I was at Jawi sometime back to interview a Ustaz Hafizan, who’s doing good work with people of the street, when like all conversations, the subject turned to Islam and Muslims in 21st century Malaysia.
"What do you mean when you say that Jawi (and religious authorities) are no longer relevant to Malaysia?" he asked, incredulously.
"I didn’t say that. I said the approach used by certain religious organisations is no longer relevant. In my humble and uneducated opinion-lah. What may have worked before, does not work now. The Muslims are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their approach to their religion. They read; they go for religious classes and talks conducted by learned people, and unlike before when the word of a religious personage would have frightened the community, now people want reasons. Answers. Example by leadership. Scare tactics don’t work anymore."
He frowned and began scribbling notes in his notebook.
Teh tarik
"I disagree with people’s perception that Jawi is a dinosaur. Look, what does Jawi stand for? It’s a governing body that promotes Islam and Islamic values. To take potshots at Jawi would mean to take potshots at our religion. However, I do agree that Jawi needs to reposition itself, re-strategise its approach to dakwah and governance. I’m an observant Muslim, but that Zouk thing was too much. Has Islam in this country come to this?" a friend remarked.
"So you’re saying, Jawi and other religious departments and offices are relevant, but their approach to governance and policy-making is archaic?" I asked.
"Listen. I didn’t study overseas, and no, I don’t come from an affluent background. I was not exposed to a lot of things. Yet when I was sent for a seminar in London, I was struck by what I experienced at the Regent Street Mosque (London Central Mosque)," he continued.
If he remembered correctly, there was a cafe next to the mosque. A park. Men caught up with their friends over coffee and snacks. The women too squealed and laughed as they gossiped with their friends and played with their children. The mosque was not just a place for prayers; it was a place for the Muslim community to congregate. Hold weddings and feasts. There were few mosques in Malaysia that have that spirit of community, he said. Here, people came in to pray, chat for a bit and then leave.
For many of my friends, the desire to see Malaysia as a progressive and moderate Muslim country is great. Yet there are issues such as openness, the willingness to debate and meet halfway and exercising common sense (as opposed to intelligence) that need to be addressed.
If we can’t even handle ourselves well on the roads, service customers courteously at Immigration, be clean, not spit, if we can’t even handle life’s basic needs, then how can we be a true Muslim country?
Another friend interjected, "I don’t want to condemn the Malays, because I’m proud to be one and I am Malay myself, but look at America. We call it all kinds of names. Yet there is a huge rate of reversions: non-Muslims rediscovering themselves as Muslims. The thinkers and writers are first rate, and they’re practically first generation Muslims. They think, they challenge the norm, they debate and fight. There, Islam is a way of life. Don’t you find it frightening, that a kafir country like America is making inroads and may well be an Islamic superpower, while we, we’re the originals, we’re a Muslim country, and we’re screwed up?"
Tapas at Bodega
It’s become de rigeur to talk about Islam these days. Muslims are so current, so fashionable to talk about. With a cigarette in one hand, and a drink in another, the (pseudo) intellectual in us springs forth to expound on what Islam really is.
Let’s not judge a book by its cover. The points raised as are valid as the local mamak politicos’.
What are we turning into, is the question that is raised again and again. As in, what Islam will Malaysia uphold and what Muslims are we to be?
Will secular Muslims be accepted as part of an Islamist framework? Are we progressive or fundamentalist Muslims? With the young and new faces in PAS, will we be a fundamentalist state harking back to the Stone Age era or world-class thinkers and doers?
Actually, what the hell are we?
We worry about what the world thinks of us as Muslims. We say there is not enough media strength to write and show the positive side of Islam and Muslim life. Everything has to come out roses. But is writing about (negative) issues going to make us lesser Muslims? We’re all about image, but we have to get our houses in order. I don’t think we desire to be that beautiful woman with no substance, do we?
"What is this Islamisation all about? Surely it is not just a matter of faith?" we ask.
Just like how women have their own reasons for wearing the hijab, the Islamisation of young Malay professionals is due to a number of factors.
One – they have rediscovered their roots as Muslims and want a true Islamic state
Two – territorialism. It’s not enough being a Malay anymore. Religion gives you that strength, that edge.
Three – a certain party has not delivered the goods. They may not be the most pious of Muslims, so who else can they join? Definitely not DAP kan?
Lastly – despite the veneer of success, we are poor. And it’s not money we’re talking about.
You should pay me for this-lah
Let’s talk P.R. here – the perception of Islam and Muslims in this country needs re-branding. How Islam is practised (taught) is viewed as archaic, old-fashioned, autocratic and didactic. Note that Islam is a most logical and practical religion. Its followers however, come in all shapes, sizes and personalities.
Now who’s your target audience? Based on a year 2000 report conducted by the Malaysian Department of Statistics, there are 13,498,028 Muslims in Malaysia. What are the demographics like? What are they like? You’ll have to take into account their backgrounds, their education and their lifestyles.
In P.R./advertising speak, those in governance will have to figure out what the USP of Islam (Hadhari – whatever the slogan is for the day) in Malaysia is. USP is the acronym for Unique Selling Point.
Now how are you going to persuade them to join YOUR brand of Islam? Umno has Islam Hadhari; PAS has the Islamic State blueprint and the masses want Mawi of Akademi Fantasia. If you are to draw a Venn diagram of these three groups, you’ll be doodling three separate circles.
Here are the choices to pick from before we play tikam-tikam:
Mc-Islam: Are we going to have the Western’s idea of Islam? A fast food and MTV approach to Islam?
The Middle Eastern/Pakistani way of life?
Tidak Apa Islam, which is our way of life.
And so forth…
You decide.
Next is your strategy: propaganda by stealth or total transparency? The art of persuasion is going to be an uphill task, when you also have to take into account The Others: the non-Muslims. (Because this is such a great challenge, I suggest you have some shares in pharmaceutical companies. You’ll get aspirin for free).
Then, your campaign. How are you going to hold this campaign? Will you be using all forms of media to get your message across? What is your logo? Who is your It-Boy/Girl? What is your colour; will you be having roadshows as well as jemaahs; are you going to employ a foreign consultancy as opposed to local P.R. companies that can deliver as well if not better, because it looks good to have a Mat Salleh leading the way. Whatever, as long as they deliver.
Lastly, the budget.
Good luck!
The Mawi phenomenon
The masses need and demand for a Muslim icon they can look up to and identify with. Mawi, for all his simplicity, responds to that need. Certainly I don’t know what it is that young women see in him – someone please feed this young man! – but he’s either slick or extremely sincere in wanting a good, hijab-ed Malay girl as a wife.
Based on feedback on websites and blogs, he has struck a chord. Adults adore him for his youthfulness and that he sets a good example among the young. Young women find him cute, and the fact that he wants a wife like them has them swooning. Young boys idolise him because Mawi has managed to marry two worlds pretty successfully: piety and entertainment. His humble background garners more sympathy, for he has suffered, just like them.
I don’t watch TV, so when I was asked what I thought of Mawi I said to my friend I heard it’s beautiful, I’d love to visit it one day. I had to Google 'Mawi Akademi Fantasia' to find out about him, and was struck by this phenomenon.
Do not underestimate the power of celebrity. In a image-driven society, whereby people are obsessed by the lives of public figures, more than the state of poverty, AIDs and terrorism in the world, these personalities are 'prophets' of our times, for they drive trends and lifestyles. If Britney Spears had popularised low slung jeans with peeping G-strings, and with Oprah Winfrey championing the masses to open up! be verbally abused by Dr Phil and your life will change for the better!, can you just imagine if we have like-minded icons in the Muslim world.
With the exception of Tariq Ramadhan, and other intellectuals who appeal to the smart set, I for the life of me cannot think of a contemporary Muslim personality that can speak to the masses. Celebrities like Mawi or Waheeda, are closer in proximity to us and exist within our lifetime. There is a very handsome ustaz that gives talks on television occasionally, but he’s hardly a potential crowd puller, as he’s an 'ustaz'.
To be a leader, it is not only your intelligence, grassroot support and empathy for the rakyat. You also need the X-factor to sex up your appeal.
You need charisma.
Hitler had it. Tun Mahathir. Napoleon Bonaparte (even though he hardly bathed). Bill Clinton. John F Kennedy. Anwar Ibrahim.
If you read about serial killers, even they had the X-factor. The handsome Ted Bundy mesmerised his victims. Charles Manson was compelling to many. Evangelists and cult figures – think Tom Cruise and Ashaari Muhammad.
You know, I don’t think this is a good example of charisma. But you get me, don’t you?
Having observed this, if our well-known religious figures start rapping and singing to get votes, I say run. Run for your life. Lari, anak-anakku!
***
Ustaz Hafizan was scribbling down our conversation on a notebook, furiously.
"Ustaz buat apa tu?"
"Jotting everything down. This is so we can discuss this at a meeting. But we can’t have aerobics classes in a mosque."
"Why not? If you can build huge mosques, you can build an extra recreational room."
"That’s a thought. Do you have any other suggestions?"
"Talk to us."
"Talk to you?"
"Yes. Talk to us."
Friday, July 29, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
THE CHICAGO DECLARATION: TOWARDS A GLOBAL ETHICS
Five hundred years ago, the European colonization of the non-European world started the process of unification and modernization of the entire world. Towards its end, as the independent modern nations are going through the end-phase of that process – now known as globalization – it is appropriate that humanity should think about bringing a universal code of conduct as well as ethic to regulate the behavior of our human family as we step into the Twenty First Century and Third Millennium. In this sense, the Chicago Declaration is welcomed.
Such a code of conduct should draw its inspiration from and be based on the fundamental and universal teachings of the great religions and moral systems. This is acknowledged in the Declaration. The core of these spiritual and moral teachings is the belief in the existence of One Supreme Power upholding Love, Beneficence, Goodness, Harmony, Truth and Justice in man’s affairs throughout the universe. That is the only source of a universal ethics. It is from this source that we derive the principles of universal obedience to this power, and of equality of all humankind. Religion, color, race and nationality do not distinguish us. We differ only in the degree of our obedience and service to God, this power of Love, Beneficence and Goodness. Unfortunately, this first point is missing in the Declaration; it should be included.
As the Declaration states, humankind is going through a great crisis. This crisis covers all aspects of our life: economic, political, ideological and philosophical. However, the Declaration shies away from making a concrete analysis of the causes of this crisis. This is a weakness of the document; it should be rectified.
The crisis is not due to any inherent weakness of humans. The Muslim scripture states that God has created man in the best of moulds. The crisis arises from man’s disobedience to the universal laws created by this Universal Power. Throughout history there was always a group of people, always a very small minority to be sure – the oligarchs – who acted in defiance of God’s laws to serve their selfish interests. They succeeded in influencing the majority to follow them. This created the crisis. Throughout history, without exception, such crises brought about the end of the system or regime, and a new one comes into being. The cave men gave way to the tribal nomadic tribes, later to the agricultural feudal system, and on to the present industrial system. The central planning, communist industrial system had vanished before our eyes. The capitalist industrial system is fast collapsing. A new universal system is arising. To guide and regulate this system, a universal ethic is necessary.
To break the sometime meaningless cycles of rise and fall of one evil regime to be replaced by another equally evil system, the masses must be made aware of and be committed to the truth. To its credit, the Declaration emphasizes this point. This is the basic guarantee for continuous human progress for progress can only be possible only if we adhere to the truth. This is a question of science and the study of the universal laws of truth.
A universal ethic does not mean one law and one culture for every country and nation. The desire of any superpower to impose its laws and way of life on others is nothing more than a manifestation of racism and imperialism. A universal ethic is not contrary to multiplicity of laws and cultures. Indeed multiplicity of laws and cultures can exist side by side within the framework of a universal ethic. This is because each society has its own peculiar history that shapes its laws and culture. It is not just the question of one nation tolerating another. It is the basic matter of respecting each individual culture and society.
The creation of a just economic order, which the Declaration mentions as one of its principles, is very important. It is only in such an environment that each individual, family and nation can live in dignity and freedom, and at the same time can progress and advance. The present widespread starvation, poverty and diseases is precisely due to an oppressive economic system that has for long been imposed on the people by the international oligarchy and its national allies.
Much as we like to live in peace, it is always has to be snatched away from the jaws of war-like tyrants. As long as tyrants (be they individuals or groups) exist, wars cannot be avoided. Indeed, it is the right and duty of individuals and nations to resist tyranny and oppression. True peace is possible only when oppression ceases. It is wrong and unpractical to stipulate, as this Document does, the principle of non-violence. It is the right of the people to resist tyranny and injustice.
Human progress depends on science and technology. There is a reactive trend of blaming science and technology for the evils of the 20th century. This is erroneous. Without being drawn into the controversy between the subjective and objective in epistemology, science and technology are both knowledge and techniques to bring nature and the universe to man’s purpose. There is no contradiction between religion and science or between religion and philosophy. During the Middle Ages the two had warred against each other, but the present trend is for the two to synchronize with one another. The Declaration does not mention science and technology as important components of human life now and in the future. This weakness needs correction. A truly universal ethic should rightly accommodate science and technology.
The last point is the influence of the post-industrial ideology of environmentalism in this Document. The Muslim scripture tells us that the whole universe was created to serve humankind. To build a civilization, we must cut down forests and “destroy” some parts of the natural environment. We do that to build cities, towns, factories, universities and parliaments. This is inevitable, though we must be concerned with esthetics. This is a matter of planning, but to make an ideology of not “destroying” the environment is to carry the matter to ridiculous extremes. That would only serve the purposes of the neo-colonial oligarchy that conspires to stop the development of the Third World and the progress of humankind.
Kassim Ahmad
Georgetown, Penang,
25 November, 1997.
Such a code of conduct should draw its inspiration from and be based on the fundamental and universal teachings of the great religions and moral systems. This is acknowledged in the Declaration. The core of these spiritual and moral teachings is the belief in the existence of One Supreme Power upholding Love, Beneficence, Goodness, Harmony, Truth and Justice in man’s affairs throughout the universe. That is the only source of a universal ethics. It is from this source that we derive the principles of universal obedience to this power, and of equality of all humankind. Religion, color, race and nationality do not distinguish us. We differ only in the degree of our obedience and service to God, this power of Love, Beneficence and Goodness. Unfortunately, this first point is missing in the Declaration; it should be included.
As the Declaration states, humankind is going through a great crisis. This crisis covers all aspects of our life: economic, political, ideological and philosophical. However, the Declaration shies away from making a concrete analysis of the causes of this crisis. This is a weakness of the document; it should be rectified.
The crisis is not due to any inherent weakness of humans. The Muslim scripture states that God has created man in the best of moulds. The crisis arises from man’s disobedience to the universal laws created by this Universal Power. Throughout history there was always a group of people, always a very small minority to be sure – the oligarchs – who acted in defiance of God’s laws to serve their selfish interests. They succeeded in influencing the majority to follow them. This created the crisis. Throughout history, without exception, such crises brought about the end of the system or regime, and a new one comes into being. The cave men gave way to the tribal nomadic tribes, later to the agricultural feudal system, and on to the present industrial system. The central planning, communist industrial system had vanished before our eyes. The capitalist industrial system is fast collapsing. A new universal system is arising. To guide and regulate this system, a universal ethic is necessary.
To break the sometime meaningless cycles of rise and fall of one evil regime to be replaced by another equally evil system, the masses must be made aware of and be committed to the truth. To its credit, the Declaration emphasizes this point. This is the basic guarantee for continuous human progress for progress can only be possible only if we adhere to the truth. This is a question of science and the study of the universal laws of truth.
A universal ethic does not mean one law and one culture for every country and nation. The desire of any superpower to impose its laws and way of life on others is nothing more than a manifestation of racism and imperialism. A universal ethic is not contrary to multiplicity of laws and cultures. Indeed multiplicity of laws and cultures can exist side by side within the framework of a universal ethic. This is because each society has its own peculiar history that shapes its laws and culture. It is not just the question of one nation tolerating another. It is the basic matter of respecting each individual culture and society.
The creation of a just economic order, which the Declaration mentions as one of its principles, is very important. It is only in such an environment that each individual, family and nation can live in dignity and freedom, and at the same time can progress and advance. The present widespread starvation, poverty and diseases is precisely due to an oppressive economic system that has for long been imposed on the people by the international oligarchy and its national allies.
Much as we like to live in peace, it is always has to be snatched away from the jaws of war-like tyrants. As long as tyrants (be they individuals or groups) exist, wars cannot be avoided. Indeed, it is the right and duty of individuals and nations to resist tyranny and oppression. True peace is possible only when oppression ceases. It is wrong and unpractical to stipulate, as this Document does, the principle of non-violence. It is the right of the people to resist tyranny and injustice.
Human progress depends on science and technology. There is a reactive trend of blaming science and technology for the evils of the 20th century. This is erroneous. Without being drawn into the controversy between the subjective and objective in epistemology, science and technology are both knowledge and techniques to bring nature and the universe to man’s purpose. There is no contradiction between religion and science or between religion and philosophy. During the Middle Ages the two had warred against each other, but the present trend is for the two to synchronize with one another. The Declaration does not mention science and technology as important components of human life now and in the future. This weakness needs correction. A truly universal ethic should rightly accommodate science and technology.
The last point is the influence of the post-industrial ideology of environmentalism in this Document. The Muslim scripture tells us that the whole universe was created to serve humankind. To build a civilization, we must cut down forests and “destroy” some parts of the natural environment. We do that to build cities, towns, factories, universities and parliaments. This is inevitable, though we must be concerned with esthetics. This is a matter of planning, but to make an ideology of not “destroying” the environment is to carry the matter to ridiculous extremes. That would only serve the purposes of the neo-colonial oligarchy that conspires to stop the development of the Third World and the progress of humankind.
Kassim Ahmad
Georgetown, Penang,
25 November, 1997.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Corruption should be talked about - Salbiah Ahmad
While the Petrof saga is over with the return of the two servers to malaysiakini on July 12, the website faces another probe.
On July 5, Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Dr Lim Keng Yaik informed Parliament that the website is still under investigation for making a communication which is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive” with intention to “annoy, abuse, threaten or harass” a person.
Section 233 of the Communications and Multi-Media Act 1998 is cited and there may be other possible offences under the Sedition Act and Defamation Act. At present the matter rests on an opinion from the Attorney-General’s chambers as to the proper office to investigate the alleged offences.
The present scrutiny of malaysiakini is related to what has been referred to as the ‘April Fool prank’ where the website posted ‘news’ claiming that three ministers and a menteri besar were to be charged with corruption. The site also posted an accompanying second report revealing the joke. The posting was a comment of sorts on the lull in the investigation and prosecution of corrupt government officials.
In the Jan 20, 2003 raid, some 150 people turned up for a candle-light vigil and peaceful assembly outside malaysiakini’s office. Throughout the period of initial investigation at the Dang Wangi police station in Jalan Stadium, readers, human rights defenders and supporters accompanied the editors and reporters with placards and chants or by just being there. People came in support of a free forum.
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has the vote of the electorate in his fight against corruption. But some 25 high profile cases involving high ranking politicians are still under investigation, even after five years.
We do not know if the prime minister was ruffled or as ruffled as his ministers who had called for investigations into the malaysiakini prank.
Failure of mainstream media
We do know however the premier thinks that the reading public will be driven to alternative forums if the mainstream media is not credible. He said this on July 15 at a media conference sponsored by the Ministry of Internal Security. He was addressing practitioners of the mainstream presses which are largely owned by the political parties in his government.
Abdullah also worries if the general public relies on alternative news sources that are more interested in "spreading rumours and innuendos" rather than acting as proper conveyors of information.
The premier said, “What we can do is to explain what is right and accurate so that the people understand the problems”. But the people also need to discover the truth of the matter.
The issuance of Approved Permits (AP) by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) is a case on point. It was considered a government policy not to release the names of AP holders. The matter became an issue only when Dr Mahathir Mohamad raised concerns on the number of APs issued which had led to unfair competition to the national car, Proton.
After much foot dragging, Minister Rafidah Aziz delivered a letter of explanation to Mahathir ‘to resolve’ the issue.
In an unprecedented move, the Prime Minister’s Department released the names of the AP holders on July 18 where it was disclosed that a total of 25,000 APs were shared among just four bumiputeras.
The disclosure of names admittedly came only after public debate and pressure on the issue. There is however, no public disclosure of the basis upon which the permits were awarded.
Rafidah Aziz appears to consider the matter the province of Umno and not the Malaysian public when she was quoted as saying that she is ready to explain the matter at the Umno General Assembly if so requested.
“Bagi saya (perkara) itu selesailah, kerana dah terangkan habis, jelas, terperinci. Saya berharap dengan penjelasan itu tidak timbul lagilah”
(For me, the issue is settled, because it has been explained fully, clearly and in detail. I hope with this explanation it (the issue) does not arise again)
Culture of secrecy
It may be a personal letter between Rafidah and Mahathir but surely the contents are of public interest especially if there is an explanation detailing cabinet decisions on the issuance of APs.
There are important questions we need to raise about the justice of a political system that is increasingly driven by corporate power and money.
The ‘private resolution’ in what has been perceived as a matter of significant public interest, only adds to the culture of secrecy within the government. If there is no transparency in government, there is no information of what is ‘right and accurate’.
Transparency of government processes presumes that all information held by public bodies should be subject to disclosure. The principle of disclosure cannot be restricted in order to promote the principle of good governance. Restrictions whose aim is to protect governments from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing cannot be justified.
There is a warning from statesman James Madison, that a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or both.
Media is the principal source of political information and access to public debate. It is the key to an informed, participating and self governing citizenry.
Accountability issue
Democracy requires a media system that provides people with a wide range of opinion and analysis and debate on important issues. Discussion and criticisms on issues of public interest promote public accountability of powers-that-be and powers-that- want-to-be.
Media practitioners with no political advisory on what the government wants printed or heard, are always under threat of investigation and probes under the myriad restrictive laws on media freedom.
It is quite probable that those frustrated with the pussy-footing on improper conduct,‘whistle-blowers’, are likely to pass information to independent news sources for the truth to emerge.
We are not even talking about the opposition here. Umno members who wish to rid the party of corruption may well be the deep-throats.
Recently, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, editor of Malaysia Today was interrogated for two hours in Bukit Aman on July 1. It was over a two-part article on alleged corrupt practices of members of a royal family and the alleged relation to the disciplinary action taken against former menteri besar, Isa Abdul Samad. Isa has been found guilty of money politics by the Umno disciplinary board.
On July 14, police took away two of Raja Petra’s computers as part of the investigation. Malaysia Today had in recent weeks carried articles highly critical of some Umno politicians. Some opined that these stories with allegations of improper conduct are published in time for the Umno general assembly.
Raja Petra described as a ‘reformasi activist’ has been detained without trial under the ISA in 1998. He appears undeterred. “I’ve learnt from my past arrests”, he said to malaysiakini.
Corruption in government and its conduct in eliminating corruption in its ranks should be talked about and expressed freely. Some may see the April 1 posting by malaysiakini as a prank unbecoming a serious news provider.
Some others may find a serious message underlying the frivolity. Our efforts to rid corruption should be tackled seriously lest it be a joke on us all.
On July 5, Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Dr Lim Keng Yaik informed Parliament that the website is still under investigation for making a communication which is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive” with intention to “annoy, abuse, threaten or harass” a person.
Section 233 of the Communications and Multi-Media Act 1998 is cited and there may be other possible offences under the Sedition Act and Defamation Act. At present the matter rests on an opinion from the Attorney-General’s chambers as to the proper office to investigate the alleged offences.
The present scrutiny of malaysiakini is related to what has been referred to as the ‘April Fool prank’ where the website posted ‘news’ claiming that three ministers and a menteri besar were to be charged with corruption. The site also posted an accompanying second report revealing the joke. The posting was a comment of sorts on the lull in the investigation and prosecution of corrupt government officials.
In the Jan 20, 2003 raid, some 150 people turned up for a candle-light vigil and peaceful assembly outside malaysiakini’s office. Throughout the period of initial investigation at the Dang Wangi police station in Jalan Stadium, readers, human rights defenders and supporters accompanied the editors and reporters with placards and chants or by just being there. People came in support of a free forum.
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has the vote of the electorate in his fight against corruption. But some 25 high profile cases involving high ranking politicians are still under investigation, even after five years.
We do not know if the prime minister was ruffled or as ruffled as his ministers who had called for investigations into the malaysiakini prank.
Failure of mainstream media
We do know however the premier thinks that the reading public will be driven to alternative forums if the mainstream media is not credible. He said this on July 15 at a media conference sponsored by the Ministry of Internal Security. He was addressing practitioners of the mainstream presses which are largely owned by the political parties in his government.
Abdullah also worries if the general public relies on alternative news sources that are more interested in "spreading rumours and innuendos" rather than acting as proper conveyors of information.
The premier said, “What we can do is to explain what is right and accurate so that the people understand the problems”. But the people also need to discover the truth of the matter.
The issuance of Approved Permits (AP) by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) is a case on point. It was considered a government policy not to release the names of AP holders. The matter became an issue only when Dr Mahathir Mohamad raised concerns on the number of APs issued which had led to unfair competition to the national car, Proton.
After much foot dragging, Minister Rafidah Aziz delivered a letter of explanation to Mahathir ‘to resolve’ the issue.
In an unprecedented move, the Prime Minister’s Department released the names of the AP holders on July 18 where it was disclosed that a total of 25,000 APs were shared among just four bumiputeras.
The disclosure of names admittedly came only after public debate and pressure on the issue. There is however, no public disclosure of the basis upon which the permits were awarded.
Rafidah Aziz appears to consider the matter the province of Umno and not the Malaysian public when she was quoted as saying that she is ready to explain the matter at the Umno General Assembly if so requested.
“Bagi saya (perkara) itu selesailah, kerana dah terangkan habis, jelas, terperinci. Saya berharap dengan penjelasan itu tidak timbul lagilah”
(For me, the issue is settled, because it has been explained fully, clearly and in detail. I hope with this explanation it (the issue) does not arise again)
Culture of secrecy
It may be a personal letter between Rafidah and Mahathir but surely the contents are of public interest especially if there is an explanation detailing cabinet decisions on the issuance of APs.
There are important questions we need to raise about the justice of a political system that is increasingly driven by corporate power and money.
The ‘private resolution’ in what has been perceived as a matter of significant public interest, only adds to the culture of secrecy within the government. If there is no transparency in government, there is no information of what is ‘right and accurate’.
Transparency of government processes presumes that all information held by public bodies should be subject to disclosure. The principle of disclosure cannot be restricted in order to promote the principle of good governance. Restrictions whose aim is to protect governments from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing cannot be justified.
There is a warning from statesman James Madison, that a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or both.
Media is the principal source of political information and access to public debate. It is the key to an informed, participating and self governing citizenry.
Accountability issue
Democracy requires a media system that provides people with a wide range of opinion and analysis and debate on important issues. Discussion and criticisms on issues of public interest promote public accountability of powers-that-be and powers-that- want-to-be.
Media practitioners with no political advisory on what the government wants printed or heard, are always under threat of investigation and probes under the myriad restrictive laws on media freedom.
It is quite probable that those frustrated with the pussy-footing on improper conduct,‘whistle-blowers’, are likely to pass information to independent news sources for the truth to emerge.
We are not even talking about the opposition here. Umno members who wish to rid the party of corruption may well be the deep-throats.
Recently, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, editor of Malaysia Today was interrogated for two hours in Bukit Aman on July 1. It was over a two-part article on alleged corrupt practices of members of a royal family and the alleged relation to the disciplinary action taken against former menteri besar, Isa Abdul Samad. Isa has been found guilty of money politics by the Umno disciplinary board.
On July 14, police took away two of Raja Petra’s computers as part of the investigation. Malaysia Today had in recent weeks carried articles highly critical of some Umno politicians. Some opined that these stories with allegations of improper conduct are published in time for the Umno general assembly.
Raja Petra described as a ‘reformasi activist’ has been detained without trial under the ISA in 1998. He appears undeterred. “I’ve learnt from my past arrests”, he said to malaysiakini.
Corruption in government and its conduct in eliminating corruption in its ranks should be talked about and expressed freely. Some may see the April 1 posting by malaysiakini as a prank unbecoming a serious news provider.
Some others may find a serious message underlying the frivolity. Our efforts to rid corruption should be tackled seriously lest it be a joke on us all.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Trees missed for the woods in AP policy - KJ John
The controversy over the issuance of Approved Permits (APs) - including the public disclosure of the full list - hides more than it reveals about the real issues raised by Tengku Mahaleel, the CEO of Proton Bhd.
While the disclosure is a good and transparent action, it is not the real core issue raised and argued by the Proton CEO in his protest of discriminatory treatment of the national car company.
The real issue is a more fundamental question about our values and what we view as the real value-added in making Malaysia a vibrant and competitive economic base, especially for the automotive manufacturing industry of the region.
Thailand has positioned herself very well as an assembly centre and the new ‘Detroit’ of Asia especially for components and parts manufacturing.
But, what is the potential and possible positioning for the Malaysian automotive industry in the region and the world? Is that not the real question behind Mahaleel’s comments and protest against the automotive policy on APs?
Framed in another way, is not the real question: In the era of the World Trade Organisation and Asean Free Trade Area (Afta), when all kinds of barriers are being dismantled, why is there a need to use APs as a back-door policy to allow ‘continued assembly operations’ in Malaysia, which is only a limited market and within which even Proton cannot survive without exports?
Are the so-called Malaysian ‘new assemblers’ designed to become exporters for the Asean market, or are they merely being used as entry point for the Malaysian market share by foreign competitors of the Malaysian cars?
Back-door competition
I thought that Mahaleel’s basic contention was that the APs were being used for back-door competition against Proton, which is now a manufacturer and no more merely an assembler of foreign-manufactured cars.
Therefore, his real questions to the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Miti) were:
1. What is the real automotive policy of Malaysia? Is it to promote assembly operations or to encourage manufacturing operations and increased value-added from within Malaysia?
2. How are Malaysian-owned producers of components and parts being readied for the Asean market beyond Afta or are they going to fail, even as suppliers to the national cars in their home markets?
To me, these questions address the real and substantive issues behind both the comments and concerns raised by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mahaleel.
Two-plus tagline
Under the Second Industrial Master Plan (IMP2), the strategic framework is the ‘manufacturing plus plus’ tagline. If it is well understood, the central thesis is that Malaysia is no more a cheap cost land and labour-based assembler of various components and parts.
Therefore the IMP2 strategised the movement up the value-chain; both upstream into new product development and research and development and downstream into distribution, marketing and branding. These were the two ‘pluses’.
When this basic strategy is applied to the automotive sector in Malaysia, it becomes very obvious that the “policy direction for the automotive sector” is obviously to move into the plus-plus domains.
It would therefore appear inconsistent, not just to Mahaleel but also to any rational person, if the national automotive policy then encourages the distribution of thousands of APs to any and every automaker in the world to bring in their models merely to ‘undertake assembly operations in Malaysia’.
Unless of course, they have a clear and obvious production and utilisation policy regarding locally manufactured components and parts from Malaysia for export into the Afta market - that is, a 100 percent export requirement.
I suppose it is within this strategic framework of IMP2 that the Malaysian automotive policy is being reviewed and commented upon, and how the AP policy has become an issue.
I would be curious to know what percentage of Naza-KIA for instance, now a so-called Malaysian assembled car, is made up of Malaysian components and parts? Are components and parts sourced from local producers or from Thailand or Korea?
All these are key issues in deciding whether the AP controversy is merely about who got what. Is Naza-KIA going into local manufacturing (not merely assembly)?
Or, for that matter, is BMW developing local capabilities in manufacturing and distribution or is it merely using Malaysia as an assembly centre but focusing all the value-added in their home country?
Herein lies the real controversy surrounding the Proton versus AP issue. Let us not miss the trees for the woods.
Real issue
It is within this context that I believe Mahaleel contends that Miti is “inconsistent” in terms of the automotive policy and appears to be back-stabbing the Proton.
The national car was originally designed to become the Malaysian-branded automotive, with a development market space and home ground advantage so that it can competitively attack the rest of the world.
If that undertaking and framework is undermined by the creators of Proton, it is no wonder that Mahaleel, as CEO of Proton, must address the issue even if his board has no capacity or courage to address it.
I believe that this is the real concern for Mahaleel and Mahathir - it is not about who got APs and why, but rather why are APs being so lavishly dished out even when this directly contradicts the IMP2 strategy of creating and developing the Malaysian car.
The situation, however, could become worthwhile by asking how the nation really benefits through the AP policy. Maybe if we auction APs, the income generated could be used to subsidise needs of those in the lower end of society who still may not be able to drive their own Malaysian car.
At the end of the day, a car is only a moving machine with four wheels to get us safely from one place to another.
As Zainul Arrifin asked in his column in the New Straits Times today, “why not me?” as a recipient of APs?
Surely business entrepreneurship is more than ‘who you know’. One must equally ask and answer the question: what is the real value-add of your role in the real business of the nation’s life?
While the disclosure is a good and transparent action, it is not the real core issue raised and argued by the Proton CEO in his protest of discriminatory treatment of the national car company.
The real issue is a more fundamental question about our values and what we view as the real value-added in making Malaysia a vibrant and competitive economic base, especially for the automotive manufacturing industry of the region.
Thailand has positioned herself very well as an assembly centre and the new ‘Detroit’ of Asia especially for components and parts manufacturing.
But, what is the potential and possible positioning for the Malaysian automotive industry in the region and the world? Is that not the real question behind Mahaleel’s comments and protest against the automotive policy on APs?
Framed in another way, is not the real question: In the era of the World Trade Organisation and Asean Free Trade Area (Afta), when all kinds of barriers are being dismantled, why is there a need to use APs as a back-door policy to allow ‘continued assembly operations’ in Malaysia, which is only a limited market and within which even Proton cannot survive without exports?
Are the so-called Malaysian ‘new assemblers’ designed to become exporters for the Asean market, or are they merely being used as entry point for the Malaysian market share by foreign competitors of the Malaysian cars?
Back-door competition
I thought that Mahaleel’s basic contention was that the APs were being used for back-door competition against Proton, which is now a manufacturer and no more merely an assembler of foreign-manufactured cars.
Therefore, his real questions to the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Miti) were:
1. What is the real automotive policy of Malaysia? Is it to promote assembly operations or to encourage manufacturing operations and increased value-added from within Malaysia?
2. How are Malaysian-owned producers of components and parts being readied for the Asean market beyond Afta or are they going to fail, even as suppliers to the national cars in their home markets?
To me, these questions address the real and substantive issues behind both the comments and concerns raised by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mahaleel.
Two-plus tagline
Under the Second Industrial Master Plan (IMP2), the strategic framework is the ‘manufacturing plus plus’ tagline. If it is well understood, the central thesis is that Malaysia is no more a cheap cost land and labour-based assembler of various components and parts.
Therefore the IMP2 strategised the movement up the value-chain; both upstream into new product development and research and development and downstream into distribution, marketing and branding. These were the two ‘pluses’.
When this basic strategy is applied to the automotive sector in Malaysia, it becomes very obvious that the “policy direction for the automotive sector” is obviously to move into the plus-plus domains.
It would therefore appear inconsistent, not just to Mahaleel but also to any rational person, if the national automotive policy then encourages the distribution of thousands of APs to any and every automaker in the world to bring in their models merely to ‘undertake assembly operations in Malaysia’.
Unless of course, they have a clear and obvious production and utilisation policy regarding locally manufactured components and parts from Malaysia for export into the Afta market - that is, a 100 percent export requirement.
I suppose it is within this strategic framework of IMP2 that the Malaysian automotive policy is being reviewed and commented upon, and how the AP policy has become an issue.
I would be curious to know what percentage of Naza-KIA for instance, now a so-called Malaysian assembled car, is made up of Malaysian components and parts? Are components and parts sourced from local producers or from Thailand or Korea?
All these are key issues in deciding whether the AP controversy is merely about who got what. Is Naza-KIA going into local manufacturing (not merely assembly)?
Or, for that matter, is BMW developing local capabilities in manufacturing and distribution or is it merely using Malaysia as an assembly centre but focusing all the value-added in their home country?
Herein lies the real controversy surrounding the Proton versus AP issue. Let us not miss the trees for the woods.
Real issue
It is within this context that I believe Mahaleel contends that Miti is “inconsistent” in terms of the automotive policy and appears to be back-stabbing the Proton.
The national car was originally designed to become the Malaysian-branded automotive, with a development market space and home ground advantage so that it can competitively attack the rest of the world.
If that undertaking and framework is undermined by the creators of Proton, it is no wonder that Mahaleel, as CEO of Proton, must address the issue even if his board has no capacity or courage to address it.
I believe that this is the real concern for Mahaleel and Mahathir - it is not about who got APs and why, but rather why are APs being so lavishly dished out even when this directly contradicts the IMP2 strategy of creating and developing the Malaysian car.
The situation, however, could become worthwhile by asking how the nation really benefits through the AP policy. Maybe if we auction APs, the income generated could be used to subsidise needs of those in the lower end of society who still may not be able to drive their own Malaysian car.
At the end of the day, a car is only a moving machine with four wheels to get us safely from one place to another.
As Zainul Arrifin asked in his column in the New Straits Times today, “why not me?” as a recipient of APs?
Surely business entrepreneurship is more than ‘who you know’. One must equally ask and answer the question: what is the real value-add of your role in the real business of the nation’s life?
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Political grandstanding or sinister policy shift? - M. Bakri Musa
Co-authored with Din Merican*
Our ‘reformed’ Royal Malaysian Police Force recently raided the home of Raja Petra Kamarudin, editor of the website Malaysia Today and seized his computers. To malaysiakini readers, this is déjà vu.
The police routinely resorted to the Internal Security Act to raid the private residence of citizens. That is nothing new, and sadly, no longer shocking to Malaysians. This time however it is the home of a respected editor. After the public debacle over the raid on malaysiakini two years ago, we would have thought the police would be more circumspect. They never learn!
A benign take on this episode would be to assume that it is a case of political grandstanding ahead of the Umno general assembly on Thursday. Umno must regularly demonstrate its prowess against those who may challenge its obsession with Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony) and the party’s role as ‘protector’ of the Malay sultans and their subjects.
A more sinister view would be that this action merely exposes the hollowness of the presumed liberal stance and attitude of the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Administration towards open discourse, especially in cyberspace, on matters of public interest.
The raid on malaysiakini made a mockery of the government’s oft-stated commitment to keep the Internet free of official censorship. Malaysia has yet to recover from that blow.
At that time Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad took the brunt of the heat for the actions of members of the xenophobic Umno Youth even though the action was initiated by the home ministry (as it was known), then under Abdullah’s stewardship.
We commented on the folly of the Umno Youth action and the immaturity of its leadership. Our hard-hitting commentary angered many in the movement including some who were our friends. Nonetheless, we did it because we believe that it is unhealthy to censor dissenting views and opinions. Such actions also damage Malaysia’s image.
Road maps for police
Robust public debate is the essence of democracy. Furthermore, clumsy and bumbling attempts at censorship and control are futile in this age of the Internet. You could no more control the flow of information than you could atmospheric flow.
The communist rulers of China and the mullahs in Iran have tried, and both failed. When the police closed the case against malaysiakini, we thought that there would be no more raids of this nature. We were sadly mistaken.
Raja Petra’s brand of analytical and aggressive investigative journalism is alien to Malaysia, where the reprinting of ministerial speeches and press releases constitutes ‘news-gathering’. It is no surprise then that uncensored and independent Internet news portals have been rapidly gaining readership at the expense of the mainstream media.
Two particularly hard-hitting series received wide readership and comments. The first was on alleged corruption in the Negri Sembilan royal family; and the second, the meteoric career of Khairy Jamaluddin, trusted advisor and son-in-law of Abdullah, now the prime minister. In both instances, Raja Petra cited names and specific instances to back his claims.
Both series are practically road maps for the police to investigate. Such exposés ahead of the Umno general assemby could have devastating political consequences. The police, therefore, took the more sycophantic approach by raiding Raja Petra’s home in an effort to please and appease the internal security ministry headed by Abdullah.
Kisssinger-Lite wannabe
It is well known that the ambitious Khairy is not popular among certain factions of Umno. He is feared not because of his talent, but rather for his being the prime minister’s son-in-law. In short, the old familiar Malaysian refrain of ‘know-who, not know-how’.
Khairy who did his thesis on Machiavelli at Oxford subcribes to the Florentine’s dictum that it is better for the Prince to “be feared than loved”. Interestingly that was (former US secretary of state) Henry Kissinger’s doctoral dissertation at Harvard. What we have here is a kampong version of a ‘Kissinger lite’.
The seizure of Raja Petra’s computers have barely interrupted Malaysia Today’s operations. News articles continue to be posted and readers are as eager as ever to register their views.
Raja Petra, like all prudent and responsible editors, web operators, and bloggers, must have taken the necessary precautions, like backing up files and having mirror servers elsewhere.
In the battle of ideas, the removal of hardware is a primitive and ineffective strategy. More productive and constructive would be to counter with superior ideas and respond frontally to the criticism.
Indeed later on the day of the police raid, Abdullah preached the same message in a speech to the Mass Media Conference organised by his own ministry.
In it, he chastised the mainstream media for their sensationalism and at the same time admonished government officials who cannot tolerate public criticism. He should have also warned his cabinet colleagues and fellow Barisan Nasional politicians.
Alas that was vintage Abdullah at his best - good only at preaching. He has been dispensing homilies ad nauseam ever since he took over the country’s leadership. He is, as one of my readers put it colourfully, a lebai pandai rati sajat (a rabbi good only at chanting).
If Abdullah had written that speech himself, then he should be the first to heed his own advice. If, as more likely, that it is Khairy’s handiwork, then he (Khairy) should be the first to heed his own message.
If this raid was merely political grandstanding, then we feel sorry for Raja Petra and his family who had to bear the terrible burden.
The only consolation is that this annual circus that is the Umno general assembly will be over by the end of the week. If this raid portends a sinister shift in public policy, then we feel sorry for the whole nation.
Our ‘reformed’ Royal Malaysian Police Force recently raided the home of Raja Petra Kamarudin, editor of the website Malaysia Today and seized his computers. To malaysiakini readers, this is déjà vu.
The police routinely resorted to the Internal Security Act to raid the private residence of citizens. That is nothing new, and sadly, no longer shocking to Malaysians. This time however it is the home of a respected editor. After the public debacle over the raid on malaysiakini two years ago, we would have thought the police would be more circumspect. They never learn!
A benign take on this episode would be to assume that it is a case of political grandstanding ahead of the Umno general assembly on Thursday. Umno must regularly demonstrate its prowess against those who may challenge its obsession with Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony) and the party’s role as ‘protector’ of the Malay sultans and their subjects.
A more sinister view would be that this action merely exposes the hollowness of the presumed liberal stance and attitude of the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Administration towards open discourse, especially in cyberspace, on matters of public interest.
The raid on malaysiakini made a mockery of the government’s oft-stated commitment to keep the Internet free of official censorship. Malaysia has yet to recover from that blow.
At that time Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad took the brunt of the heat for the actions of members of the xenophobic Umno Youth even though the action was initiated by the home ministry (as it was known), then under Abdullah’s stewardship.
We commented on the folly of the Umno Youth action and the immaturity of its leadership. Our hard-hitting commentary angered many in the movement including some who were our friends. Nonetheless, we did it because we believe that it is unhealthy to censor dissenting views and opinions. Such actions also damage Malaysia’s image.
Road maps for police
Robust public debate is the essence of democracy. Furthermore, clumsy and bumbling attempts at censorship and control are futile in this age of the Internet. You could no more control the flow of information than you could atmospheric flow.
The communist rulers of China and the mullahs in Iran have tried, and both failed. When the police closed the case against malaysiakini, we thought that there would be no more raids of this nature. We were sadly mistaken.
Raja Petra’s brand of analytical and aggressive investigative journalism is alien to Malaysia, where the reprinting of ministerial speeches and press releases constitutes ‘news-gathering’. It is no surprise then that uncensored and independent Internet news portals have been rapidly gaining readership at the expense of the mainstream media.
Two particularly hard-hitting series received wide readership and comments. The first was on alleged corruption in the Negri Sembilan royal family; and the second, the meteoric career of Khairy Jamaluddin, trusted advisor and son-in-law of Abdullah, now the prime minister. In both instances, Raja Petra cited names and specific instances to back his claims.
Both series are practically road maps for the police to investigate. Such exposés ahead of the Umno general assemby could have devastating political consequences. The police, therefore, took the more sycophantic approach by raiding Raja Petra’s home in an effort to please and appease the internal security ministry headed by Abdullah.
Kisssinger-Lite wannabe
It is well known that the ambitious Khairy is not popular among certain factions of Umno. He is feared not because of his talent, but rather for his being the prime minister’s son-in-law. In short, the old familiar Malaysian refrain of ‘know-who, not know-how’.
Khairy who did his thesis on Machiavelli at Oxford subcribes to the Florentine’s dictum that it is better for the Prince to “be feared than loved”. Interestingly that was (former US secretary of state) Henry Kissinger’s doctoral dissertation at Harvard. What we have here is a kampong version of a ‘Kissinger lite’.
The seizure of Raja Petra’s computers have barely interrupted Malaysia Today’s operations. News articles continue to be posted and readers are as eager as ever to register their views.
Raja Petra, like all prudent and responsible editors, web operators, and bloggers, must have taken the necessary precautions, like backing up files and having mirror servers elsewhere.
In the battle of ideas, the removal of hardware is a primitive and ineffective strategy. More productive and constructive would be to counter with superior ideas and respond frontally to the criticism.
Indeed later on the day of the police raid, Abdullah preached the same message in a speech to the Mass Media Conference organised by his own ministry.
In it, he chastised the mainstream media for their sensationalism and at the same time admonished government officials who cannot tolerate public criticism. He should have also warned his cabinet colleagues and fellow Barisan Nasional politicians.
Alas that was vintage Abdullah at his best - good only at preaching. He has been dispensing homilies ad nauseam ever since he took over the country’s leadership. He is, as one of my readers put it colourfully, a lebai pandai rati sajat (a rabbi good only at chanting).
If Abdullah had written that speech himself, then he should be the first to heed his own advice. If, as more likely, that it is Khairy’s handiwork, then he (Khairy) should be the first to heed his own message.
If this raid was merely political grandstanding, then we feel sorry for Raja Petra and his family who had to bear the terrible burden.
The only consolation is that this annual circus that is the Umno general assembly will be over by the end of the week. If this raid portends a sinister shift in public policy, then we feel sorry for the whole nation.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Khairy sebagai bakal PM?
Jangan terkejut kalau Khairy Jamaluddin, yang menjadi penasihat kepada Pak Lah, menjadi bakal perdana menteri sebelum dia mencapai usia 40 tahun. Pada masa ini dia berusia 29 tahun dan bapa mertuanya masih lagi menjadi perdana menteri. Menurut rencananya, tentulah dia akan menggantikan Pak Lah sebagai bakal PM kelak sekiranya Allah merestui dan Umno menerima baik dan menyokong membabi-buta hasratnya itu.
Dalam politik bukanlah suatu kesalahan kalau seseorang bermimpi hendak menjadi PM ataupun apa saja yang diingininya. Kalau Khairy menganggap dia paling layak dan semua pemimpin lain, kecuali bapa mertuanya, untuk menjadi PM, maka perlulah dia merancang strateginya dan sekarang.
Oleh kerana Pak Lah menang jawatan presiden tanpa bertanding, maka menantu kesayangannya juga menang tanpa bertanding. Ini bererti baik Pak Lah mahupun menantunya menang tanpa mendapat restu para dari perwakilan Umno. Ini juga ditafsirkan oleh para pemerhati politik sebagai kemenangan yang belum diuji.
Malah banyak pihak berpendapat ia berlawanan dengan perjuangan dan perlembagaan Umno sendiri yang berpegang pada amalan kepimpinan parti mestilah dipilih oleh para perwakilan sekali dalam tiga tahun.
Oleh itu, apakah Khairy yang takut menghadapi cabaran dalam pertandingan, boleh dianggap seorang pemimpin yang berwibawa, bermaruah dan berjiwa besar? Tentulah rakyat tidak yakin dengan kewibawaannya memandangkan dia sendiri takut menghadapi cabaran dan menang tanpa bertanding. Sebenarnya dia takut menghadapi cabaran melalui pertandingan yang sihat dan bersifat demokrasi.
Dia juga sedar di kalangan Pemuda, masih ada pemimpin yang lebih besar jasa dan pengalaman yang luas. Dia juga sedar dia tidak banyak jasa dalam Umno kerana baru saja menyertai parti itu setelah tamat belajar dari Oxford dan bekerja dengan Pak Lah sebagai salah seorang pembantu khas sebelum bernikah dengan Nori, anak gadis Pak Lah.
Oleh kerana anak lelakinya Kamaluddin lebih berminat menjadi super jutawan sebagai orang korporat dan Nori, anak perempuannya, tidak mahu tampil ke tengah dalam politik, maka dia (Pak Lah) tidak ada jalan lain kecuali menonjolkan menantunya yang berkelulusan Oxford sebagai bakal pemimpin Umno yang boleh menggantikannya kelak kalau Allah merestui agenda politik mereka.
Sebagai pemimpin politik veteran Pak Lah tentulah mempunyai pengalaman yang pahit dan manis tentang sepak terajang, silat dan kuntau mainan politik Umno. Banyak orang berpendapat Pak Lah banyak terhutang budi kepada Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang memberi peluang kepadanya kembali aktif dalam kabinet setelah terbuang bila dia berpihak kepada Team B pimpinan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.
Walaupun Anwar Ibrahim pernah menjadi anak emas Mahathir sebagai Timbalan perdana menteri dan diwarwarkan sebagai penggantinya, namun demikian Mahathir tetap memberi tempat dan ruang kepada Pak Lah untuk menganggotai kabinetnya setelah terbuang dari kabinet.
Tuah Pak Lah
Malah sewaktu Anwar dalam kabinet Mahathir, nama Pak Lah tidak pernah disebut-sebut sebagai bakal Timbalan Perdana menteri, apa lagi sebagai perdana menteri. Tapi Allah Maha Berkuasa dan Maha Mengetahui, maka dengan tidak disangka-sangka cempedak sudah menjadi nangka dan Pak Lah dilantik Mahathir sebagai Timbalan Perdana menteri bila Anwar dikebiri dan berlabuh buat sementara waktu di penjara Sungai Buloh.
Inilah tuah Pak Lah. Peristiwa sejarah menyebabkan Pak Lah menjelma sebagai perdana menteri pada hari ini. Takdirnya Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah menang dalam pemilihan pucuk pimpinan Umno pada tahun 1987 dan beliau menggantikan Mahathir sebagai perdana menteri, besar kemungkinan Pak Lah akan kekal dalam kabinet Ku Li tetapi bukan sebagai timbalan perdana menteri. Inilah pandangan kebanyakan para pemimpin Umno dan orang awam.
Memandangkan Najib Tun Razak dan Hishammuddin Tun Hussein adalah anak bekas perdana menteri yang mempunyai harapan untuk menjadi bakal perdana menteri kelak, maka dia juga ingin mengujudkan dinasti Abdullah Ahmad Badawi melalui menantunya.
Banyak orang berpendapat Pak Lah lebih mempercayai menantunya dari ahli-ahli Majlis Tertinggi Umno ataupun menteri kabinetnya. Sebagai orang yang bercita-cita tinggi untuk menjadi bakal perdana menteri sebelum ayam den lapek pada usia 40 tahun, Khairy sudah merancang jalan pintas ke Putrajaya tanpa melalui jalan-jalan berliku dan berdebu, dengan lopak dan lembu-lembu berkeliaran.
Dia dan Hishamuddin menang tanpa bertanding. Media perdana yang dikuasainya melalui ihsan bapa mertuanya yang menjadi perdana menteri menggembur-gemburkan kehebatan dan kebijaksanaannya sebagai seorang pemimpin politik.
Dia tidak keseorangan dalam melayari khayalannya untuk menjadi bakal perdana menteri. Pak Lah tetap bersamanya. Begitu juga ibu mertuanya, Nori isterinya, Kamaluddin, abang iparnya, ibunya sendiri Datin Rahmah, dan jangan dilupakan, Kalimullah Hassan, Ketua Pengarang New Straits Times dan bos Khairy dalam syarikat ECM Libra di mana Kalimullah mempunyai saham terbesar dan sejak tahun 2003 menjadi salah seorang super jutawan.
Bagi memenuhi agenda politik Khairy dia pertama kali dilantik sebagai ahli exco Pemuda oleh Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, Ketua Pemuda, yang bernafsu besar tetapi pengaruh dan kemampuan politik kurang.
Malah sudah timbul keresahan di kalangan Pemuda untuk meminggirkan Hishamuddin dan digantikan dengan tokoh muda yang lebih berwibawa dan mempunyai rekod kepimpinan yang cemerlang sebagai ketua Pemuda pada pemilihan yang lalu.
Banyak orang berpendapat sekiranya Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, Menteri Besar Selangor, sanggup menentang Hishamuddin besar kemungkinan Khir Toyo akan menang. Tapi Khir lebih berminat menjadi ahli Majlis Tertinggi Umno kerana beliau tidak mahu bergelut dan bersilat sesama sahabat dalam Pemuda yang dianggap tidak mempunyai oomph sejak Hishamuddin memimpinnya.
Pelaburan politik
Justeru itu dia juga mencari dahan yang kukuh dan pokok yang rendang untuk berteduh. Sebagai menantu Pak Lah yang dianggap paling berkuasa dalam usia 28 tahun, Hishamuddin juga tahu bagaimana hendak menyesuaikan tarian menurut irama semasa. Dia memang senang sekali dengan Khairy kerana dianggap sebagai suatu pelaburan politik jangka panjang.
Kalau Khairy bijak main politik secara pintas, “short cut”, menjadi naib ketua selepas empat tahun menjadi ahli Umno, maka dia juga ingin berkongsi angan-angan dengan Khairy untuk menjadi bakal timbalan perdana menteri kelak. Sebenarnya Khairy hendak memperalatkan Hishammuddin dan Pemuda untuk dia melonjak lebih tinggi dari kedudukannya sebagai naib ketua.
Malah ada pihak yang menganggap Khairy adalah Ketua Pemuda, bukan Hishamuddin kerana hubungannya yang super akrab sebagai penasihat kepada Pak Lah. Menurut salah seorang pemimpin Pemuda, Khairy memainkan peranan paling penting dalam pemilihan kira-kira 50 orang pemimpin Pemuda menjadi calon dalam pilihanraya yang lalu. Kini ada antara mereka yang menjadi anggota kabinet, exco beberapa kerajaan negeri, ahli Parlimen dan ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri. Tidak pernah sebelum ini Pemuda diberi peluang menjadi calon yang begitu ramai oleh Presiden Umno.
Menurut sumber tertentu, Majlis Tertinggi Umno juga membincangkan hasrat Khairy hendak bertanding sebagai naib ketua Pemuda. Seperti biasa berbagai ahli memberikan pandangan yang tentunya menyokong habis-habisan walaupun perkara itu tidak perlu dibincangkan dalam jawatankuasa tertinggi parti. Apakah Pak Lah sengaja hendak melihat siapakah antara ahli Majlis Tertinggi yang menyokong menantunya dan siapa pula antara mereka yang diam membisu tanpa berhasrat memberi pandangan apa-apa terhadap isu yang tidak sewajarnya dibicarakan dalam badan tersebut?
Dalam masa tiga tahun akan datang, Khairy akan memainkan peranan yang aktif hingga menggerhanai Hishamuddin, demi menjaga kepentingan politiknya dan juga Pak Lah. Dia kini sibuk menemui mereka yang malang menghulur derma berjuta ringgit dan syarikat Libra untuk tujuan kebajikan dan pendidikan.
Seperti biasa akhbar-akhbar perdana yang dikuasai Pak Lah turut memeriahkan lagi kegiatan Khairy. Jejak langkah ke arah menjadi bakal perdana menteri telah bermula. Dia, seperti Pak Lah, sangat yakin rakyat majmuk di negara ini akan terus menerus memberi sokongan yang super hangat kepada pimpinan Pak Lah selagi beliau menjadi perdana menteri. Kalau rakyat dan ahli Umno menyokong Pak Lah tanpa penat lelah kerana kepimpinannya dianggap cemerlang, gemilang dan terbilang maka tentulah rakyat dan ahli Umno juga akan memberi sokongan yang super hangat kepada menantu Pak Lah.
Ada orang berkata Khairy terpaksa mengejar masa untuk meluaskan pengaruh politiknya dan membina ‘networking’ dalam parti kerana bimbang sekiranya sesuatu yang tidak diingini berlaku pada Pak Lah. Pak Lah kini menghadapi tekanan yang kuat, bukan saja mengenai politik dalaman tetapi juga dalam pentadbiran negara serta tekanan yang kuat dan pihak asing.
Krisis tekanan jiwa
Dia tahu ada puak-puak dalam Umno tidak senang dengan kepimpinannya dan stail pentadbirannya.Yang lebih penting lagi, menurut berbagai sumber, sekiranya isterinya yang tercinta meninggal dunia akibat penyakit barah payudara yang dialaminya. Kalau isterinya tidak bersamanya, menurut pengamatan berbagai pihak, Pak Lah akan menghadapi krisis tekanan jiwa yang paling berat yang mungkin menggugat kepimpinannya.
Tanpa menjadi menantu Pak Lah, Khairy Jamaluddin hanya seorang ahli Umno biasa yang syok sendiri, berbangga dengan ijazah Oxford, tetapi tidak akan mendapat perhatian dan kedudukan seperti sekarang ini. Dinasti Abdullah Badawi tidak akan menjadi kenyataan sekiranya Khairy tidak menjadi pengganti bapa mertuanya sebagai presiden Umno merangkap perdana menterj dalam masa 12 tahun akan datang.
Tapi tidak semua ahli dan pemimpin Umno akan menerima Khairy dengan penuh kebanggaan, dengan menyanyikan lagu ampu-mengampu seluruh pelusuk alam. Yang nyata setakat ini, Khairy Jamaluddin sudah dua kali diboo oleh para perwakilan Pemuda dan pemerhati dalam Perhimpunan Umno yang lalu. Barangkali inilah perutusan mukaddimah dan sebahagian besar para pemimpin Pemuda bahawa Khairy Jamaluddin tidaklah diterima dengan dada lapang oleh mereka.
Ibarat jeneral yang tidak pernah bertempur dalam peperangan, bagaimanakah dia hendak memperlihatkan kemampuan dan keperwiraannya menghadapi musuh? Mereka juga hendak memaklumkan kepada Pak Lah dan Kak Endon, Nori, Kamaluddin dan Kalimullah Hassan bahawa Khairy tidak disenangi oleh sebahagian besar para pemimpin Umno dan juga rakyat amnya.
Mereka berharap Pak Lah dan keluarganya yang tersayang dapat menghayati penolakan Khairy. Seperti kata peribahasa Melayu, burung terbang janganlah dipipiskan lada. Dinasti Abdullah Badawi tidak akan lahir ke dunia kalau Pak Lah mengharapkan menantunya membawa obor kegemilangan dan kecemerlangan dalam masa sepuluh tahun akan datang.
Sedutan daripada buku Khairy Jamaluddin: Bakal Perdana Menteri? tulisan Yahaya Ismail.
Dalam politik bukanlah suatu kesalahan kalau seseorang bermimpi hendak menjadi PM ataupun apa saja yang diingininya. Kalau Khairy menganggap dia paling layak dan semua pemimpin lain, kecuali bapa mertuanya, untuk menjadi PM, maka perlulah dia merancang strateginya dan sekarang.
Oleh kerana Pak Lah menang jawatan presiden tanpa bertanding, maka menantu kesayangannya juga menang tanpa bertanding. Ini bererti baik Pak Lah mahupun menantunya menang tanpa mendapat restu para dari perwakilan Umno. Ini juga ditafsirkan oleh para pemerhati politik sebagai kemenangan yang belum diuji.
Malah banyak pihak berpendapat ia berlawanan dengan perjuangan dan perlembagaan Umno sendiri yang berpegang pada amalan kepimpinan parti mestilah dipilih oleh para perwakilan sekali dalam tiga tahun.
Oleh itu, apakah Khairy yang takut menghadapi cabaran dalam pertandingan, boleh dianggap seorang pemimpin yang berwibawa, bermaruah dan berjiwa besar? Tentulah rakyat tidak yakin dengan kewibawaannya memandangkan dia sendiri takut menghadapi cabaran dan menang tanpa bertanding. Sebenarnya dia takut menghadapi cabaran melalui pertandingan yang sihat dan bersifat demokrasi.
Dia juga sedar di kalangan Pemuda, masih ada pemimpin yang lebih besar jasa dan pengalaman yang luas. Dia juga sedar dia tidak banyak jasa dalam Umno kerana baru saja menyertai parti itu setelah tamat belajar dari Oxford dan bekerja dengan Pak Lah sebagai salah seorang pembantu khas sebelum bernikah dengan Nori, anak gadis Pak Lah.
Oleh kerana anak lelakinya Kamaluddin lebih berminat menjadi super jutawan sebagai orang korporat dan Nori, anak perempuannya, tidak mahu tampil ke tengah dalam politik, maka dia (Pak Lah) tidak ada jalan lain kecuali menonjolkan menantunya yang berkelulusan Oxford sebagai bakal pemimpin Umno yang boleh menggantikannya kelak kalau Allah merestui agenda politik mereka.
Sebagai pemimpin politik veteran Pak Lah tentulah mempunyai pengalaman yang pahit dan manis tentang sepak terajang, silat dan kuntau mainan politik Umno. Banyak orang berpendapat Pak Lah banyak terhutang budi kepada Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang memberi peluang kepadanya kembali aktif dalam kabinet setelah terbuang bila dia berpihak kepada Team B pimpinan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.
Walaupun Anwar Ibrahim pernah menjadi anak emas Mahathir sebagai Timbalan perdana menteri dan diwarwarkan sebagai penggantinya, namun demikian Mahathir tetap memberi tempat dan ruang kepada Pak Lah untuk menganggotai kabinetnya setelah terbuang dari kabinet.
Tuah Pak Lah
Malah sewaktu Anwar dalam kabinet Mahathir, nama Pak Lah tidak pernah disebut-sebut sebagai bakal Timbalan Perdana menteri, apa lagi sebagai perdana menteri. Tapi Allah Maha Berkuasa dan Maha Mengetahui, maka dengan tidak disangka-sangka cempedak sudah menjadi nangka dan Pak Lah dilantik Mahathir sebagai Timbalan Perdana menteri bila Anwar dikebiri dan berlabuh buat sementara waktu di penjara Sungai Buloh.
Inilah tuah Pak Lah. Peristiwa sejarah menyebabkan Pak Lah menjelma sebagai perdana menteri pada hari ini. Takdirnya Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah menang dalam pemilihan pucuk pimpinan Umno pada tahun 1987 dan beliau menggantikan Mahathir sebagai perdana menteri, besar kemungkinan Pak Lah akan kekal dalam kabinet Ku Li tetapi bukan sebagai timbalan perdana menteri. Inilah pandangan kebanyakan para pemimpin Umno dan orang awam.
Memandangkan Najib Tun Razak dan Hishammuddin Tun Hussein adalah anak bekas perdana menteri yang mempunyai harapan untuk menjadi bakal perdana menteri kelak, maka dia juga ingin mengujudkan dinasti Abdullah Ahmad Badawi melalui menantunya.
Banyak orang berpendapat Pak Lah lebih mempercayai menantunya dari ahli-ahli Majlis Tertinggi Umno ataupun menteri kabinetnya. Sebagai orang yang bercita-cita tinggi untuk menjadi bakal perdana menteri sebelum ayam den lapek pada usia 40 tahun, Khairy sudah merancang jalan pintas ke Putrajaya tanpa melalui jalan-jalan berliku dan berdebu, dengan lopak dan lembu-lembu berkeliaran.
Dia dan Hishamuddin menang tanpa bertanding. Media perdana yang dikuasainya melalui ihsan bapa mertuanya yang menjadi perdana menteri menggembur-gemburkan kehebatan dan kebijaksanaannya sebagai seorang pemimpin politik.
Dia tidak keseorangan dalam melayari khayalannya untuk menjadi bakal perdana menteri. Pak Lah tetap bersamanya. Begitu juga ibu mertuanya, Nori isterinya, Kamaluddin, abang iparnya, ibunya sendiri Datin Rahmah, dan jangan dilupakan, Kalimullah Hassan, Ketua Pengarang New Straits Times dan bos Khairy dalam syarikat ECM Libra di mana Kalimullah mempunyai saham terbesar dan sejak tahun 2003 menjadi salah seorang super jutawan.
Bagi memenuhi agenda politik Khairy dia pertama kali dilantik sebagai ahli exco Pemuda oleh Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, Ketua Pemuda, yang bernafsu besar tetapi pengaruh dan kemampuan politik kurang.
Malah sudah timbul keresahan di kalangan Pemuda untuk meminggirkan Hishamuddin dan digantikan dengan tokoh muda yang lebih berwibawa dan mempunyai rekod kepimpinan yang cemerlang sebagai ketua Pemuda pada pemilihan yang lalu.
Banyak orang berpendapat sekiranya Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, Menteri Besar Selangor, sanggup menentang Hishamuddin besar kemungkinan Khir Toyo akan menang. Tapi Khir lebih berminat menjadi ahli Majlis Tertinggi Umno kerana beliau tidak mahu bergelut dan bersilat sesama sahabat dalam Pemuda yang dianggap tidak mempunyai oomph sejak Hishamuddin memimpinnya.
Pelaburan politik
Justeru itu dia juga mencari dahan yang kukuh dan pokok yang rendang untuk berteduh. Sebagai menantu Pak Lah yang dianggap paling berkuasa dalam usia 28 tahun, Hishamuddin juga tahu bagaimana hendak menyesuaikan tarian menurut irama semasa. Dia memang senang sekali dengan Khairy kerana dianggap sebagai suatu pelaburan politik jangka panjang.
Kalau Khairy bijak main politik secara pintas, “short cut”, menjadi naib ketua selepas empat tahun menjadi ahli Umno, maka dia juga ingin berkongsi angan-angan dengan Khairy untuk menjadi bakal timbalan perdana menteri kelak. Sebenarnya Khairy hendak memperalatkan Hishammuddin dan Pemuda untuk dia melonjak lebih tinggi dari kedudukannya sebagai naib ketua.
Malah ada pihak yang menganggap Khairy adalah Ketua Pemuda, bukan Hishamuddin kerana hubungannya yang super akrab sebagai penasihat kepada Pak Lah. Menurut salah seorang pemimpin Pemuda, Khairy memainkan peranan paling penting dalam pemilihan kira-kira 50 orang pemimpin Pemuda menjadi calon dalam pilihanraya yang lalu. Kini ada antara mereka yang menjadi anggota kabinet, exco beberapa kerajaan negeri, ahli Parlimen dan ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri. Tidak pernah sebelum ini Pemuda diberi peluang menjadi calon yang begitu ramai oleh Presiden Umno.
Menurut sumber tertentu, Majlis Tertinggi Umno juga membincangkan hasrat Khairy hendak bertanding sebagai naib ketua Pemuda. Seperti biasa berbagai ahli memberikan pandangan yang tentunya menyokong habis-habisan walaupun perkara itu tidak perlu dibincangkan dalam jawatankuasa tertinggi parti. Apakah Pak Lah sengaja hendak melihat siapakah antara ahli Majlis Tertinggi yang menyokong menantunya dan siapa pula antara mereka yang diam membisu tanpa berhasrat memberi pandangan apa-apa terhadap isu yang tidak sewajarnya dibicarakan dalam badan tersebut?
Dalam masa tiga tahun akan datang, Khairy akan memainkan peranan yang aktif hingga menggerhanai Hishamuddin, demi menjaga kepentingan politiknya dan juga Pak Lah. Dia kini sibuk menemui mereka yang malang menghulur derma berjuta ringgit dan syarikat Libra untuk tujuan kebajikan dan pendidikan.
Seperti biasa akhbar-akhbar perdana yang dikuasai Pak Lah turut memeriahkan lagi kegiatan Khairy. Jejak langkah ke arah menjadi bakal perdana menteri telah bermula. Dia, seperti Pak Lah, sangat yakin rakyat majmuk di negara ini akan terus menerus memberi sokongan yang super hangat kepada pimpinan Pak Lah selagi beliau menjadi perdana menteri. Kalau rakyat dan ahli Umno menyokong Pak Lah tanpa penat lelah kerana kepimpinannya dianggap cemerlang, gemilang dan terbilang maka tentulah rakyat dan ahli Umno juga akan memberi sokongan yang super hangat kepada menantu Pak Lah.
Ada orang berkata Khairy terpaksa mengejar masa untuk meluaskan pengaruh politiknya dan membina ‘networking’ dalam parti kerana bimbang sekiranya sesuatu yang tidak diingini berlaku pada Pak Lah. Pak Lah kini menghadapi tekanan yang kuat, bukan saja mengenai politik dalaman tetapi juga dalam pentadbiran negara serta tekanan yang kuat dan pihak asing.
Krisis tekanan jiwa
Dia tahu ada puak-puak dalam Umno tidak senang dengan kepimpinannya dan stail pentadbirannya.Yang lebih penting lagi, menurut berbagai sumber, sekiranya isterinya yang tercinta meninggal dunia akibat penyakit barah payudara yang dialaminya. Kalau isterinya tidak bersamanya, menurut pengamatan berbagai pihak, Pak Lah akan menghadapi krisis tekanan jiwa yang paling berat yang mungkin menggugat kepimpinannya.
Tanpa menjadi menantu Pak Lah, Khairy Jamaluddin hanya seorang ahli Umno biasa yang syok sendiri, berbangga dengan ijazah Oxford, tetapi tidak akan mendapat perhatian dan kedudukan seperti sekarang ini. Dinasti Abdullah Badawi tidak akan menjadi kenyataan sekiranya Khairy tidak menjadi pengganti bapa mertuanya sebagai presiden Umno merangkap perdana menterj dalam masa 12 tahun akan datang.
Tapi tidak semua ahli dan pemimpin Umno akan menerima Khairy dengan penuh kebanggaan, dengan menyanyikan lagu ampu-mengampu seluruh pelusuk alam. Yang nyata setakat ini, Khairy Jamaluddin sudah dua kali diboo oleh para perwakilan Pemuda dan pemerhati dalam Perhimpunan Umno yang lalu. Barangkali inilah perutusan mukaddimah dan sebahagian besar para pemimpin Pemuda bahawa Khairy Jamaluddin tidaklah diterima dengan dada lapang oleh mereka.
Ibarat jeneral yang tidak pernah bertempur dalam peperangan, bagaimanakah dia hendak memperlihatkan kemampuan dan keperwiraannya menghadapi musuh? Mereka juga hendak memaklumkan kepada Pak Lah dan Kak Endon, Nori, Kamaluddin dan Kalimullah Hassan bahawa Khairy tidak disenangi oleh sebahagian besar para pemimpin Umno dan juga rakyat amnya.
Mereka berharap Pak Lah dan keluarganya yang tersayang dapat menghayati penolakan Khairy. Seperti kata peribahasa Melayu, burung terbang janganlah dipipiskan lada. Dinasti Abdullah Badawi tidak akan lahir ke dunia kalau Pak Lah mengharapkan menantunya membawa obor kegemilangan dan kecemerlangan dalam masa sepuluh tahun akan datang.
Sedutan daripada buku Khairy Jamaluddin: Bakal Perdana Menteri? tulisan Yahaya Ismail.
Megatrends in Cybernating Malaysia - Azly Rahman
In our race towards ‘progress’, we continue to model our national economic development strategies based upon ones proposed by theories and practitioners such as Walt Rostow, Milton Friedman, Lester Thurow and many a World Bank and IMF strategist.
We set up International Advisory Panels to teach us how to develop linearly and in a certain progression. Because our economists are generally those trained in the Classical and Neo-Classical traditions, we institutionalise them into the economic policy panels and seek from them ideas that will be in sync with those of the members of the advisory panel.
Let us analyse our economic existence and installations differently.
Let us look at the developmental path we have been taking thus far. Putting the once popular American “economic futurologist” John Naisbitt’s prediction aside for a moment, let us look at another set of ‘megatrends’ that is shaping us.
Using Cyberjaya as a case of a ‘technopole’ a city that is run on fiber optics rather than one viewed as a metropole such as Kuala Lumpur, I propose that the following trends will further flourish and develop as this nation moves along the hyper-modernist developmental path.
The French word bricolage used in social and cultural analyses might be useful in this context: that the elements of cultures form different sources are gathered and synthesised to create a tapestry of base and superstructural quilt of the emerging nation that wishes to speed up its developmental process.
Case in point
Let us look at what is going to be happening to this technologised nation, taking Cyberjaya as a case in point.
As we go into the futuristic city of Cyberjaya, we may begin to ask ourselves what the nature of this city and reality is: what necessitates the birth of this phenomena?
Cyberjaya as a modern business capital and Putrajaya as its administrative capital, modeled after the New York-Washington DC dyad, exemplify as good reference for us to understand how to ‘read’ the city in which we live.
Cyberjaya, built by the regime of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, represents a new form of cultural technological syntheis of a bricolage that might interest students of “the sociology of technopoloes” such as Manuel Castells, Peter Hall, Henri Lefevre or our own urban anthropologists/sociologists.
Cyberjaya can be seen as a form of bricolage by the power brokers and policy-implementors in which the deep play of culture is operating at a sophisticated and hegemonic level.
To elaborate this further, I observe that Malaysia not only attempt to harness the power of digital technologies but transform itself ideologically and craft a newer form of civilisation so that her older ideological structures - pre-traditional, sultanate and colonial - can be dismantled.
It is a form of cultural bricolage when the ideas of development and progress as well as the religious dimensions of it are woven into the programme of ‘technological determinism’ (or cultural engineering) and a newer scenario of progress is created.
Transformation underway
We are witnessing a complex picture of the nature of transformation taking shape; one of a complex synthesis of Western developmental iconoclasm with Oriental (Malay, Chinese, and Indian) cultural architectural symbolism. This is a result of historical-material progression of spaces of knowledge and power.
One, for example, sees the architecture of Putrajaya as emblematic of this Western-Orientalist installation of ideology and infrastructure. This picture of change is primarily based on real estate ventures motivated by huge profits.
We can no longer study ‘national development’ from the perspective of outdated theories of development; we need to look at the idea of how nationalism is withering as a consequence of globalisation. We will require Immanuel Wallerstein’s and Andre Gunder Franks’ suggestions via World System’s Theory, as a starting point to look at how our developmentalist ideology works.
Our ‘hyper-modern’ developmentalist project is actually one that is meant to erode nationalism and integrate the nation’s productive forces into this global system of postmodern indentured slavery.
We are seeing more and more of the word ‘cyber’ which is colonising the landscape our mind, our social and political institutions, and our physical institutions. The discourse of social change, names of places, topics of professional conversation are all laced with the idea of cybernetics. The entire landscape of the educational institution such as the Malaysian Multimedia University is filled with the linguistic symbols/names that signify the advent and enculturalisation of the idea of cybernetics.
We are seeing more and more integration of our economies into the international framework of informational capitalism, further relegating our workforce into providers of cheap labour for the owners of the means of intellectual production of informational capital.
We are witnessing the strengthening of the political will to control the loudness of democratic voices that are produced in cyberspace.
We are witnessing the growth of Internet-based journalism, Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today among the most widely known and to which the government pays attention. The speed of erosion of the influence of government-owned media will be determined by the nature of social and political activism that is mounted by the ‘cybernetic-journalism’.
The capability of these independent and more progressive news media in integrating text, audio, and video coupled with the improvement of broadband signals will pose more challenges to traditional, government-owned media such as the newspapers and television.
We are finding out that we will require a set of new tools to pry open the house that Informational Capitalism has built in Malaysia and to understand why it is built, who the inhabitants are, and in what way it might and have become an institution of colonisation.
The tools of analysis provided by our social scientists of the 1970s are no longer useful and accurate in studying the house Malaysians built.
Megatrends for us
The following observations may be useful for us to understand the larger order changes that are happening within the logic of post-modern capitalist accumulation and as Malaysia moves from a society grounded in oral, print and broadcast technologies to digital media.
I foresee the following changes in the way we continue to develop:
1. In a globalised post-industrialist world, the development of a ‘cybernating’ nation will continue to follow, to a degree or another the Center-Periphery perspective of development.
2. Pure historical materialist conception of change cannot fully explain why nations cybernate; the more a nation gets ‘wired’ the more complex the interplay between nationalism and internationalism will be.
3. The more a nation transforms itself cybernetically, the more extensive the enculturalisation of the word ‘cybernetics’ will be. The word will spread into society and takes on a new cultural meaning based on the political-economic reality of the host nation.
4. The extent of the enculturalisation of the concept of ‘cybernetics’ will determine the speed by which a nation will be fully integrated into the global production-house of telematics.
5. The stronger the authority of the regime the greater the control and magnitude of the cybernating process. In a cybernating nation, authority can reside in the political will of a single individual or a strong political entity.
6. The advent of the Internet in a developing nation signifies the genesis of the erosion of the power of government-controlled print media. Universal access to the Internet will determine the total erosion of government-produced print media.
7. Creative consciousness of the peoples of the cybernating nation will be centralised in the area of business and the arts, modeled after successful global corporations.
8. Critical consciousness of the people of the cybernating nation will be centralised in the area of political mobilisation and personal freedom of expression, modeled after successful Internet-based political mobilisation groups.
9. At the macro-level of the development of a nation-state, the contestation of power is between the nation cybernating versus the nations fully cybernated, whereas at the micro level, power is contested between the contending political parties/groups.
10. The more the government suppresses voices of political dissent; the more the Internet is used to affect political transformations.
11. The fundamental character of a nation will be significantly altered with the institutionalisation of the Internet as a tool of cybernating change. The source of change will however be ideologically governed by external influences, which will ultimately threaten the sovereignty of the nation-state.
12. Discourse of change, as evident in the phenomena of cybernation, is embedded in language. The more a foreign concept is introduced, adopted, assimilated, and enculturalized, the more the nation will lose its indigenous character built via schooling and other means of citizenship enculturalisation process.
13. Post-modernist perspectives of social change, rather than those of Structural Functionalists, Marxist, or neo-Marxist, can best explain the structure and consequences of cybernetic changes.
An invitation
These 13 observations most obviously need to be refined in order for us to look at the phenomena of transcultural impact of computer-mediated communications from perspectives beyond ones characterized as pure Structural -Functionalists or neo-Marxists, but it is a start in analysing society in more meaningful ways.
Technological development as it impacts independent nation-states must be looked at from the perspective of borrowing the words of Clifford Geertz, "interplays and deep plays" and how these two notions relate to the transformations of social relations.
These fertile areas of research are even more interesting for us to engage in precisely because the transplantation of dominant concepts can have both hegemonising as well as enculturalising effects with long term-consequences.
I invite Malaysian social scientists, political economists, cultural analysts and educators to explore the observations above using the Grounded Theory Method of analysing higher order changes, so that we may produce theses on the fate of this nation and translate theory into practice.
We set up International Advisory Panels to teach us how to develop linearly and in a certain progression. Because our economists are generally those trained in the Classical and Neo-Classical traditions, we institutionalise them into the economic policy panels and seek from them ideas that will be in sync with those of the members of the advisory panel.
Let us analyse our economic existence and installations differently.
Let us look at the developmental path we have been taking thus far. Putting the once popular American “economic futurologist” John Naisbitt’s prediction aside for a moment, let us look at another set of ‘megatrends’ that is shaping us.
Using Cyberjaya as a case of a ‘technopole’ a city that is run on fiber optics rather than one viewed as a metropole such as Kuala Lumpur, I propose that the following trends will further flourish and develop as this nation moves along the hyper-modernist developmental path.
The French word bricolage used in social and cultural analyses might be useful in this context: that the elements of cultures form different sources are gathered and synthesised to create a tapestry of base and superstructural quilt of the emerging nation that wishes to speed up its developmental process.
Case in point
Let us look at what is going to be happening to this technologised nation, taking Cyberjaya as a case in point.
As we go into the futuristic city of Cyberjaya, we may begin to ask ourselves what the nature of this city and reality is: what necessitates the birth of this phenomena?
Cyberjaya as a modern business capital and Putrajaya as its administrative capital, modeled after the New York-Washington DC dyad, exemplify as good reference for us to understand how to ‘read’ the city in which we live.
Cyberjaya, built by the regime of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, represents a new form of cultural technological syntheis of a bricolage that might interest students of “the sociology of technopoloes” such as Manuel Castells, Peter Hall, Henri Lefevre or our own urban anthropologists/sociologists.
Cyberjaya can be seen as a form of bricolage by the power brokers and policy-implementors in which the deep play of culture is operating at a sophisticated and hegemonic level.
To elaborate this further, I observe that Malaysia not only attempt to harness the power of digital technologies but transform itself ideologically and craft a newer form of civilisation so that her older ideological structures - pre-traditional, sultanate and colonial - can be dismantled.
It is a form of cultural bricolage when the ideas of development and progress as well as the religious dimensions of it are woven into the programme of ‘technological determinism’ (or cultural engineering) and a newer scenario of progress is created.
Transformation underway
We are witnessing a complex picture of the nature of transformation taking shape; one of a complex synthesis of Western developmental iconoclasm with Oriental (Malay, Chinese, and Indian) cultural architectural symbolism. This is a result of historical-material progression of spaces of knowledge and power.
One, for example, sees the architecture of Putrajaya as emblematic of this Western-Orientalist installation of ideology and infrastructure. This picture of change is primarily based on real estate ventures motivated by huge profits.
We can no longer study ‘national development’ from the perspective of outdated theories of development; we need to look at the idea of how nationalism is withering as a consequence of globalisation. We will require Immanuel Wallerstein’s and Andre Gunder Franks’ suggestions via World System’s Theory, as a starting point to look at how our developmentalist ideology works.
Our ‘hyper-modern’ developmentalist project is actually one that is meant to erode nationalism and integrate the nation’s productive forces into this global system of postmodern indentured slavery.
We are seeing more and more of the word ‘cyber’ which is colonising the landscape our mind, our social and political institutions, and our physical institutions. The discourse of social change, names of places, topics of professional conversation are all laced with the idea of cybernetics. The entire landscape of the educational institution such as the Malaysian Multimedia University is filled with the linguistic symbols/names that signify the advent and enculturalisation of the idea of cybernetics.
We are seeing more and more integration of our economies into the international framework of informational capitalism, further relegating our workforce into providers of cheap labour for the owners of the means of intellectual production of informational capital.
We are witnessing the strengthening of the political will to control the loudness of democratic voices that are produced in cyberspace.
We are witnessing the growth of Internet-based journalism, Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today among the most widely known and to which the government pays attention. The speed of erosion of the influence of government-owned media will be determined by the nature of social and political activism that is mounted by the ‘cybernetic-journalism’.
The capability of these independent and more progressive news media in integrating text, audio, and video coupled with the improvement of broadband signals will pose more challenges to traditional, government-owned media such as the newspapers and television.
We are finding out that we will require a set of new tools to pry open the house that Informational Capitalism has built in Malaysia and to understand why it is built, who the inhabitants are, and in what way it might and have become an institution of colonisation.
The tools of analysis provided by our social scientists of the 1970s are no longer useful and accurate in studying the house Malaysians built.
Megatrends for us
The following observations may be useful for us to understand the larger order changes that are happening within the logic of post-modern capitalist accumulation and as Malaysia moves from a society grounded in oral, print and broadcast technologies to digital media.
I foresee the following changes in the way we continue to develop:
1. In a globalised post-industrialist world, the development of a ‘cybernating’ nation will continue to follow, to a degree or another the Center-Periphery perspective of development.
2. Pure historical materialist conception of change cannot fully explain why nations cybernate; the more a nation gets ‘wired’ the more complex the interplay between nationalism and internationalism will be.
3. The more a nation transforms itself cybernetically, the more extensive the enculturalisation of the word ‘cybernetics’ will be. The word will spread into society and takes on a new cultural meaning based on the political-economic reality of the host nation.
4. The extent of the enculturalisation of the concept of ‘cybernetics’ will determine the speed by which a nation will be fully integrated into the global production-house of telematics.
5. The stronger the authority of the regime the greater the control and magnitude of the cybernating process. In a cybernating nation, authority can reside in the political will of a single individual or a strong political entity.
6. The advent of the Internet in a developing nation signifies the genesis of the erosion of the power of government-controlled print media. Universal access to the Internet will determine the total erosion of government-produced print media.
7. Creative consciousness of the peoples of the cybernating nation will be centralised in the area of business and the arts, modeled after successful global corporations.
8. Critical consciousness of the people of the cybernating nation will be centralised in the area of political mobilisation and personal freedom of expression, modeled after successful Internet-based political mobilisation groups.
9. At the macro-level of the development of a nation-state, the contestation of power is between the nation cybernating versus the nations fully cybernated, whereas at the micro level, power is contested between the contending political parties/groups.
10. The more the government suppresses voices of political dissent; the more the Internet is used to affect political transformations.
11. The fundamental character of a nation will be significantly altered with the institutionalisation of the Internet as a tool of cybernating change. The source of change will however be ideologically governed by external influences, which will ultimately threaten the sovereignty of the nation-state.
12. Discourse of change, as evident in the phenomena of cybernation, is embedded in language. The more a foreign concept is introduced, adopted, assimilated, and enculturalized, the more the nation will lose its indigenous character built via schooling and other means of citizenship enculturalisation process.
13. Post-modernist perspectives of social change, rather than those of Structural Functionalists, Marxist, or neo-Marxist, can best explain the structure and consequences of cybernetic changes.
An invitation
These 13 observations most obviously need to be refined in order for us to look at the phenomena of transcultural impact of computer-mediated communications from perspectives beyond ones characterized as pure Structural -Functionalists or neo-Marxists, but it is a start in analysing society in more meaningful ways.
Technological development as it impacts independent nation-states must be looked at from the perspective of borrowing the words of Clifford Geertz, "interplays and deep plays" and how these two notions relate to the transformations of social relations.
These fertile areas of research are even more interesting for us to engage in precisely because the transplantation of dominant concepts can have both hegemonising as well as enculturalising effects with long term-consequences.
I invite Malaysian social scientists, political economists, cultural analysts and educators to explore the observations above using the Grounded Theory Method of analysing higher order changes, so that we may produce theses on the fate of this nation and translate theory into practice.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Japan under siege – sort of - Josh Hong
For a country that has been so used to hearing positive views from its neighbours, it does take courage to digest the increasingly unfavourable coverage and commentary from around the world.
No country is born well disposed to critical reports on its domestic and foreign affairs and, in the case of Japan, the volume of bad press that it has been getting in recent months has no doubt put the tenacity of the Koizumi government under the severest test.
With the blessing of the United States, which was at the forefront of containing the influence of the Soviets and the Chinese in the 1960s and 1970s, Japan initiated its peace diplomacy by bringing Southeast Asia into its orbit, promising the region economic assistance and technological transfer.
In the early 1980s, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad anchored Malaysia’s economy firmly into that of Japan by launching the Look East Policy, which included predominantly Japan and ceremonially South Korea (and please don’t ask why Singapore, as a developed state, failed to entice Dr M). For the next two decades, it was all dandy as far as Malaysia-Japan relations were concerned.
As a result, it came nearly as a bombshell to Tokyo when Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi broke the tradition and presented a more balanced position on the Sino-Japanese dispute over war atrocities and history last June. Given that it has come from one of Japan’s friendliest neighbours, Koizumi does have reasons to be fidgety.
From the Japanese perspective, it is rich of China to demand heartfelt apologies from Japan when Beijing has failed to show remorse for the lives lost under communist rule. Quite true. But Japan’s much repeated contrition has always been tinged with an instrumentalist agenda and issued from its position as an economic power. Even when it says it aspires to understand its Asian neighbours better, it continues to live comfortably under the auspice of the mighty and hegemonic US.
(To be fair, Abdullah has also been smart enough by making use of the occasion of the 600th Anniversary of Zhenghe’s Expedition to remind Beijing of the need to remain a benign power, as brilliantly explored by Jiang Yuhang, a commentator with the Chinese version of the Asia Times. Interestingly, the more Beijing emphasises on its peaceful rise, the more it is viewed with suspicion. Such is the price to pay for being a power.)
Serious doubt is also cast on Japan’s recent bid for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat when the United States, its principal backer, reiterated Washington’s support for Japan but not other bidding candidates with which Japan has bound itself, namely Brazil (too fearsome a giant in US backyard, too nightmarish a pact between de Silva and Chavez), Germany (too unfriendly by opposing the Iraq War) and India (still too friendly with Russia).
Nuclear ambitions
Moreover, the Bush administration has time and again made clear its opposition to granting veto power to any of the new permanent member, rendering the newcomers, if they do eventually make it, nothing but sycophants to the original big five.
But Japan’s argument that its entry into the UNSC would provide a non-nuclear element to the most powerful council on earth no longer holds water in the wake of its nuclear ambitions, with the connivance of the US. Being the only country to have gone through the ordeal of atomic bombing, the Japanese nation has long allowed its historical memory to be frozen at Hiroshima, highlighting its image as an ultimate victim of war rather an aggressor. As such, Japan has been at the forefront of the non-nuclear campaign worldwide, canonised by its much touted three non-nuclear principles – until now.
Since the Iraq War in 2003, Japan, again with the abetment of the US, has been portraying itself as a ‘normal country’ deserving of an ‘independent’ defence policy, much as other sovereign states are in the world, including the right to nuclearise its defence system, not to mention Koizumi’s constant water testing by raising the prospect of revising Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution that renounces war, thus making it possible for Tokyo to form a military truly capable of projecting power abroad.
There is clearly no greater conundrum than to see the officials in Tokyo contradict Japan’s peaceful role with its need to go nuke. As rightly pointed by Anthony DiFilippo, a respected and serious strategic analyst, Tokyo, although urging strongly for nuclear-free zones around the globe, has never favoured one for Northeast Asia precisely because ‘Washington has never ruled out the first use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict with either North Korea or China’.
No doubt, the bellicose Pyongyang and the seemingly increasingly assertive Beijing have sharpened the siege mentality of Tokyo, forcing it to pander more to the pre-emptive strike doctrine of the Bush administration. But this extremely intimate relationship of Japan with the US is too much a destabilising factor in the Asia-Pacific region already strewn with potential conflict ranging from terrorist threat to the Taiwan dispute.
Critical report
To add fuel to the fire, Washington has taken Japan on board in the former’s space policy. According to Bruce K. Gagnon of The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Japan is ready to spend one-third of its space budget on military reconnaissance and war fighting satellites manufactured by Mitsubishi.
And, finally, even the United Nations, which Tokyo has long been among its strongest and richest paymasters, has embarrassed Japan by publishing a highly critical report on Japanese racism. One wonders how Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro can keep himself from losing sleep over the troubles ahead in this very testing time.
The great sinologist Yoshimi Takeuchi said fifty years ago that Japan had attached too much importance to form and too little to substance when it came to the issue of independence, writing, ‘We as a nation are only independent in name, and enslaved by others. As such, we became the war trash of imperialism, and our occupation [by the US] today is only a natural consequence.’
Perhaps, Takeuchi would be most sad to know his painful but honest reminder has fallen on deaf ears.
No country is born well disposed to critical reports on its domestic and foreign affairs and, in the case of Japan, the volume of bad press that it has been getting in recent months has no doubt put the tenacity of the Koizumi government under the severest test.
With the blessing of the United States, which was at the forefront of containing the influence of the Soviets and the Chinese in the 1960s and 1970s, Japan initiated its peace diplomacy by bringing Southeast Asia into its orbit, promising the region economic assistance and technological transfer.
In the early 1980s, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad anchored Malaysia’s economy firmly into that of Japan by launching the Look East Policy, which included predominantly Japan and ceremonially South Korea (and please don’t ask why Singapore, as a developed state, failed to entice Dr M). For the next two decades, it was all dandy as far as Malaysia-Japan relations were concerned.
As a result, it came nearly as a bombshell to Tokyo when Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi broke the tradition and presented a more balanced position on the Sino-Japanese dispute over war atrocities and history last June. Given that it has come from one of Japan’s friendliest neighbours, Koizumi does have reasons to be fidgety.
From the Japanese perspective, it is rich of China to demand heartfelt apologies from Japan when Beijing has failed to show remorse for the lives lost under communist rule. Quite true. But Japan’s much repeated contrition has always been tinged with an instrumentalist agenda and issued from its position as an economic power. Even when it says it aspires to understand its Asian neighbours better, it continues to live comfortably under the auspice of the mighty and hegemonic US.
(To be fair, Abdullah has also been smart enough by making use of the occasion of the 600th Anniversary of Zhenghe’s Expedition to remind Beijing of the need to remain a benign power, as brilliantly explored by Jiang Yuhang, a commentator with the Chinese version of the Asia Times. Interestingly, the more Beijing emphasises on its peaceful rise, the more it is viewed with suspicion. Such is the price to pay for being a power.)
Serious doubt is also cast on Japan’s recent bid for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat when the United States, its principal backer, reiterated Washington’s support for Japan but not other bidding candidates with which Japan has bound itself, namely Brazil (too fearsome a giant in US backyard, too nightmarish a pact between de Silva and Chavez), Germany (too unfriendly by opposing the Iraq War) and India (still too friendly with Russia).
Nuclear ambitions
Moreover, the Bush administration has time and again made clear its opposition to granting veto power to any of the new permanent member, rendering the newcomers, if they do eventually make it, nothing but sycophants to the original big five.
But Japan’s argument that its entry into the UNSC would provide a non-nuclear element to the most powerful council on earth no longer holds water in the wake of its nuclear ambitions, with the connivance of the US. Being the only country to have gone through the ordeal of atomic bombing, the Japanese nation has long allowed its historical memory to be frozen at Hiroshima, highlighting its image as an ultimate victim of war rather an aggressor. As such, Japan has been at the forefront of the non-nuclear campaign worldwide, canonised by its much touted three non-nuclear principles – until now.
Since the Iraq War in 2003, Japan, again with the abetment of the US, has been portraying itself as a ‘normal country’ deserving of an ‘independent’ defence policy, much as other sovereign states are in the world, including the right to nuclearise its defence system, not to mention Koizumi’s constant water testing by raising the prospect of revising Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution that renounces war, thus making it possible for Tokyo to form a military truly capable of projecting power abroad.
There is clearly no greater conundrum than to see the officials in Tokyo contradict Japan’s peaceful role with its need to go nuke. As rightly pointed by Anthony DiFilippo, a respected and serious strategic analyst, Tokyo, although urging strongly for nuclear-free zones around the globe, has never favoured one for Northeast Asia precisely because ‘Washington has never ruled out the first use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict with either North Korea or China’.
No doubt, the bellicose Pyongyang and the seemingly increasingly assertive Beijing have sharpened the siege mentality of Tokyo, forcing it to pander more to the pre-emptive strike doctrine of the Bush administration. But this extremely intimate relationship of Japan with the US is too much a destabilising factor in the Asia-Pacific region already strewn with potential conflict ranging from terrorist threat to the Taiwan dispute.
Critical report
To add fuel to the fire, Washington has taken Japan on board in the former’s space policy. According to Bruce K. Gagnon of The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Japan is ready to spend one-third of its space budget on military reconnaissance and war fighting satellites manufactured by Mitsubishi.
And, finally, even the United Nations, which Tokyo has long been among its strongest and richest paymasters, has embarrassed Japan by publishing a highly critical report on Japanese racism. One wonders how Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro can keep himself from losing sleep over the troubles ahead in this very testing time.
The great sinologist Yoshimi Takeuchi said fifty years ago that Japan had attached too much importance to form and too little to substance when it came to the issue of independence, writing, ‘We as a nation are only independent in name, and enslaved by others. As such, we became the war trash of imperialism, and our occupation [by the US] today is only a natural consequence.’
Perhaps, Takeuchi would be most sad to know his painful but honest reminder has fallen on deaf ears.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Are we in denial? - Idlan Zakaria
Guest writer Idlan Zakaria writes for 'I Am Muslim' from the UK:
"Are your people in denial?" she asked me. She was curious, really. Had no malicious intent. She just... wanted to know, this colleague of mine.
"My people?" I asked. "Who do you mean? Malaysians? Students?" I adjusted my snow cap. It was getting ridiculous, wearing a snow cap in this sweltering weather, on top of the tudung as well, but it was for safety reasons that I switched from the preppy, student-like look to the misguided, misplaced hip-hop style. I didn’t want to be a moving shooting range for some deranged racist BNP type.
"No, I meant you Muslims," she replied. "Are you people in denial that al-Qaeda are behind the attacks in London? Isn't it blatantly obvious that they are?" I scratched my head, not really out of confusion, but, damn, the snow cap was making my head hot. How on earth do the kids do it, walking around in hooded tops in 32 degrees heat in Malaysia?
It seems so futile
Anyway, I wanted to launch into a full-fledged speech about the beauty of Islam, the absurdness of anyone even thinking that Muslims could perpetrate this very act, and the hurt that I felt that anyone would insinuate this. But I was mentally composing my answer, I thought about her question. "Are your people in denial?" Are we? And if so, why?
In the aftermath of the London bombings (after the use of the b-word after the names of other cities, I have always dreaded the day I would use a British city as a prefix to the phrase), the media was careful to paint the correct picture of Muslims in light of recent events.
Knowing full well that racist louts, yobs and their kindreds would not take too kindly against a people they already abhor anyway, TV stations were quick to emphasise that this was not the work of Muslims; that Muslims, just like any other Londoner, were suffering just as much; that the bodies of those dead in the wreckage were as likely to be Asian as they were to be Caucasian; and most importantly, the Islamic community should not suffer for acts perpetrated by people no one has been able to conclusively identify at the time of writing.
Much hoohaa has been made over this being an al-Qaeda job, but there are no sureties. No arrests have been made, no conclusive leads are being followed. Just a lot of fingerpointing, namecalling and smearing. My mind wanders back to the 'Arab' that bombed the building in Oklahoma City; one who went by the name of Timothy McVeigh. Apparently, I am told we, as a community, have yet to receive a formal apology for that one.
But back to the question that I was asked. Are we in denial? Why are Muslims very skeptical and easily angered by insinuations of al-Qaeda being behind terrorist atrocities? I have no conclusive evidence, but here are my theories that I lay open for you to dissect.
Perhaps, first and foremost, Muslims reject the idea of al-Qaeda being behind this because al-Qaeda is purported to be an ideology based on the teachings of Islam, and yet the average Muslim, even those on the more right-wing of the spectrum, are very unfamiliar with the use of violence, terror and murder of civilians as a methodology to achieve an end.
We are taught that Islam is a religion of compassion; we are told of stories of the benevolence of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w; of his own patience when he was struck by the disbelievers in Taif; of exercising sympathy and respect even in warfare. We are reminded of great Muslim warriors like Salahuddin al-Ayubi, who fought wars but earned respect from both sides for his good heart. We are taught about love, sharing and caring; we are taught about tolerance and loving our neighbours; we are taught about seeing beyond the racial divide, and living in harmony with others of different faiths, or even the faithless.
All these teachings contradict greatly with violence we see these people perpetrate in the name of our religion. That is why we are angry when people associate terrorists with us. We are not in denial, but we reject your notions that these people are one of us, because their traits and their beliefs are so, so foreign to us.
We're skeptical
Secondly, I conjecture that Muslims are skeptical about the very existence of al-Qaeda itself. It is an idea, a construct, a nexus that no one can place a stronghold on, a theory.
Some believe it is a convenient excuse created by intelligence agencies to smear the name of Islam; others believe it is the work of the Zionist movement who are allegedly silently controlling the world these days. Conspiracy theories are abound in even moderate Muslim websites, and while some believe such theories are farfetched, others are equally quickly to dampen them not because of the lack of truth, but because of the unthinkable horror should these theories carry any weight.
It isn’t as if we aren’t used to being lied to. America and their allies led troops on a merry war into Iraq justifying it on weapons that did not exist, and a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq that was so loose, a newborn baby could have tugged at its strings and all would have been unbraided. So when you say, "This is the work of al-Qaeda," we are skeptical first of all, that al-Qaeda even exists. And given that they do, we are not quite sure who al-Qaeda are. You tell us it’s Osama and co, but you’ve lied to us before, why should we believe you this time?
Thirdly, many Muslims are incensed at the speed of which the blame was trained on al-Qaeda, solely based on a website forum posting which was so open, a CIA agent or your very Caucasian neighbour could have put it up. The forensics had yet to clear the crime scene, the body of some of those who perished are still down in that tunnel below Kings’ Cross, the bus in Russel Square was barely cordoned off: and yet word was spread around as if it was the gospel truth: al-Qaeda did this.
One understands the fear and insecurity that lack of clarity creates; that as humans there is a sense of security, however false, when we know who did what, as opposed to facing a phantom villain no one can name, never mind put a face on.
But the speed at which the blame was placed hurt, and the ramifications of the instant finger-pointing did not help the barrage of abuse Muslims were already beginning to receive mere hours after the bombs were detonated. Innocent until proven guilty has no place in today’s world, but as the headlines of Friday the 8th claimed al-Qaeda was responsible, one could not help but cringe at the swiftness of it all. They may, or may not, be the culprit in the end, but was there real necessity in the instant justice, in the absence of conclusive evidence?
But when we condemn these bombings, we must not be hypocritical. We must remember that the very government expressing outrage at the attacks on their people are also the very government sanctioning similar bombings in other places around the world. We can’t ignore the fact that while we are angry at the way our lives are trying to be disrupted by these senseless killings, a few thousands miles to our East, similar senseless deaths are happening too.
Having said that, in the same way that those in the Middle East do not deserve to die, neither did those in London, Madrid, New York and everywhere else where terrorists have stricken. We can’t differentiate these deaths; they are human lives at the end of the day, and are not collateral damage in a war no one really wants.
Catch-22
While we must not encourage a very high-risk game of tit-for-tat, we also have to acknowledge that the end of these bombings will not come with the arrests of the person or people who placed these bombs on those trains and that bus. If it did, then the nonsensical incarcerations of men without charge at Guantanamo Bay would have long solved the problem. March 11th and July 7th should not have happened. The root of the matter lies a whole lot deeper than that, but sadly, I do not forsee anyone in power willing to swallow their pride and admit this.
As very aptly put by the Chancellor himself in the Star Wars movies, "Those in power fear one thing – that of losing it", there can only be one way to go for the president or prime minister who admits that their skewed foreign policies may have invited these atrocities onto their homeland: and it isn’t up.
Even though I’ve lived abroad for a while, I have only been in Britain, so my observations are admittedly skewed. But I like it here where differences, to a large extent, are celebrated, and nowhere is it more pronounced than in London; where I can walk down Tottenham Court Road to find halal eateries; where every corner I turn, I am amazed to hear a British voice, as nine times out of ten, every Caucasian I pass are European; where even in their solitary and individualistic attitudes, there is a collective togetherness about them.
Yes, I find my own Lancaster a lot friendlier, but I am not comparing like for like. My friends call me an idealist to a fault, and perhaps I am, and perhaps it is a fault. But in light of recent events, I can’t help but think what a better place this world would be if we put aside our egos, personal interests and stereotypes, and stopped to listen to what others have to say, even for a minute. One can, but hope, even if ultimately in vain.
"Are your people in denial?" she asked me. She was curious, really. Had no malicious intent. She just... wanted to know, this colleague of mine.
"My people?" I asked. "Who do you mean? Malaysians? Students?" I adjusted my snow cap. It was getting ridiculous, wearing a snow cap in this sweltering weather, on top of the tudung as well, but it was for safety reasons that I switched from the preppy, student-like look to the misguided, misplaced hip-hop style. I didn’t want to be a moving shooting range for some deranged racist BNP type.
"No, I meant you Muslims," she replied. "Are you people in denial that al-Qaeda are behind the attacks in London? Isn't it blatantly obvious that they are?" I scratched my head, not really out of confusion, but, damn, the snow cap was making my head hot. How on earth do the kids do it, walking around in hooded tops in 32 degrees heat in Malaysia?
It seems so futile
Anyway, I wanted to launch into a full-fledged speech about the beauty of Islam, the absurdness of anyone even thinking that Muslims could perpetrate this very act, and the hurt that I felt that anyone would insinuate this. But I was mentally composing my answer, I thought about her question. "Are your people in denial?" Are we? And if so, why?
In the aftermath of the London bombings (after the use of the b-word after the names of other cities, I have always dreaded the day I would use a British city as a prefix to the phrase), the media was careful to paint the correct picture of Muslims in light of recent events.
Knowing full well that racist louts, yobs and their kindreds would not take too kindly against a people they already abhor anyway, TV stations were quick to emphasise that this was not the work of Muslims; that Muslims, just like any other Londoner, were suffering just as much; that the bodies of those dead in the wreckage were as likely to be Asian as they were to be Caucasian; and most importantly, the Islamic community should not suffer for acts perpetrated by people no one has been able to conclusively identify at the time of writing.
Much hoohaa has been made over this being an al-Qaeda job, but there are no sureties. No arrests have been made, no conclusive leads are being followed. Just a lot of fingerpointing, namecalling and smearing. My mind wanders back to the 'Arab' that bombed the building in Oklahoma City; one who went by the name of Timothy McVeigh. Apparently, I am told we, as a community, have yet to receive a formal apology for that one.
But back to the question that I was asked. Are we in denial? Why are Muslims very skeptical and easily angered by insinuations of al-Qaeda being behind terrorist atrocities? I have no conclusive evidence, but here are my theories that I lay open for you to dissect.
Perhaps, first and foremost, Muslims reject the idea of al-Qaeda being behind this because al-Qaeda is purported to be an ideology based on the teachings of Islam, and yet the average Muslim, even those on the more right-wing of the spectrum, are very unfamiliar with the use of violence, terror and murder of civilians as a methodology to achieve an end.
We are taught that Islam is a religion of compassion; we are told of stories of the benevolence of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w; of his own patience when he was struck by the disbelievers in Taif; of exercising sympathy and respect even in warfare. We are reminded of great Muslim warriors like Salahuddin al-Ayubi, who fought wars but earned respect from both sides for his good heart. We are taught about love, sharing and caring; we are taught about tolerance and loving our neighbours; we are taught about seeing beyond the racial divide, and living in harmony with others of different faiths, or even the faithless.
All these teachings contradict greatly with violence we see these people perpetrate in the name of our religion. That is why we are angry when people associate terrorists with us. We are not in denial, but we reject your notions that these people are one of us, because their traits and their beliefs are so, so foreign to us.
We're skeptical
Secondly, I conjecture that Muslims are skeptical about the very existence of al-Qaeda itself. It is an idea, a construct, a nexus that no one can place a stronghold on, a theory.
Some believe it is a convenient excuse created by intelligence agencies to smear the name of Islam; others believe it is the work of the Zionist movement who are allegedly silently controlling the world these days. Conspiracy theories are abound in even moderate Muslim websites, and while some believe such theories are farfetched, others are equally quickly to dampen them not because of the lack of truth, but because of the unthinkable horror should these theories carry any weight.
It isn’t as if we aren’t used to being lied to. America and their allies led troops on a merry war into Iraq justifying it on weapons that did not exist, and a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq that was so loose, a newborn baby could have tugged at its strings and all would have been unbraided. So when you say, "This is the work of al-Qaeda," we are skeptical first of all, that al-Qaeda even exists. And given that they do, we are not quite sure who al-Qaeda are. You tell us it’s Osama and co, but you’ve lied to us before, why should we believe you this time?
Thirdly, many Muslims are incensed at the speed of which the blame was trained on al-Qaeda, solely based on a website forum posting which was so open, a CIA agent or your very Caucasian neighbour could have put it up. The forensics had yet to clear the crime scene, the body of some of those who perished are still down in that tunnel below Kings’ Cross, the bus in Russel Square was barely cordoned off: and yet word was spread around as if it was the gospel truth: al-Qaeda did this.
One understands the fear and insecurity that lack of clarity creates; that as humans there is a sense of security, however false, when we know who did what, as opposed to facing a phantom villain no one can name, never mind put a face on.
But the speed at which the blame was placed hurt, and the ramifications of the instant finger-pointing did not help the barrage of abuse Muslims were already beginning to receive mere hours after the bombs were detonated. Innocent until proven guilty has no place in today’s world, but as the headlines of Friday the 8th claimed al-Qaeda was responsible, one could not help but cringe at the swiftness of it all. They may, or may not, be the culprit in the end, but was there real necessity in the instant justice, in the absence of conclusive evidence?
But when we condemn these bombings, we must not be hypocritical. We must remember that the very government expressing outrage at the attacks on their people are also the very government sanctioning similar bombings in other places around the world. We can’t ignore the fact that while we are angry at the way our lives are trying to be disrupted by these senseless killings, a few thousands miles to our East, similar senseless deaths are happening too.
Having said that, in the same way that those in the Middle East do not deserve to die, neither did those in London, Madrid, New York and everywhere else where terrorists have stricken. We can’t differentiate these deaths; they are human lives at the end of the day, and are not collateral damage in a war no one really wants.
Catch-22
While we must not encourage a very high-risk game of tit-for-tat, we also have to acknowledge that the end of these bombings will not come with the arrests of the person or people who placed these bombs on those trains and that bus. If it did, then the nonsensical incarcerations of men without charge at Guantanamo Bay would have long solved the problem. March 11th and July 7th should not have happened. The root of the matter lies a whole lot deeper than that, but sadly, I do not forsee anyone in power willing to swallow their pride and admit this.
As very aptly put by the Chancellor himself in the Star Wars movies, "Those in power fear one thing – that of losing it", there can only be one way to go for the president or prime minister who admits that their skewed foreign policies may have invited these atrocities onto their homeland: and it isn’t up.
Even though I’ve lived abroad for a while, I have only been in Britain, so my observations are admittedly skewed. But I like it here where differences, to a large extent, are celebrated, and nowhere is it more pronounced than in London; where I can walk down Tottenham Court Road to find halal eateries; where every corner I turn, I am amazed to hear a British voice, as nine times out of ten, every Caucasian I pass are European; where even in their solitary and individualistic attitudes, there is a collective togetherness about them.
Yes, I find my own Lancaster a lot friendlier, but I am not comparing like for like. My friends call me an idealist to a fault, and perhaps I am, and perhaps it is a fault. But in light of recent events, I can’t help but think what a better place this world would be if we put aside our egos, personal interests and stereotypes, and stopped to listen to what others have to say, even for a minute. One can, but hope, even if ultimately in vain.
Constructive politics and citizenry - Rais Imran
I think politicians (anywhere in the world, for that matter) can only be as constructive, as to the extent to which we voters, hold them accountable. It's just that in Malaysia, the pervasiveness of politics and politicians, in everything we do, can be rather extreme. And much of it, is due to the historical baggage that we have and our efforts to overcome it.
Let's just take the numbers. Barisan Nasional is made of up of many component parties of which the biggest UMNO, MCA, MIC. As a collective, the membership of these 3 component parties make up at least 4.5 million people, out of a Malaysian citizens base of 24.3 million.
That's approximately 19% and close to one-fifth of total Malaysian citizenship, is Barisan member. That's not counting yet, the other Barisan component parties like Gerakan, the coalition of East Malaysian political parties, etc. If we add as well, the PAS membership (which is estimated to be above 600,000 people) and Opposition parties like DAP and Keadilan, etc., it would probably come close to about 6 million people - close to 25% of the total citizenship.
1 in 4 Malaysians, have chosen their political allegiance. More than 75% of members of all local political parties, are from Barisan. That's a lot of people, considering that not all citizens are of voting age or old enough to be in a political party.
It's a unique situation. On the potential side, if the political parties are led well, it has the potential to shape the minds and decisions of the remaining 3
out of 4 Malaysians. If led badly, it also has the potential to corrupt and/or disrupt 3 out of 4 Malaysians, not to mention, making it a very difficult problem to contain.
It's the 3 out of 4 Malaysians, that we popularly call the "silent majority". Most of them come out once every 5 years and consistently give Barisan at least, two-thirds of parliamentary constituencies, each time. (What would generally be termed, "a strong Government") Some states like Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Sarawak can usually deliver all 100% of the parliamentary seats, in their states.
So, politics is pervasive in Malaysia. And more so, Barisan politicians are pervasive in Malaysia. And at the apex of Barisan, is UMNO - with 3.2 million
members representing close to 16 million Bumiputras and approximately 66% of the population - and rising.
If the demographic patterns and trends continue - that's a fact that's not going to change, anytime soon. Such big ruling grassroots parties are both a boon and
a bane to to their leaders. On the one hand, such a big support ensures continuity and succession and on the other hand, there are so many of them to "feed", that under a weak leader, the tail may be wagging the dog.
The options is clear: if we choose to have such strong Governments (read: anywhere between 67% - 90% of Parliamentary seats) and a weak Opposition, then the only effective check and balance that we have - are the citizens ourselves and the media, both print and electronic. Having said that, a few measures that I would suggest for having more constructive politics in Malaysia, going forward (and from there, constructive politicians hopefully) are as follows:-
Understand the effects of globalization and educate others about it. It's a fact of life and it's here to stay. Manufacturing jobs are being outsourced to cheaper countries, market barriers and tariffs are coming down, foreign players are coming in and we have to compete and get into the markets of others, government subsidies and protection are getting harder to sustain in all areas, goods and services are getting cheaper globally, our growth is dependent on exports and we have no choice but to move up the value chain, to more value-added goods, services and technology.
Quality of education, human capital and migration trends of global human capital, are paramount considerations for building international competitiveness. It's a dense message to convey, but it will be the most important message in our lifetime, if we are to ensure Malaysia's continued survival. It's not about whether you believe in the free market theories or not.
The problem with economic ideologies is that it does not tell you how to govern the unique political circumstances of your country. Only you can determine that. It's about governing Malaysia and what's suitable for it, in the short and long run, considering our unique multi-ethnic demographics and circumstances and restructuring of society efforts, through redressing economic imbalances - which is key to our political stability.
Once we understand what's coming, get yourself in the mindframe and shoes of those who lead the country. Try to understand their difficulties and constraints, but nevertheless, consider all options. Discuss, debate, research and weigh all the possibilities and options, with many parties and experts.
Listen, question, check your facts, absorb and ponder. Always be open to the possibility that you might be wrong - intellectual integrity is a must. Consider the sensitivities of all, in coming up with any suggestions.
Concede where you must, but do not compromise on points which will threaten the long-term survival of the country. Keep what you can and what is crucial, to national sovereignty and political stability. Relinquish the parts which you cannot protect or which is not sustainable.
Always protect the poor, but start drawing lines against people who are highly educated, rich and undeserving of further help. And after that, disseminate and educate. Start with your family, relatives and workplace.
Talk to your MPs and Ministers, send letters and memorandums to Ministries and newspapers. Go make friends with Dato' Shahrir Samad and the Backbenchers Club and help keep their newly-appointed researchers informed. The Backbenchers need data, feedback and information to keep the Government in check.
Demand that Parliamentary proceedings be televised, so that our elected parliamentarians know that they cannot act like children and bigots, on taxpayers'
money. And if they do, publicly censure them, via the media. Join an organisation/NGO of your choice, get on the ground and know the issues.
Attend policy dialogues and help monitor the effectiveness and consistency of
Government implementation. Remember, what doesn't get informed - doesn't get resolved. Where you can, help with the implementation - if not at the national level, then at your local level. Every little bit helps.
Expose corruption and abuses and if necessary, call Karam Singh Walia of TV3. And more importantly, educate others on globalization(especially the poor and the underprivileged) that do not yet know what's coming and tell them what they can do to help themselves. Break it up into easy chunks to understand (like Dr. M always did in his speeches) and relate it to issues in their everyday life.
They have to know the issues, so that they can be prepared for the necessary changes and not be shell-shocked when it comes. They have to know the issues, so that they would not be fooled by political demagogues, who constantly play the race card, to gain support and votes. Or for these party demagogues to resist some of the necessary
reforms, that the PM is pushing for.
They have to know the issues, so that necessary assistance allocated to the poor, are actually given to the poor, ONLY - and that the middle class and the rich do not unfairly ride on their backs, of their "eradication of poverty" entitlement. Fight with the "big picture" in mind - it will be a long, hard and often, frustrating road. But keep yourself going, with small victories here and there.
If you've done your bit to make Malaysia a better place, you've been a good citizen.
If we make the average Malaysian more informed and hold our politicians accountable in check with facts, knowledge, monitoring of Government policies/implementation and voluntary on-the-ground initiatives (as opposed to purely emotional and racial sentiment) - you will find the quality of debate and constructiveness of our politicians in Parliament, will improve. After all, we can only expect from our politicians, what we ourselves would be willing to do, in their shoes.
Constructive politics begins with constructive citizenry. And bear in mind - that Malaysia a very complex country to govern - both good and bad.
Let's just take the numbers. Barisan Nasional is made of up of many component parties of which the biggest UMNO, MCA, MIC. As a collective, the membership of these 3 component parties make up at least 4.5 million people, out of a Malaysian citizens base of 24.3 million.
That's approximately 19% and close to one-fifth of total Malaysian citizenship, is Barisan member. That's not counting yet, the other Barisan component parties like Gerakan, the coalition of East Malaysian political parties, etc. If we add as well, the PAS membership (which is estimated to be above 600,000 people) and Opposition parties like DAP and Keadilan, etc., it would probably come close to about 6 million people - close to 25% of the total citizenship.
1 in 4 Malaysians, have chosen their political allegiance. More than 75% of members of all local political parties, are from Barisan. That's a lot of people, considering that not all citizens are of voting age or old enough to be in a political party.
It's a unique situation. On the potential side, if the political parties are led well, it has the potential to shape the minds and decisions of the remaining 3
out of 4 Malaysians. If led badly, it also has the potential to corrupt and/or disrupt 3 out of 4 Malaysians, not to mention, making it a very difficult problem to contain.
It's the 3 out of 4 Malaysians, that we popularly call the "silent majority". Most of them come out once every 5 years and consistently give Barisan at least, two-thirds of parliamentary constituencies, each time. (What would generally be termed, "a strong Government") Some states like Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Sarawak can usually deliver all 100% of the parliamentary seats, in their states.
So, politics is pervasive in Malaysia. And more so, Barisan politicians are pervasive in Malaysia. And at the apex of Barisan, is UMNO - with 3.2 million
members representing close to 16 million Bumiputras and approximately 66% of the population - and rising.
If the demographic patterns and trends continue - that's a fact that's not going to change, anytime soon. Such big ruling grassroots parties are both a boon and
a bane to to their leaders. On the one hand, such a big support ensures continuity and succession and on the other hand, there are so many of them to "feed", that under a weak leader, the tail may be wagging the dog.
The options is clear: if we choose to have such strong Governments (read: anywhere between 67% - 90% of Parliamentary seats) and a weak Opposition, then the only effective check and balance that we have - are the citizens ourselves and the media, both print and electronic. Having said that, a few measures that I would suggest for having more constructive politics in Malaysia, going forward (and from there, constructive politicians hopefully) are as follows:-
Understand the effects of globalization and educate others about it. It's a fact of life and it's here to stay. Manufacturing jobs are being outsourced to cheaper countries, market barriers and tariffs are coming down, foreign players are coming in and we have to compete and get into the markets of others, government subsidies and protection are getting harder to sustain in all areas, goods and services are getting cheaper globally, our growth is dependent on exports and we have no choice but to move up the value chain, to more value-added goods, services and technology.
Quality of education, human capital and migration trends of global human capital, are paramount considerations for building international competitiveness. It's a dense message to convey, but it will be the most important message in our lifetime, if we are to ensure Malaysia's continued survival. It's not about whether you believe in the free market theories or not.
The problem with economic ideologies is that it does not tell you how to govern the unique political circumstances of your country. Only you can determine that. It's about governing Malaysia and what's suitable for it, in the short and long run, considering our unique multi-ethnic demographics and circumstances and restructuring of society efforts, through redressing economic imbalances - which is key to our political stability.
Once we understand what's coming, get yourself in the mindframe and shoes of those who lead the country. Try to understand their difficulties and constraints, but nevertheless, consider all options. Discuss, debate, research and weigh all the possibilities and options, with many parties and experts.
Listen, question, check your facts, absorb and ponder. Always be open to the possibility that you might be wrong - intellectual integrity is a must. Consider the sensitivities of all, in coming up with any suggestions.
Concede where you must, but do not compromise on points which will threaten the long-term survival of the country. Keep what you can and what is crucial, to national sovereignty and political stability. Relinquish the parts which you cannot protect or which is not sustainable.
Always protect the poor, but start drawing lines against people who are highly educated, rich and undeserving of further help. And after that, disseminate and educate. Start with your family, relatives and workplace.
Talk to your MPs and Ministers, send letters and memorandums to Ministries and newspapers. Go make friends with Dato' Shahrir Samad and the Backbenchers Club and help keep their newly-appointed researchers informed. The Backbenchers need data, feedback and information to keep the Government in check.
Demand that Parliamentary proceedings be televised, so that our elected parliamentarians know that they cannot act like children and bigots, on taxpayers'
money. And if they do, publicly censure them, via the media. Join an organisation/NGO of your choice, get on the ground and know the issues.
Attend policy dialogues and help monitor the effectiveness and consistency of
Government implementation. Remember, what doesn't get informed - doesn't get resolved. Where you can, help with the implementation - if not at the national level, then at your local level. Every little bit helps.
Expose corruption and abuses and if necessary, call Karam Singh Walia of TV3. And more importantly, educate others on globalization(especially the poor and the underprivileged) that do not yet know what's coming and tell them what they can do to help themselves. Break it up into easy chunks to understand (like Dr. M always did in his speeches) and relate it to issues in their everyday life.
They have to know the issues, so that they can be prepared for the necessary changes and not be shell-shocked when it comes. They have to know the issues, so that they would not be fooled by political demagogues, who constantly play the race card, to gain support and votes. Or for these party demagogues to resist some of the necessary
reforms, that the PM is pushing for.
They have to know the issues, so that necessary assistance allocated to the poor, are actually given to the poor, ONLY - and that the middle class and the rich do not unfairly ride on their backs, of their "eradication of poverty" entitlement. Fight with the "big picture" in mind - it will be a long, hard and often, frustrating road. But keep yourself going, with small victories here and there.
If you've done your bit to make Malaysia a better place, you've been a good citizen.
If we make the average Malaysian more informed and hold our politicians accountable in check with facts, knowledge, monitoring of Government policies/implementation and voluntary on-the-ground initiatives (as opposed to purely emotional and racial sentiment) - you will find the quality of debate and constructiveness of our politicians in Parliament, will improve. After all, we can only expect from our politicians, what we ourselves would be willing to do, in their shoes.
Constructive politics begins with constructive citizenry. And bear in mind - that Malaysia a very complex country to govern - both good and bad.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The syariah court's dilemma - Salbiah Ahmad
Max Weber has made popular his descriptions of the Islamic legal system in which he said decisions were arbitrary. According to Weber, only Western society due to its historical evolution has experienced a legal order based on a rational approach to law.
The Weberian perspectives on Islamic history and society, have been said among others to be based on predetermined paradigms and not on serious research.
What is perceived as arbitrary by the untrained mind is really the wealth of diversity of opinions of jurist-law arrived through ijtihad (independent reasoning). These opinions are not jurisprudentially speaking, arbitrary.
It might be more correct to say that some opinions may be less sound or less ‘authoritative’ on account of the methodology used. You may also end up with several sound opinions over a single issue.
The qadi or syariah judge before the advent of modern-day legislation had the thankless task of applying a juristic opinion from among many, to the dispute before him. Inevitably, the judge has to apply his own judgment in choosing an opinion which might best serve justice. He might also discard the established opinions and apply his own ijtihad.
As in any other legal system, judges may exercise a less than informed judgment and settle on bad law, but this cannot be the reason to view the whole system inferior or irrational.
Jurist-ruler, Umar al-Khattab (AD 634-644) has been known to discard established opinions. Some accounts will justify these ijtihadi derivations as premising on sound methodology. Other accounts classify his decisions as aberrations.
Daunting task
Judgeship in a bygone age was a most daunting task even to the most skilled jurist-judge. Jurists were extremely reluctant to override opinions as a mark of respect for the expertise of other jurists. In some accounts, they did not want to fall stooge to despotic regimes as paid employees. The notion of separation of powers has its roots in these ancient experiences.
Some caliphs have been known to detain ‘errant’ jurists without trial, for their refusal to accept judgeship. When the administration of the glorious Muslim empire became decentralised, this enabled independent-minded jurists to escape particular regimes by migrating to another territory, administered by another caliph-governor. The famous jurist, physician and philosopher, Ibn Sina a.k.a Avicenna (AD 980-1037) escaped political intrigues this way.
The syariah judge in the early Ottoman period had to apply executive decrees in addition to the opinions of jurists. This Ottoman experience in due course became the blueprint for the 19th century phenomenon of codification or legislation of the “personal law” of Muslims in many countries.
Malaysia embarked upon a similar legislative programme for the administration of Muslim law in the 1970s and 1980s. It could be said that the state syariah courts were ‘secularised’ with the advent of legislation. The judge’s jurisdiction is narrowed by a mechanism of the nation-state, to legal provisions which the legislature deem to be the law to be applied on an issue.
In Malaysia, the drinking of alcohol is prohibited by state Muslim law. According to news reports in June, two Muslims in Kuantan, Pahang, were sentenced to six strokes of the rotan and fined RM 5,000 each “as a warning to Muslims not to commit the offence”.
All students of Muslim jurisprudence would know the differences of opinion as to the drinking of alcohol and the determination by medieval jurists of the prohibition of drinking wine as a general offence of drinking alcohol.
There are several issues. One is the issue of abrogated and abrogating verses, a methodology which is contested by medieval and contemporary jurists. There are also differing views as to whether the prohibition relates only to the drinking of wine made from grapes or extended to all kinds of wine from hops, dates and so on.
No fixed punishment
The other concern relates to caning or lashes. There is a controversy as to lashes for drinking. Some jurists have approved of lashes as an analogy from the defamation (qadhf) of chaste women; when under the influence of alcohol, one may resort to defaming.
The Prophet himself did not fix a punishment for drinking. On some occasions, he merely reprimanded them. He was also reported to have ordered beating but did not specify the number and the manner.
In the Prophet’s time, there were no specific methods of beating offenders. Some were beaten with clothing, hands, sandals, sticks and palm branches. There is also a report that he ordered beating when an offence was committed for a fourth time.
Then again, the Quran’s preference for repentance has also eluded legislators.
In theory, a syariah court judge, unlike the jurist-at-large, is the arbiter of the facts before him. In this, the jurist-judge plays an important and different role from the jurist.
The jurist does not give information about the occurrence of a legal cause, which activates a legal rule; he gives information only on the status of a legal rule as a legal rule. The judge, on the other hand, has to decide if a set of facts had occurred to invite one of several of opinions as applying to the case.
There is an unexplored terrain (untested) for human rights lawyers in our syariah courts. It might be useful perhaps that counsel raises the disputations as to the offence of drinking alcohol.
The Muslims in question were reported to be drinking stout, not wine made from grapes. There is also the larger concern if caning is indeed appropriate as a warning to other Muslims when there is no evidence led (the facts), for example, if either or both of them had defamed chaste women (read: accused them of illegal sexual intercourse without witnesses to prove their case).
Unfortunately in the majority of criminal cases in the syariah court, the accused is often advised to confess to the charge - that is, to plead guilty. Very few lawyers or none whether trained in Muslim jurisprudence or not, would test the waters.
There is only a provision of appeal from the trial court. The status of the syariah judge in question is akin to that of the magistrate court in civil law. There are no powers of review in the local syariah court system.
Amina Lawal case
This case brought to mind the Amina Lawal case in Nigeria. Amina was charged and convicted in the syariah trial court for the hudud offence of adultery, which carries a death penalty. She had given birth to a child. She was unmarried at that time. She was married before but had been divorced for two years.
Her conviction was overturned on appeal in 2002. She was allowed to retract her confession to the crime as she did not understand the charge against her.
She was also given the benefit of the doubt, as she could have been pregnant from her first marriage. The court accepted arguments of the 'sleeping embryo' where a period of gestation could be up to four years, according to some juristic views.
This gives rise to the probability that the child born, was a child of her last marriage. In some circles in Nigeria, the case was celebrated as a triumph of the syariah.
The outcome of these two cases reflects the contemporary dilemma of the implementation of syariah.
Is it correct for the legislature to restrict the jurisdiction of the syariah court, by limiting juristic views or selecting particular views? Are syariah court judges strictly bound by the four corners of the legislated syariah?
How would the interest of justice be best served? In the interest of justice generally or even justice in Islam so to speak, should not the accused be granted every enabling juristic opinion in her/his defence?
These are some tough policy questions. But we are no longer at the drawing board stage as we have today some 13 states and federal territories with syariah-based criminal laws.
The Weberian perspectives on Islamic history and society, have been said among others to be based on predetermined paradigms and not on serious research.
What is perceived as arbitrary by the untrained mind is really the wealth of diversity of opinions of jurist-law arrived through ijtihad (independent reasoning). These opinions are not jurisprudentially speaking, arbitrary.
It might be more correct to say that some opinions may be less sound or less ‘authoritative’ on account of the methodology used. You may also end up with several sound opinions over a single issue.
The qadi or syariah judge before the advent of modern-day legislation had the thankless task of applying a juristic opinion from among many, to the dispute before him. Inevitably, the judge has to apply his own judgment in choosing an opinion which might best serve justice. He might also discard the established opinions and apply his own ijtihad.
As in any other legal system, judges may exercise a less than informed judgment and settle on bad law, but this cannot be the reason to view the whole system inferior or irrational.
Jurist-ruler, Umar al-Khattab (AD 634-644) has been known to discard established opinions. Some accounts will justify these ijtihadi derivations as premising on sound methodology. Other accounts classify his decisions as aberrations.
Daunting task
Judgeship in a bygone age was a most daunting task even to the most skilled jurist-judge. Jurists were extremely reluctant to override opinions as a mark of respect for the expertise of other jurists. In some accounts, they did not want to fall stooge to despotic regimes as paid employees. The notion of separation of powers has its roots in these ancient experiences.
Some caliphs have been known to detain ‘errant’ jurists without trial, for their refusal to accept judgeship. When the administration of the glorious Muslim empire became decentralised, this enabled independent-minded jurists to escape particular regimes by migrating to another territory, administered by another caliph-governor. The famous jurist, physician and philosopher, Ibn Sina a.k.a Avicenna (AD 980-1037) escaped political intrigues this way.
The syariah judge in the early Ottoman period had to apply executive decrees in addition to the opinions of jurists. This Ottoman experience in due course became the blueprint for the 19th century phenomenon of codification or legislation of the “personal law” of Muslims in many countries.
Malaysia embarked upon a similar legislative programme for the administration of Muslim law in the 1970s and 1980s. It could be said that the state syariah courts were ‘secularised’ with the advent of legislation. The judge’s jurisdiction is narrowed by a mechanism of the nation-state, to legal provisions which the legislature deem to be the law to be applied on an issue.
In Malaysia, the drinking of alcohol is prohibited by state Muslim law. According to news reports in June, two Muslims in Kuantan, Pahang, were sentenced to six strokes of the rotan and fined RM 5,000 each “as a warning to Muslims not to commit the offence”.
All students of Muslim jurisprudence would know the differences of opinion as to the drinking of alcohol and the determination by medieval jurists of the prohibition of drinking wine as a general offence of drinking alcohol.
There are several issues. One is the issue of abrogated and abrogating verses, a methodology which is contested by medieval and contemporary jurists. There are also differing views as to whether the prohibition relates only to the drinking of wine made from grapes or extended to all kinds of wine from hops, dates and so on.
No fixed punishment
The other concern relates to caning or lashes. There is a controversy as to lashes for drinking. Some jurists have approved of lashes as an analogy from the defamation (qadhf) of chaste women; when under the influence of alcohol, one may resort to defaming.
The Prophet himself did not fix a punishment for drinking. On some occasions, he merely reprimanded them. He was also reported to have ordered beating but did not specify the number and the manner.
In the Prophet’s time, there were no specific methods of beating offenders. Some were beaten with clothing, hands, sandals, sticks and palm branches. There is also a report that he ordered beating when an offence was committed for a fourth time.
Then again, the Quran’s preference for repentance has also eluded legislators.
In theory, a syariah court judge, unlike the jurist-at-large, is the arbiter of the facts before him. In this, the jurist-judge plays an important and different role from the jurist.
The jurist does not give information about the occurrence of a legal cause, which activates a legal rule; he gives information only on the status of a legal rule as a legal rule. The judge, on the other hand, has to decide if a set of facts had occurred to invite one of several of opinions as applying to the case.
There is an unexplored terrain (untested) for human rights lawyers in our syariah courts. It might be useful perhaps that counsel raises the disputations as to the offence of drinking alcohol.
The Muslims in question were reported to be drinking stout, not wine made from grapes. There is also the larger concern if caning is indeed appropriate as a warning to other Muslims when there is no evidence led (the facts), for example, if either or both of them had defamed chaste women (read: accused them of illegal sexual intercourse without witnesses to prove their case).
Unfortunately in the majority of criminal cases in the syariah court, the accused is often advised to confess to the charge - that is, to plead guilty. Very few lawyers or none whether trained in Muslim jurisprudence or not, would test the waters.
There is only a provision of appeal from the trial court. The status of the syariah judge in question is akin to that of the magistrate court in civil law. There are no powers of review in the local syariah court system.
Amina Lawal case
This case brought to mind the Amina Lawal case in Nigeria. Amina was charged and convicted in the syariah trial court for the hudud offence of adultery, which carries a death penalty. She had given birth to a child. She was unmarried at that time. She was married before but had been divorced for two years.
Her conviction was overturned on appeal in 2002. She was allowed to retract her confession to the crime as she did not understand the charge against her.
She was also given the benefit of the doubt, as she could have been pregnant from her first marriage. The court accepted arguments of the 'sleeping embryo' where a period of gestation could be up to four years, according to some juristic views.
This gives rise to the probability that the child born, was a child of her last marriage. In some circles in Nigeria, the case was celebrated as a triumph of the syariah.
The outcome of these two cases reflects the contemporary dilemma of the implementation of syariah.
Is it correct for the legislature to restrict the jurisdiction of the syariah court, by limiting juristic views or selecting particular views? Are syariah court judges strictly bound by the four corners of the legislated syariah?
How would the interest of justice be best served? In the interest of justice generally or even justice in Islam so to speak, should not the accused be granted every enabling juristic opinion in her/his defence?
These are some tough policy questions. But we are no longer at the drawing board stage as we have today some 13 states and federal territories with syariah-based criminal laws.
Monday, July 11, 2005
How do victims become victimisers? - Azly Rahman
Albert Memmi, the Algerian thinker who wrote the classic work on the psychology of colonialism, The Colonizer and the Colonized, said that when countries gain independence, the rulers begin to transform themselves from being the oppressed to being the oppressor.Memmi’s work revolutionises the thinking of Algerians into overthrowing the French colonial government. This is true in our public universities in the case of the seven brave young men who actually performed more intelligent deeds than many of those in power in the ivory tower are brave enough to do.
Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator famed for his classic works such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Education for Critical Consciousness, Letters to Guinea-Bissou, and Letters to Cristina, wrote of the “intellectual trap” when we fail to understand the inherent contradictions between the subjectivity and objectivity of our experience with oppression. Herbert Marcuse, a professor, founder of Students for a Democratic society, and an important member of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, in his work The One-Dimensional Man, wrote of the danger of a modern society that has silenced the critical sensibility of its citizens making them docile and mentally incapacitated.
Internal Security Act
It is understandable why this Act is necessary as a repressive tool. Our nation operates on the principle of political-economy of the development of capitalist states and it is imperative that the state uses this Act to silent those who criticise the apparatuses to expose the contradiction of this hyper-modernising state.There is plenty of evident of the effective use of the British goodbye gift to Malaya - from independence to the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi administration.
It was during the Mahathir administration, however, that the tool was used frequently and effectively. His 22-year rule rests largely on the use and abuse of that tool of repression, particularly during Operasi Lalang in 1987.Most of those who were detained without trial were intellectuals who wished to see changes in the way our nation is governed.
They are highly gifted, intelligent, socially-committed intellectuals whose ideas should at least win them honorary doctorates in Malaysian public universities. Most are frontier thinkers who only wish to make society more intelligent.But they were detained without trial because the government could not produce intelligent arguments to deal with the fundamental issues of social justice they were raising.
Instead of writing books to provide anti-thesis produced by those with convincing views, the government held them in custody. Our nation cannot afford any more to have such a government that subverts intelligence.This is tantamount to intellectual terrorism.
We need to have a government that will be prepared to deal with issues more intelligently. I have a suggestion for the present government in order for it to be respected.
Intellectual Sustainability Act
We need to abolish the Internal Security Act for the following obvious reasons:
1)Honour those who wish to make positive changes to society;
2)Honour those who wish to see dramatic changes in the level of corruption
3)Honour those who are helping Abdullah’s regime to fight corruption. I think the regime needs such voices to speed up the creation of a society that is aware of the destructive potentials of corruption especially in high places; and
4)Honour those who are prolific writers who are able to intelligently diagnose social issues and offer radical solutions.
I suggest we work on creating another ISA to replace the current ISA. Let us ask our government to pass the Intellectual Sustainability Act; one that guarantees the right of each citizen to be treated as intelligent human beings whose mind refuses to be controlled by those in power. Alberto Luis Machado, Venezuela’s Minister of Human Intelligence, whom I met in Singapore in 1997 at the Conference on Thinking, wrote a book called The Right to be Intelligent.
In our case, we need this Act not only to replace the Internal Security Act which no longer makes sense, but to wage our own ‘War on Moronism’.If we succeed in passing this Intellectual Sustainability Act, we can become an intelligent society.
Intelligent society
What is so wrong about speaking up for justice? Are we not supposed to do that in an intelligent society?Aren’t Malaysian children taught ‘Noble Values’ - Nilai Nilai Murni - in schools and told to uphold these as they learn to become good citizens in a potentially ethical and multi-cultural society such as Malaysia?
Aren’t we living in a society that has slogans such as Bersih, Cekap, Amanah, Kepimpinan Melalui Teladan or, of late Cemerlang, Gemilang and Terbilang? Why do we still need to have the ISA when an intelligent government such as that of Abdullah is creating a “towering” this and that race and values the creation of intelligent children?Why is the government still stubborn when it comes to abolishing the “gift” of Malaya’s colonial master?
I suspect the government has this fear that if the trend continues, it will have to deal with intelligent arguments. I do not think many possess the capability to present intelligent arguments for the many questions on the Internal Security Act.We are caught in the political-economic dimension of the argument for and against.
I suspect it is the nature of the politics of vengeance, sadly. When a regime gets replaced, the newer regime will avenge against past injustices.The old regime might have acquired so much wealth to create more power and so much power to create and protect the wealth that it is not willing to let go power.
Hence the Internal Security Act is still needed for those in power to have national security. I think we Malaysians can read this suspicion easily.
Intelligent regime
I do not understand why the vice-chancellors of the universities are still clinging on to a mistaken notion of what internal security means. From whose point of view is “internal security” defined? From whom must a nation be secured?
I think they must act more intelligently in dealing with dissenting views. They must allow the students to resume their studies. Why are these Malay children of intellectual conscience oppressed by Malays who are supposed to understand what “human intelligence” means in order to lead higher institutions of learning?
If they are in the United States, these students could go to thousands of other universities. In Malaysia, where would they go? What message are the vice-chancellors sending to the nation - that university students are not allowed to express their opinions on their political future?
Whose future are those seven students talking about anyway? Senior intellectuals, speak up against what is happening in Malaysian universities, if you wish to be remembered as our giants of public intellectualism. I call upon the giants of Malaysia’s intellectual tradition below to speak up for the prospect of an Intellectual Sustainability Act and our War on Intellectual Terrorism:
Royal Professor Ungku Aziz
Prof Emeritus Awang Had Salleh
Prof Khoo Khay Kim
Prof Syed Husin Alattas
Prof Syed Naguib Alattas
Prof Fatimah Hamid Don
Prof Sham Sani
Malaysians who value intellectualism in universities, speak for the seven students. Let them continue their studies and become beacons of hope for others. I do not think vice-chancellors deserve to be in their position if they are insensitive to the plight of the seven students. Let us not allow the once oppressed to become the oppressors.
Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator famed for his classic works such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Education for Critical Consciousness, Letters to Guinea-Bissou, and Letters to Cristina, wrote of the “intellectual trap” when we fail to understand the inherent contradictions between the subjectivity and objectivity of our experience with oppression. Herbert Marcuse, a professor, founder of Students for a Democratic society, and an important member of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, in his work The One-Dimensional Man, wrote of the danger of a modern society that has silenced the critical sensibility of its citizens making them docile and mentally incapacitated.
Internal Security Act
It is understandable why this Act is necessary as a repressive tool. Our nation operates on the principle of political-economy of the development of capitalist states and it is imperative that the state uses this Act to silent those who criticise the apparatuses to expose the contradiction of this hyper-modernising state.There is plenty of evident of the effective use of the British goodbye gift to Malaya - from independence to the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi administration.
It was during the Mahathir administration, however, that the tool was used frequently and effectively. His 22-year rule rests largely on the use and abuse of that tool of repression, particularly during Operasi Lalang in 1987.Most of those who were detained without trial were intellectuals who wished to see changes in the way our nation is governed.
They are highly gifted, intelligent, socially-committed intellectuals whose ideas should at least win them honorary doctorates in Malaysian public universities. Most are frontier thinkers who only wish to make society more intelligent.But they were detained without trial because the government could not produce intelligent arguments to deal with the fundamental issues of social justice they were raising.
Instead of writing books to provide anti-thesis produced by those with convincing views, the government held them in custody. Our nation cannot afford any more to have such a government that subverts intelligence.This is tantamount to intellectual terrorism.
We need to have a government that will be prepared to deal with issues more intelligently. I have a suggestion for the present government in order for it to be respected.
Intellectual Sustainability Act
We need to abolish the Internal Security Act for the following obvious reasons:
1)Honour those who wish to make positive changes to society;
2)Honour those who wish to see dramatic changes in the level of corruption
3)Honour those who are helping Abdullah’s regime to fight corruption. I think the regime needs such voices to speed up the creation of a society that is aware of the destructive potentials of corruption especially in high places; and
4)Honour those who are prolific writers who are able to intelligently diagnose social issues and offer radical solutions.
I suggest we work on creating another ISA to replace the current ISA. Let us ask our government to pass the Intellectual Sustainability Act; one that guarantees the right of each citizen to be treated as intelligent human beings whose mind refuses to be controlled by those in power. Alberto Luis Machado, Venezuela’s Minister of Human Intelligence, whom I met in Singapore in 1997 at the Conference on Thinking, wrote a book called The Right to be Intelligent.
In our case, we need this Act not only to replace the Internal Security Act which no longer makes sense, but to wage our own ‘War on Moronism’.If we succeed in passing this Intellectual Sustainability Act, we can become an intelligent society.
Intelligent society
What is so wrong about speaking up for justice? Are we not supposed to do that in an intelligent society?Aren’t Malaysian children taught ‘Noble Values’ - Nilai Nilai Murni - in schools and told to uphold these as they learn to become good citizens in a potentially ethical and multi-cultural society such as Malaysia?
Aren’t we living in a society that has slogans such as Bersih, Cekap, Amanah, Kepimpinan Melalui Teladan or, of late Cemerlang, Gemilang and Terbilang? Why do we still need to have the ISA when an intelligent government such as that of Abdullah is creating a “towering” this and that race and values the creation of intelligent children?Why is the government still stubborn when it comes to abolishing the “gift” of Malaya’s colonial master?
I suspect the government has this fear that if the trend continues, it will have to deal with intelligent arguments. I do not think many possess the capability to present intelligent arguments for the many questions on the Internal Security Act.We are caught in the political-economic dimension of the argument for and against.
I suspect it is the nature of the politics of vengeance, sadly. When a regime gets replaced, the newer regime will avenge against past injustices.The old regime might have acquired so much wealth to create more power and so much power to create and protect the wealth that it is not willing to let go power.
Hence the Internal Security Act is still needed for those in power to have national security. I think we Malaysians can read this suspicion easily.
Intelligent regime
I do not understand why the vice-chancellors of the universities are still clinging on to a mistaken notion of what internal security means. From whose point of view is “internal security” defined? From whom must a nation be secured?
I think they must act more intelligently in dealing with dissenting views. They must allow the students to resume their studies. Why are these Malay children of intellectual conscience oppressed by Malays who are supposed to understand what “human intelligence” means in order to lead higher institutions of learning?
If they are in the United States, these students could go to thousands of other universities. In Malaysia, where would they go? What message are the vice-chancellors sending to the nation - that university students are not allowed to express their opinions on their political future?
Whose future are those seven students talking about anyway? Senior intellectuals, speak up against what is happening in Malaysian universities, if you wish to be remembered as our giants of public intellectualism. I call upon the giants of Malaysia’s intellectual tradition below to speak up for the prospect of an Intellectual Sustainability Act and our War on Intellectual Terrorism:
Royal Professor Ungku Aziz
Prof Emeritus Awang Had Salleh
Prof Khoo Khay Kim
Prof Syed Husin Alattas
Prof Syed Naguib Alattas
Prof Fatimah Hamid Don
Prof Sham Sani
Malaysians who value intellectualism in universities, speak for the seven students. Let them continue their studies and become beacons of hope for others. I do not think vice-chancellors deserve to be in their position if they are insensitive to the plight of the seven students. Let us not allow the once oppressed to become the oppressors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
