Sometimes, actually often times, we miss the big picture for the details — we do not see the wood for the trees. At other times, we get confused between the means and the ends.
This reminds me of a debate in economics. As those with exposure to economics at some point in their schooling days would know, at the heart of the discipline is how decisions are made by economic agents, that is individuals, households, companies and governments, and how these decisions dictate the allocation, use and impact of resources on society’s overall welfare. This conceptual framework is positive in that it does not specify or favour specific choices or sets of choices. It is neutral on values.
Consumption, production and allocation decisions in an economy are very much the result of the values held by the economic actors. The positive nature of the methodology of economics should not be confused with the normative prescriptions of policy.
The former is a tool for analysis while the latter represents how the results of the analysis are used. A positive framework allows a meaningful analysis of data — the actual realisation of how decisions were arrived at and the aggregated consequences of those decisions. A good positive model is one that facilitates normative prescriptions via rigorous analysis.
I, therefore, do not agree with attempts to categorise economics based on values or beliefs that create a confusion between the means and the ends. In Muslim societies, if injunctions are obeyed, there will be no demand for certain goods and services, which will then affect how the resources underlying those demands are allocated and priced in those societies.
Similarly, a consciousness of the environment and sustainability will affect consumption and therefore production decisions accordingly. A good positive model accommodates a wide range of behaviours in its analysis. There is no need to add a noun to economics as a way of categorising it by what the analyst believes in. There are just bad and good economics.
I am a theist, that is, I believe in the existence of a creator who is also the judge, and I define my own existence and my relationships with the creator and other creatures within that framework. I believe I should do good to others as a manifestation of my submission to my creator. To be a theist is a choice that individuals make, and there is a spectrum of choices that are possible on being a theist or otherwise.
Being a theist on a personal level does not necessarily mean an advocacy of ecclesiasticism of some form at the aggregate level. A secular institutional framework — in contrast to a theocratic one — gives freedom to the faithful to practise their beliefs. That is why the strongest advocates of a secular government are those who are deeply religious. History has shown that theocratic states persecute those who believe differently. It is the believers, as opposed to atheists, who are usually the victims.
Advocacy of a secular institutional framework is not inconsistent with theism; it is, in my view, a protection of religiosity and spirituality but neutral on the perspective of religiosity, as the state should be. I am mindful that such a stand has been characterised as a form of deviationism because of its so-called liberal stance.
That notwithstanding, I believe that Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member bill is an attempt to fundamentally change the institutional framework of this country. It proposes to broaden the existing scope of punishment for the states’ shariah courts, effectively broadening the scope of crimes as well, beyond the existing scope that primarily covers family law to criminalise a whole range of behaviours.
This will create a dual penal and adjudication system in the country; not quite a separation between the Muslims and the non-Muslims but one where there is overlapping, including on matters of state and federal powers.
It is an attempt to nationally institutionalise a group view and fundamentally change the rights of the individual in this country. It divides Malaysians and it limits the scope of choice and freedom for Muslims, not only in their spirituality but also in their daily lives. This will result in the fragmentation of Malaysia, not just between the Muslims and the non-Muslims but also among the Muslims.
This divisiveness alone will undermine the social fabric of our society, diminishing whatever social capital that has been accumulated over the years and in the aggregate, impair national identity and unity. Beyond this divisiveness, however, lurks the potential of strife, not just the loss of cohesion and the positive externalities of that cohesion but also the spectre of ruin.
In recent times, Syria and Iraq represent examples of how fragile peace can sometimes be. It does not take much for small fissures in society to blow wide open when matters of faith and beliefs become matters of the state as all state matters are political. Two beautiful and ancient countries now lie in ruins, its people killed, displaced and strewn all over.
It is a false premise to couch the argument as one that affects only Muslims. It affects everyone. It is also inappropriate to patronise Muslims by saying all of them should accept the bill because it is Islamic. Whose interpretation of Islam? Whose sense of priority? Is the specific view of Islam proposed by the bill a monolithic one that any deviation from it is considered both heretical and illegal? Such is the case when the state assumes a view on beliefs.
What is certain is that we want to strive for a just society for the heterogeneous people that we are. What do we do to ensure that there is harmony in our society? Without that harmony, there will not be that individual or communal freedom to pursue their personal beliefs and worldly affairs.
Ensuring peace is the primary imperative of government. Without it, there cannot be harmony or prosperity. There are too many examples of failed communities — even homogeneous ones — where the preservation of peace and harmony is not given its primacy. It is subjugated by various other interests, legitimate though some may be on a personal level. Politicising religion is one of them. We do not want to emulate the fractured, underdeveloped countries that have done this.
Even if we all belong to the same tribe with common foundational values — an indication that we agree on the generalities of that commonality — we live our lives in the details. That freedom to do so on an individual level should not be taken away. When this country was put together, it recognised the historical foundations and laid those down as the new foundation but to define the new country, the compact was to guarantee common freedoms as embedded in the constitution.
Let us instead focus on personal values that result in good behaviour — ethical, moral and responsible behaviour. The emphasis on social conduct should be on this type of good behaviour. Good behaviour begets functioning institutions and societal development.
We, however, cannot legislate values as an outcome, as much as we cannot legislate any other outcome, religious, economic or anything. We can legislate with values, including the religious values we believe in. Hence, a secular governmental framework allows the infusion of values and beliefs; it is just that the legislation process is not about imposing our personal beliefs on everyone.
I respect the right of any legislator to table any bill for parliament’s consideration. In fact, I wish there were more private member bills from both sides of the aisle as legislation is not the exclusive purview of the executive. That we have not had a single law originating from a member’s bill in our 60 years of legislative history is a testament to the muted role of parliament in this country.
What is needed is a robust debate, both within the legislative process and in the public space, on this proposed bill as well as other pieces of legislation. The setting up of a select committee in parliament to deliberate this bill is, therefore, a welcome development. In this case, though, there must be recognition that even lawmaking is not unconstrained.
The constitution is a supreme document. Lawmaking processes cannot attempt to create “The Rule of Law” without “Upholding the Constitution” in advocating a specific “Belief in God”. Unless, of course, we want to totally deconstruct this nation of ours; in which case, we run the risk of ruining it altogether.
Dr Nungsari A Radhi is an economist and managing director of Prokhas Sdn Bhd, a Ministry of Finance advisory company. He is a former member of parliament for Balik Pulau (1995-1999). The views expressed here are his own.
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.