is better, but I have to agree, we as Malaysians are not used to solving problems on the streets. Even for a thorough bred KL-ite, the streets of our capital seemed foreign to me on the 9^th of July 2011 (or commonly known as 709). The presence of the police has never been more apparent, and the emptiness of the inner ring-roads stand testament to their effort.

Our entourage arrived on foot at Jalan Raja Laut, one of the busiest bazaar streets in KL; As if in a post-apocalyptic horror movie, the eerie silence juxtaposed the usual hustle and bustle that has come to define that street. Only the caws of crows interjected the silence (really!), and then the occasional growls as police officers hunt down their wayward prey. A man approached us hurriedly, and as I’m about to greet him, he grabbed my hands and warned against proceeding towards the rally. He looked thoroughly horrified, limbs shivering as we bid him goodbye and thanked him for his advice. For a person born in the 80s, this is darurat out of the history texts!

*****

The excessive use of force by the police in their crack down of the Bersih rally baffles me. Of all the possible ways for the government to engage Bersih, they chose the worst of the lot – smack-the-cow-out-of-the-way approach. A week after the rally, I think we can all agree that the ruling party’ stupidity had cost them yet another defeat in the ongoing media war for the hearts and minds of the people. And what is the justification for their heavy handed tactics? – Arbitrarily wielding the wand of bureaucracy by declaring Bersih to be an ‘illegal’ organisation, bulldoze their way through with ‘legitimacy’, then finish off with a ‘not our culture, not our way’ as the cherry on top of the icing.

Is disproportionate police enforcement our ways if street protest is not our culture? The people are the lifeblood of a country, and they have spoken. Smacking the cow out of your way is lesson 1 on how to commit political suicide. Matthias Chang wrote in guest column on Malaysia Today (10/7/2011):

“All these so-called advisers and political pundits can do a better service to the nation if they just spend 24/7 for an entire month, watching the Chinese historical epic “The Three Kingdoms” on sale in any DVD shop in Malaysia. They may just be able to learn some basic lessons on Political Strategy 101.”

In fact, the government could have employed a typically (just as counter-productive but less suicidal) Malaysian way in engaging Bersih – Setup an ‘electoral reform task force’, give them a task so enormous nothing could have ever come out of its pipeline. Let them berdebat till the cows come home, or in this case, move aside. Publish their findings and further berdebat in the parliament, pretend to make some changes that don’t really matter. In the mean time, conjure another sex scandal and give the finger right back to the opposition.

*****

Our entourage proceeded towards Masjid Jamek with heightened alert, but Kate Hodal, a freelance journalist was more courageous, running headlong into the action as a particularly brutal arrest happened in front of our eyes. I suppose her ‘gwailoh-ness’ gets her a get out of jail card. The rest of our afternoon went on as you would see on YouTube – tear gas, water cannons, arrest and the works. We participated in the rally, basking in the camaraderie rarely seen in Malaysia, vented some anger and then left unharmed, a little shaken, but with a renewed vigour in combating our common enemy.

*****

A week after 9/7/2011, a few of us sat down to reminisce on what has transpired. The only thing the government seemed to have done right is releasing all the arrested on the same day, everything else had been a PR catastrophe.

What is most glaring is that despite the massive blockade and threats of arrest, tens of thousands turned up for the rally, united in spite of colour, creed, and credential. The spirit of camaraderie is bolstered by the hundreds of emotion stirring video montages and the speed of social media in which they were disseminated. I’m sure many Malaysians cried a little inside while watching the video on Bersih 2.0 Website – The thunderous roar of Malaysians shouting “Hidup Rakyat”, a crippled man donning yellow marching in crutches, Lady Justice of Malaysia drenched and defiant, and our brothers overseas who stood in solidarity singing the national anthem.

Even the most politically stoic person I know commented: “Malaysians generally are a lazy bunch. When they get to their feet in droves, something really, really wrong has come to pass.”

Mr PM, I’d hate to be you now. It is irrelevant to debate whether taking to the streets was the right course of action because the people have spoken and it would be foolish of you to ignore. Your party likes to give history lessons on 513, hope you also learn something from 803 and 709.

But the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the true message that the people conveyed on 709? Was it just about electoral reforms? I doubt so; the people are venting their frustration at the corruption of our democratic institution. The people want change, and electoral reform is the language they chose to speak with because they refuse to play the racial segregation game anymore.

Electoral reform is convenient because it is uncontentious, it sidestepped the racial and religious lines which has been the cause of disunity in Malaysia. However, the true test of our democratic maturity comes not from uniting against a common enemy, but from our ability to stand as one even when we disagree amongst ourselves.

Democracy is about respecting the voices of dissent. To quote Justice Jackson in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) in the US supreme court:

“... Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing orders.”

Can we still stand in solidarity in the face of inconvenient issues that touch the heart of our social fabric? Would we tear ourselves along racial and religious lines debating equality before the law and freedom of religion?

We have a long way to go, and 709 is not the beginning of 1Malaysia. We haven’t started yet.

Lua Bo Feng

17/7/2011