I have been fortunate that The Edge has consented to publish 44 of my columns, two of which were co-written with Dr Nungsari Radhi, also a regular contributor to The Edge.
Typically, when I write my columns, the topics I choose are born out of a desire to add an alternative perspective — usually from an economics point of view — and a belief that I am making an intellectual or reasonable point that hitherto has not been made. I do not — or at least I try my best not to — choose topics because of strong emotional reactions.
This column is different.
On Jan 27, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travel into the US for citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya,
Yemen and Somalia — for 90 days and suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days. This is an outrageous and disgusting measure.
Meanwhile, excluded from this list are several other Muslim-majority nations — which, in some cases, have also faced issues of terrorism — where Trump holds business interests, according to The Washington Post. So much for draining the swamp.
I have three points to make. The first is that while Trump and his administration may argue that this executive order is not a “Muslim” ban, let us not kid ourselves — it is exactly that. The executive order targets potential immigrants and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
It is detestable that a policy should discriminate against an entire group of people simply on the basis of their religion, rather than, say, their criminal record or history of gun ownership. One can argue that one’s religion is a choice and thus, choices may be worthy of bans. But religion is, in most cases, a choice made by default at birth. Let us also be clear — throughout history, whenever groups of people were persecuted for their religious beliefs, it always ended badly.
Second, while I understand the motivation to “protect national borders” as advocated by supporters of this executive order, I believe it is unfounded and shallow for two reasons. The first is that borders are arbitrary and man-made. We need, as a species, to be less obsessed with the idea that borders are the be-all and end-all of constructs.
The second reason is that we were not given the opportunity to choose where we were born. Whether you believe that where you were born was pure luck or destined by the Creator, the point remains that you did not get to choose. Some people win the birth lottery by being born in developed countries with political stability, a strong economy and terrific institutions, while others are born in war-torn, corrupt countries.
So, if you were born into privilege, on what basis do you get to say that you “deserve” the life you have and that some other person does not? We should never forget the fact that many others may want the privileges we have, even those that are as straightforward as clean drinking water, religious freedom or equal pay for equal work.
Putting the two ideas together, if borders are inherently arbitrary and we cannot choose where we were born, saying that a Syrian cannot emigrate to the US to seek a better life is the same as saying that people from Maine cannot emigrate to New York to seek their fortune. One border happens to be intra-national while the other is international. Both are arbitrary. It is morally inconsistent to ban someone from migrating for reason “X” simply because that person had not been born in your country, when you allow another person to migrate for the same reason just because that person had been born in your country.
Third, the primary reason that this executive order has garnered such an emotional reaction from me is that I truly fear this situation — where flows of people are controlled based on an attribute they were born with — is within the realm of possibility for Malaysia.
We saw this in the 2013 election and we still see it today. In the 2013 election, one of the major hot-button issues was the attacks on Bangladeshis (or perceived Bangladeshis) because they might have committed voter fraud. There were some truly horrifying videos where groups of “peace-loving” Malaysians beat up a lone Bangladeshi who, if he had indeed been committing voter fraud, had almost certainly been coerced or bribed into doing so.
Today, foreign workers are a major issue in Malaysia, typically viewed in negative terms. There are between two million and four million migrant workers in the country, with most coming from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and the Philippines. They work primarily in the low-skilled services and construction industries, and take the blame for a whole range of social and economic issues, from crime to poor economic competitiveness.
Whether or not they are actually the cause of these issues deserves a whole article altogether, but consider the notion that these workers presumably left their home countries — where their families and friends are — just to earn a better living in Malaysia.
They could not choose where they were born; why should we deny them opportunities just because we happen to be born in a more affluent country? If we had been born into their circumstances, we might be doing what they are doing. Using my analogy from earlier, it is morally inconsistent to oppose a Nepalese migrating to Malaysia to work in a restaurant while supporting a Sabahan migrating to Kuala Lumpur for the same reason.
To be fair, I do see why people get the sentiment of “protecting what’s ours” and “securing our borders”. But these “borders” and these “ours” are, in most cases, not choices people made. I happened to be born within the arbitrary borders of a country called Malaysia but that is not why I love this country.
I love Malaysia because I had the opportunity to grow up in a multiracial society where I went to school and played sport with people of all backgrounds. I love Malaysia because of all the economic and social opportunities that my family and I received. I love Malaysia because it is where I fell in love and married my wife. I love Malaysia because of its food, its beauty, its culture and its people. For all its warts, Malaysia will be home, not because I happened to be born within its borders but because of the many blessings I have received while in it.
As P Diddy raps in I’m Coming Home, “It’s what made me, saved me, drove me crazy, drove me away, then embraced me, forgave me for all of my shortcomings…” I just think we should let others — especially those who did not win the birth lottery — have the opportunity to enjoy those same blessings.
Nicholas Khaw is an economist with the Khazanah Research and Investment Strategy Division
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.