presentable, logical VEGETABLE

Beyond "What If?"

2012-02-10T01:28:00.005+08:00

British wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill is often revered as one of the most important figures in World War II. His inspiring speeches galvanised the battered spirits of the British people, and his strong leadership inspired the British army and their allies towards victory. Any man of lesser resolve and determination would have caved in and surrendered to the then mighty Nazi Germans.

That is what everyone knows. What very few people know is the fact that Churchill nearly died about 10 years before World War II. No, he didn't nearly die in some battlefield somewhere in the then vast British Empire. He nearly died after he was knocked down by a taxi in New York City! Churchill had an American mother so he was probably there for a social visit. He did not die but the injuries sustained were serious enough he had to be hospitalised for an entire week.

"What if?" is a question many would ask while imagining alternative eventualities in life. What if Churchill had died? Would the Germans successfully conquered Great Britain and gained absolute control of Western Europe? If that had happened, perhaps most of us today would be reading and writing in German rather than in English, and perhaps most football fans in the world would be following the Bundesliga rather than the English Premier League.

One may ask "what if?" for any issues, from the most profound to the most trivial. What if Hussein Onn had persevered and appointed Ghazali Shafie (instead of Mahathir Mohamad) as Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister in 1976? Mahathir probably would never become prime minister, ousted most likely from the government by Ghazali and forced to return to his Maha Clinic in Alor Star. No Mahathir, no Proton Saga, no Penang Bridge, no KLCC, and no KLIA. How backwards Malaysia would still be ;)

What if Eric Cantona had joined Liverpool, and not Leeds United and eventually Manchester United in the early 1990's? In 1992, Liverpool manager Graeme Souness was asked by Michel Platini (then manager of the French national team) to bring the talented yet temperamental young striker to England. Souness refused the offer so Cantona went to Leeds United instead. Leeds won the league that season. He was sold to Manchester United the next season and the club immediately won the league for the first time in more than two decades and went on to win more league titles over the years, enough to even surpassed Liverpool's proud long-standing record of 18 English league titles. Liverpool of course depressingly has not won the league since 1990.

Pondering with "what if" may also be an act of regret for not doing something that perhaps could have prevented a tragedy from happening. Former Wales manager and football player Gary Speed died tragically a few months ago. Most likely, he had committed suicide but expert testimony given during the coroner's inquest suggests that it might have been purely accidental. Whichever, it will not take the pain away from Gary Speed's wife who confessed that she and Gary had an exchange of words about "something or nothing" the last time she saw him alive. She went out for a ride to clear her mind but soon returned home only to find she had accidentally locked herself out. She spent the night in the car and in the morning found her husband's body hanged in the garage.

Imagine how it feels like that your very last conversation with your late spouse was an unpleasant one. Imagine the "what if" that goes through Mrs. Speed's mind. "What if I did not leave the house?"; "What if I had brought my house keys with me?"; "What if I did not make such a big deal about the 'something or nothing' we had argued about?" Imagine that... Well, I certainly can. The circumstances surrounding my wife's death were certainly different. She certainly did not take her own life but we did have our own incident over 'something or nothing' on that fateful day. And because of that, I have continued to ask myself "what if" I had done this or that, and "what if" I had said something that night.

It's not easy to move beyond these "what if's'". One cannot choose to have selective amnesia. I cannot simply extract specific data from my brain and delete it from my memory. It stays with me and continues to haunt me. Deal with it one must and as a Muslim, I've learned to accept all that has happened as God's will, the wisdom of which I shall learn to understand for the rest of my life.

Fate is to be accepted, not questioned. To sometimes ask 'what if?' is instinctive, to be burdened by it however is maladaptive and un-Islamic. "I am enslaved to fate, of all else say no more; With a sweet tongue speak, else I plea say no more; Speak not of troubles, of treasures tell me more; And if of this you know not, be not troubled, say no more." (Rumi 149, Divan-e Shams)

For the first time in almost a year, I feel strong enough to move on, to finish all that I've started and to begin the search for a new mother for my three young children. Regaining some level of optimism is essential. Optimistic I am of many things, including for Liverpool to finally win their 19th league title next year (or sometime before the end of time:)) and for Roger Federer to finally beat Rafael Nadal at Rolland Garros. Churchill, Cantona AND Mahathir are best left to history.

The Vegetable Challenge

2012-01-10T05:07:00.011+08:00

One of the most difficult challenges I've faced as a single-parent is to get my children to eat green vegetables. I can get them to prepare themselves to school, buckle-up in the car, clean-up their rooms (somewhat), and even switch-off the television with little resistant but to get them to eat green vegetables is almost impossible. Somehow, they just cannot bring themselves to swallow those green leaves and they look genuinely distressed when forced to do so. I am indeed at a lost on how to change this.

Once upon a time, Popeye The Sailor Man was a popular cartoon among kids. The fact that Popeye eats spinach to get his strength to beat-up his foe helped a lot of parents then to get their kids to eat vegetables. But Popeye unfortunately isn't popular among kids anymore. And as far as I know, they aren't any contemporary cartoon characters whose main persona revolves around him/her eating vegetables.

I had troubles with vegetables too during my own childhood. Popeye was a motivator but what crucially pushed me to start eating lots of vegetables was something I learned when I was 10, in Standard 4 in a class that existed back then called Alam & Manusia. We were learning about the different vitamins and the various benefits they each provide. Way down the list was Vitamin K and one of its main benefits is to prevent infertility (mencegah kemandulan).

I didn't actually know what infertility means. All I knew was it meant a person wouldn't be able to have kids. And since I was already imagining having lots of kids of my own, the word infertility (mandul) so terrified me that it got me started eating lots and lots of vegetables. It worked wonders I guess as I had three kids within seven years of marriage. To have more however would be a bit difficult now since my wife passed away nine months ago.

My late wife was indeed more successful in persuading the kids to eat vegetables. Whenever she cooked, at least one veggie dish will be prepared and she would always ask the kids to take some. And the kids somehow were able to eat them. It seems like they only eat vegetables cooked by their mother, not by anyone else.

I'm struggling quite a bit since my wife died. I'm not ashamed to admit that. Looking after the kids and dealing with the various chores around the house aren't what I'm struggling with. The emotional and spiritual issues are those that continue to affect me. My late wife would've celebrated her birthday yesterday (9 January), and as I remember back the circumstances that preceded her death, my heart still aches with a tinge of sadness.

At some point however, we have to move on. As much as I think I can raise our three children on my own, there will always be a few things that I won't be able to do on my own. My eldest daughter is fast approaching the stage where there will be a few 'female issues' to deal with. And I could certainly use some help to get the kids to eat green vegetables again.

...vegetable

2011-12-02T04:38:00.004+08:00

The Logical Song
Songwriters: Davies, R; Hodgson, R;

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees
Well they'd be singing so happily
Joyfully, playfully watching me

But then they send me away
To teach me how to be sensible
Logical, responsible, practical
And then they showed me a world
Where I could be so dependable
Clinical, intellectual, cynical

There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep for such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am

I say, "Now what would you say for they calling you a radical
Liberal, fanatical, criminal?"
Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable

At night when all the world's asleep
The questions run so deep for such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am
Who I am, who I am, who I am...

[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/supertramp-lyrics/the-logical-song-lyrics.html ]

Power, Fear & Anger

2011-03-11T04:14:00.011+08:00

How do the emotions anger and fear tip the balance between peace and conflict? When fear is used by government leaders on their own people, they use it to 'persuade' them to submit to their rules. "Obey me, or else..."

Fear is all about intimidation. It isn't nice, unethical even but most often, it works. If not, how else dictators and authoritarian leaders past and present managed to cling on to power despite their reckless cruelty, greed and unfair treatment of others?

Fear works tremendously in environments previously rampant with strife and clashes between groups of people. Anarchy exists in the absence of a strong authority to control warring factions. A strong authoritarian leader, a dictator, is needed to control those in dire thirst for enemy blood. The leader must be respected and feared to the extent that he is able to force such people to submission. Only then can order be restored.

Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Husni Mubarak of Egypt were dictators, no doubt. But Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore? According to a few academic-operational definitions, they probably are. But the 'd' word is also probably too strong and too harsh a word to be used on them. After all, both of them did resign from their respective government positions. And their actions while in power were certainly not in the same 'class' as those committed by Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, or even Suharto of Indonesia.

Both Mahathir and LKY however were definitely not gentlemen politicians. In response to an interview question critical of Singapore’s political culture, LKY once said: "it is not in the business of the present government to make it easy for the opposition party to overthrow us."

That short statement pretty much sums up LKY's view on democracy. Basically, for both him and Mahathir, elections are fine but they need not necessarily be free and fair. The government of the day controls the media, civil service and security forces. Use them to the maximum to secure victory. Who cares about ethics and fair play!

Here in Malaysia , the modus operandi of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition remains the same. Fear is used to intimidate in such a way that many can’t even imagine political parties other than BN ruling this country. The fear is, if indeed others were to rule, the country will collapse. For many Malays particularly, the thought of a Chinese 'kiasu' party like the DAP (Democratic Action Party) in federal government is their greatest nightmare. We Malays are certainly not afraid of Hantu Kak Limah or Zombie Kampung Pisang, but we are afraid of Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang. They may look human but are actually more scary and evil than the most devilish of devils! So it seems.

Any person with a more rational and practical mind would realize how foolish such a fear is. DAP has never contested more than 35% of parliamentary seats in any general election. That alone is enough to tell us that they can’t form the government on their own. They can only do so in a coalition with the Islamic Party (PAS) and the National Justice Party (PKR). And both PAS and PKR are led by Malay-Muslim leaders. To say that these people can so easily be bullied by DAP to abandon their stand on Malay rights and Islam is just naive and insulting.

If (a very big 'if') Pakatan Rakyat were to form the federal government after the next general election, the only people who would be overwhelmed with genuine fear are those who have unfairly benefited from their connections with the Barisan Nasional government. Businessmen, civil servants and all others who had used political connections for personal gains indeed have a real cause for concern. But for most of us who have never been part of that culture, there is nothing to fear. Life goes on. Work in the office continues.

If people find that hard to imagine, look back at what happened when the opposition took over the state governments of Selangor, Penang, Perak and Kedah after the 2008 General Election? Did the people in these states experienced armageddon? Were the Malays in these states particularly in Penang and Selangor chased away from their homes? Were they any masjids or suraus destroyed or confiscated?

Leaders in Pakatan Rakyat are not immune from mistakes, no doubt, but they certainly are not devils in human form who would condemn the people in this country to a state of abject destitution. Nor are they complete morons who have no skills and intelligence whatsoever to run this country. Likewise, for ardent supporters of Pakatan, they shouldn't be thinking that everything that is associated with UMNO and Barisan Nasional is bad. Give credit when credit is due. Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has certainly done a number of good things since he took over from Abdullah Badawi.

I believe, above all, what many of us want to see is a fair fight. Let us see more debates between leaders and personalities from both sides. Let it be a battle of ideas, not a battle which revolves around someone's anus and undergarment. This is unfortunately what the current government is utterly incapable of doing. For now, fear remains strong, especially amongst the Malays. PM Najib thus should be reasonably confident that BN will win convincingly in the next general election.

There isn't enough anger amongst Malaysians that would convince many of us to commit to the kind of actions recently seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Many indeed are angry about the rising prices of oil and other essential goods, the lack of transparency in the government and the continued perception of rampant corruption. But no one wants to see chaos in the streets. We do hope though that those in power, today and tomorrow, will realize the fact that real power is in the hands of the people. Leaders who continue to abuse their positions for their own interest will, sooner-or-later, face the wrath of the people. No matter how rich and powerful you are, you will always be haunted by fear.

How Can You Not Know People Hate You?

2011-01-31T21:17:00.006+08:00

From a psychological perspective, the on-going mass uprising in Egypt raises one puzzling question: how can President Hosni Mubarak not know Egyptians hate him? Surely, for a man who has been in power for 30 years, he must have at least some indication how Egyptians view him. Common sense should tell us that but apparently dictators past and present are unable to understand common sense.

I have for long seen and understood that some people have incredibly mind-boggling ways to justify their lofty positions and self-serving behaviour. Deep down they know they are unfairly privileged, and they know many others are suffering or not doing so well. They know it's not nice to be in power for too long, to enjoy all the comfort and riches, yet they'll say to themselves, "why not?" "I've been coming to office every day, I've brought at least some development, I've brought some positive changes, so why not I enjoy and gain some things for myself? And why should I step down? Everywhere I go people smile and greet me. That means they all love me and want me to stay as long as I want."

I'm sure Sigmund Freud would've been proud to see how true his defense mechanism theory has turned out to be. Hosni Mubarak indeed is only one out of many other world leaders who are severely out-of-touch with reality. Ben Ali of Tunisia was another, while current leaders in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are other notable examples.

Here in Malaysia, we are not short of case examples either. The recently retired MIC leader is one outstanding example. Here is a person who was the leader of his community for 30 years, who along the process became so rich he could afford to have a collection of tailor-made Italian suits and spent millions for his children's wedding ceremony. Yet the majority of Indians here remain poor, a substantial percentage in fact are living below the poverty level.

But perhaps the most interesting case is a certain chief minister in East Malaysia. Again, here's a man who has been in his position for 30 years, has become rich beyond all imaginations, and has enriched his family members too along the way. And, again it's the same story. He is rich while his people have remained poor. People don't like him but he doesn't seem to realize that. After all, he is seeking yet another term in power.

A certain iconic figure of the opposition would fit as an example too. He seems to be so engrossed with his ultimate ambition to be the next prime minister he does not realise many in his own party and previously ardent supporters are beginning to really hate him. He talks about justice and proclaims war against nepotism and croniyism, yet he keeps his wife as president of his party, allowed his daughter to be elected vice-president while he himself remains the de facto leader (whatever that means).

How can you not know people hate you? Apparently some people are just incapable of knowing.

Disillusioned II (Redemption)

2010-12-19T23:49:00.009+08:00

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has been so kind to leave comments in my blog particularly those that were made on my previous post. I wish to clarify a few things about that post and simultaneously respond to some of the comments made.

Students who took the course History & Philosophy of Psychology with me would probably recall my fascination with the ideas of a certain philosopher of science named Paul Feyerabend. Feyerabend was a controversial figure who advocated the argument that science does not need strict methodologies. His most famous book was aptly titled Against Method in which his main thesis was, in science "anything goes".

As someone who has always been quite uncomfortable with strict adherence with methods and methodologies, Feyerabend's ideas were certainly very appealing. Here is a philosopher who wrote exactly about what I've been struggling with philosophically and intellectually. In all these years that I've been a student and teacher of psychology, I've never been able to really embrace the conventional notion of what is scientific and what is not. I certainly do not think that pure objectivity is ever possible and I find many of the so called 'scientific' arguments in the humanities and social sciences to be very pedantic and superficial.

This is the 'demon' that has haunted me for many years that no matter how much I read and try to impress myself with 'scientific' academic work, almost always I end up feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned. Haunted by this still I am as I continue to struggle this past year conceptualising my doctoral research. The dilemma here is, how to remain true and honest to my philosophical beliefs while accepting that adherence to certain rules and principles is mandatory?

That is me and my confused state of thinking. While I continue with my own internal struggle, I have never and will never look at it as a way to elevate myself above others. Others are entitled to form their own opinion and I respect them for that. Allow me to put it on record here that my previous post was never intended to criticise in any way any of my colleagues and friends. If indeed I have hurt anyone's feelings, please accept my apology.

Let me now explain the context behind my general criticism against academicians written in my previous post. Since my doctoral research is essentially about ethnic relations in Malaysia, I've been reading various literatures on the issue available across all fields of social sciences. I was impressed by many of these work but cannot honestly say the same for some others. What I find to be very disconcerting on one hand, are scholars/writers who pass simplistic and bias conclusions. And on the other, those who dwell too much on fancy terminologies and theories while offering little in real substance. Of course, one is entitled to express his/her subjective opinions. But an academic by right should know how to refrain him/herself from passing unfair judgments against others.

If I may briefly offer an example, on the issue of the education system in Malaysia particularly the argument for and against national schools and vernacular schools, I do not think for once there are any sides who are totally right or totally wrong. Such a complex issue should be analysed in all its complexities. I can understand if a politician argues in such a way that he projects the blame totally to a particular group. Politicians are concern about being popular hence they often resort to petty and simplistic arguments. But when an academician resorts to the same sort of argument, I find that very sad and annoying.

I hope this post will help clarify a few things. Certainly, many things I've written here have touched the surface of various intellectual and philosophical issues that I hope to discuss and write more about in the future. Ma'as salamah!

Disillusioned

2010-11-30T23:20:00.008+08:00

I am a city lad. I grew up in Petaling Jaya and now live in Kuala Lumpur. I've never lived in a kampung and I've never known how it's like really to be poor. Yet I often lose sleep whenever I see and read about the struggles of others. Why?

I met a few associates at a mamak joint a few weeks back. I expressed my bewilderment on what goes through the minds of politicians. Do they not lose sleep thinking about the poor? When they walk around and meet people, do they not realise how difficult life is for many others?

“You are assuming they have a conscience”, said the eldest among us. Apparently they don't. All politicians by nature are self-serving and think always about themselves before others. “People first, performance now”, what exactly those words mean I would never know I guess.

A friend once described to me how astonished he was when he met a person who lives in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur who earns only 350 ringgit per month. He was so astonished that he thought the person was only joking. That was until the man showed him his most recent payslip.

If you can't trust politicians, whom should you trust to make life better for yourself and others? Academicians? Some academicians are so enchanted by theories and models they don't even know what's happening in the real world.

I am an academician myself (or at least that's what I'm supposed to be), but I often get utterly disillusioned reading ‘scientific’ academic papers. I've never been impressed with numbers, and have never been really interested about conceptual models and theoretical framework. I do concede theorising is necessary but there must be a limit to how much one should pursue it.

Why exactly do we encourage people to pursue postgraduate studies? Often this is due to opportunities to earn a higher pay and to improve the prospect for promotion. But what exactly about postgraduate qualification that elevates a person's career prospects higher than others?

Obviously it's the level of expertise the person developed for the topic he worked on for his postgraduate research. Other than that, and more importantly in my humble opinion, is the supposed sophistication of thinking and ideas. Not to say that they should be embroiled always with ground-breaking ideas but enough to know that conclusions and understanding of any issues and problems are never that simple.

A cabinet minister with a PhD recently made a statement in parliament that the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are not patriotic enough. That is why, according to him, they refuse to join the military. That statement, was it based on any scientific findings or merely an assumption? If the minister really does have a PhD, I'm sure he could have come up with a more analytical statement.

“The more you know, the more you know you don't know”. Maybe I have taken this advice far too seriously that the more I read the more I am confused and disillusioned with everything and anything. I wish life can be more simple or maybe it's just me who is making it difficult.

Diktator Berhati Mulia?

2010-11-12T23:31:00.009+08:00

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 4 November 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Dr M dan Lee Kuan Yew ada persamaan mereka')

Bekas perdana menteri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad pernah berkata antara tokoh zaman silam yang dikaguminya ialah pemerintah Rusia, Peter the Great, seorang Tsar yang memerintah Rusia selama lebih 40 tahun, dari tahun 1672 hingga 1725.

Kehebatan Peter the Great terletak pada kejayaannya memaju dan meluaskan empayar Rusia setaraf dengan empayar-empayar lain di benua Eropah. Di awal pemerintahannya, beliau banyak merantau meninjau kemajuan negara-negara Eropah Barat. Di Belanda misalnya, beliau mengkaji teknik pembinaan kapal dan pembangunan pelabuhan, dan di London beliau mengkaji pembangunan dan perancangan bandar. Hasilnya, pelabuhan dan armada tentera laut Rusia dimajukan dan bandar Saint Petersburg yang megah dan indah berjaya didirikan.

Kejayaan Peter the Great memang tidak dinafikan. Rusia sebelum dan selepas zaman pemerintahannya perbezaannya amat ketara. Jika sebelumnya Rusia lebih tertumpu pada budaya dan industri tradisi, Rusia pada zaman pemerintahan Peter the Great berubah menjadi sebuah empayar yang moden dan progresif. Pastinya banyak kemajuan yang dikecapi rakyat Rusia berpunca daripada kebijaksanaan raja mereka Peter the Great.

Semua kemajuan ini tercapai walaupun Peter the Great hakikatnya seorang pemimpin diktator yang zalim dan autokratik. Tidak ada sistem demokrasi di Rusia ketika itu. Tidak ada pilihanraya dan tidak ada kebebasan untuk bersuara. Barang siapa yang berani menentang akan dibunuh dan diseksa. Mayat mereka dipacak pada tiang agar rakyat dapat melihat nasib yang menimpa mereka yang berani menentang. Malah, sejarah telah merakamkan bagaimana Peter the Great sanggup menyeksa dan membunuh anak lelakinya sendiri yang ingkar mematuhi kemahuannya.

Bagi mereka yang mengagumi Peter the Great, segala kisah kezaliman ini barangkali tidak begitu penting. Yang lebih penting adalah kemajuan dan pembangunan negara. Penyeksaan dan pembunuhan dianggap asam garam pemerintahan. Matlamat mencapai kemajuan dan pemodenan itu yang lebih utama.

Dr. Mahathir baru-baru ini telah berkata, sistem pemerintahan diktator itu adakalanya baik untuk sesetengah negara. Yang penting, pemimpin diktator itu berhati mulia (benevolent dictator) dan mampu membawa kemajuan kepada rakyat di bawah pemerintahannya. Barangkali bagi Dr. Mahathir, Peter the Great adalah contoh utama seorang diktator yang berhati mulia.

Memang benar, pemimpin-pemimpin diktator dulu dan kini bukan semua tindakan mereka jahat dan kejam. Bahkan, ada yang nampak ikhlas mahu membantu rakyat jelata. Saddam Hussein misalnya, berjaya menaikkan taraf pendidikan rakyatnya di Iraq sehingga mencapai taraf yang tertinggi di Timur Tengah pada suatu ketika. Di Cuba pula, pemimpinnya Fidel Castro berjaya mengurangkan jurang kemiskinan di kalangan rakyat dan memastikan khidmat perubatan dan bantuan makanan diberikan kepada semua. Maka, mengapa masih ramai yang tidak mahu sistem pemerintahan diktator seperti ini?

Sistem ini ditentang kerana kuasa dipusatkan kepada seorang manusia biasa yang sedikit sebanyak pasti ada kelemahannya. Seorang pemimpin yang agung, tidak kira betapa tinggi akal dan wibawanya, pasti lambat laun akan lalai dengan kedudukannya. Semakin lama beliau memerintah, semakin tinggi beliau dipuja. Akhirnya tersematlah di fikiran beliau layak untuk terus menjadi ketua, dan dalam segala hal dan perkara beliaulah yang paling arif dan bijaksana. Maka rakyat kesemuanya hanya perlu tunduk dan patuh. Pandangan dan maklum balas tidak diperlukan.

Sistem demokrasi tidak mahu perkara sebegini terjadi. Dalam sistem ini, kuasa diberi pada rakyat untuk memilih dan menolak pemimpin. Pemimpin adalah hamba kepada rakyat, dan di tangan rakyat terletak segala kuasa. Jika pemimpin berjasa, beliau akan disanjung. Jika beliau mengkhianati amanah yang diberi, beliau akan dipaksa mengundur diri. Sistem demokrasi percaya bahawa pemimpin negara boleh ditukar ganti. Rakyat diberi ruang dan kebebasan untuk menegur dan mengkritik pemimpinnya dan pemimpin itu harus menerimanya dengan rela hati.

Tidak ada sebenarnya seorang diktator yang benar-benar berhati mulia. Kesemuanya bersalah menghukum individu-individu yang tidak bersetuju dengan kepimpinan mereka. Ratusan ribu rakyat Iraq misalnya telah menjadi mangsa kekejaman Saddam. Castro pula begitu banyak memenjarakan orang-orang yang mengkritik dan menentangnya.

Mungkin, contoh terbaik seorang diktator berhati mulia ialah Lee Kuan Yew, bekas perdana menteri Singapura. Singapura di bawah pemerintahannya melonjak dari sebuah pulau kecil yang mundur kepada sebuah kota kosmopolitan yang maju, aman dan makmur. Namun di sebalik kejayaan Lee, ada juga kisah-kisah orang yang disekat kebebasan mereka untuk bersuara. Ramai antara mereka pernah meringkuk di penjara.

Antara Dr. Mahathir dan Lee sebenarnya ada banyak persamaan. Kedua-dua tokoh ini misalnya percaya sistem demokrasi yang diamalkan di negara-negara maju di Barat tidak sesuai untuk negara-negara di rantau Asia. Negara-negara di Asia dikatakan mempunyai nilai-nilai murni yang tersendiri (Asian values) yang mencerminkan budaya dan keperluan masyarakat di rantau ini. Nilai-nilai murni ini termasuklah sifat taat dan setia kepada pemimpin yang tidak berbelah bagi. Dan sekiranya kebebasan bersuara diberikan dengan luas kepada semua, ianya akan mengancam keharmonian dan kestabilan negara.

Generasi muda sekarang ini tidak dapat menerima tanggapan sebegini. Ramai antara kami pernah belajar dan menetap di negara-negara Barat. Kami melihat sendiri bagaimana kebebasan bersuara di sana tidak mengakibatkan kehancuran negara dan masyarakat. Malah kami melihat bagaimana kebebasan itu mendesak pemimpin-pemimpin bertindak dengan lebih berhati-hati dan bertanggungjawab. Pemimpin-pemimpin kerajaan datang dan pergi, namun negara tetap teguh berdiri. Tidak hancur sesebuah negara itu bilamana pemimpin kerajaan ditukar ganti.

Kami tidak mahu diktator yang berhati mulia kerana semua diktator itu sama sahaja. Semuanya bertindak mengikut kehendak dan buah fikiran mereka semata-mata. Walhal bukan dalam semua hal dan perkara pendapat mereka benar belaka. Dalam sesebuah negara, ada ramai yang berhati mulia. Mengapa perlu bergantung kepada seorang sahaja? Adakah hati seorang diktator berhati mulia itu lebih mulia dari semua seteru-seteru politiknya?

Di Malaysia misalnya, adakah pemimpin-pemimpin Umno dan Barisan Nasional sahaja yang berhati mulia yang ikhlas mahu membangunkan negara? Pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang bagaimana? Adakah semua mereka ini berhati busuk dan mahu menghancurkan negara? Dan, adakah semua mereka ini bodoh-bodoh belaka, tiada ilmu dan tiada keupayaan langsung untuk memimpin negara?

Kami bukannya mahu kebebasan mutlak yang membiarkan pemimpin-pemimpin, agama, kaum dan budaya dicerca dan dihina. Cukuplah sekadar ruang yang sedikit luas diberikan agar rakyat boleh meluahkan pendapat dengan jujur dan berhemah tanpa perlu merasa takut menerima hukuman. Zaman sekarang bukan lagi zaman feudal di mana segala titah dan buah fikiran raja dan pemimpin umpama wahyu yang diturunkan.

Memang menjadi lumrah pemimpin-pemimpin politik berbeza pendapat dan falsafah. Pertahankanlah pendapat dan falsafah masing-masing dengan jujur, telus dan matang. Biar rakyat yang menentukan mana yang menjadi pilihan. Tidak perlu seorang diktator berhati mulia yang menentukan.

'Yang Menang Jadi Raja, Yang Kalah Jadi Penjahat'

2010-09-30T18:41:00.019+08:00

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 23 September 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Umno menentang Malayan Union memberi kerakyatan kepada kaum minoriti')

Pepatah Cina ada menyebut: 'Yang menang jadi raja, yang kalah jadi penjahat' (chengzhe wei wang, baizhe wei kou). Pepatah ini sering digunakan dalam konteks penulisan sejarah. Sejarah sering ditulis pihak yang menang dalam perang merebut kuasa. Maka, yang menang itu diagung-agungkan dan yang kalah dicerca semahunya.

Lihat sahaja bagaimana Hang Tuah dan Hang Jebat digambarkan dalam 'Sejarah Melayu'. Hang Tuah diagung-agungkan sebagai wira menyelematkan Melaka dan Hang Jebat dicerca sebagai penderhaka yang kejam dan hina. Hang Jebat digambarkan seorang yang mabuk kuasa mengamuk menuntut bela atas kematian sahabat karibnya. Beliau dikatakan kebal kerana keris Taming Sari berada ditangannya. Maka Hang Jebat seorang sahaja sudah cukup untuk mengambil-alih istana Sultan Melaka.

Hakikatnya, Sejarah Melayu ditulis oleh penulis-penulis yang diupah pihak istana. Mana mungkin huraiannya adil dan saksama menggambarkan setiap tokoh dan peristiwa di Melaka. Hang Jebat misalnya dikatakan bertindak sendirian. Tidak ada yang lain yang menyokongnya.

Namun bila direnung secara rasional, adakah mungkin benar Jebat seorang mampu menundukkan semua hulubalang raja? Bala tentera kerajaan Melaka bukan hanya seorang dua. Malah dikatakan mencecah puluhan ribu jumlahnya. Takkan Hang Jebat begitu hebat sehingga mampu menewaskan kesemuanya?

Mungkinkah apa yang berlaku sebenarnya adalah perang saudara? Hang Jebat adalah ketua pihak pemberontak dan beliau disokong ribuan rakyat yang simpati dengan perjuangannya. Kumpulannya tewas maka Hang Jebat sebagai ketua dicerca dan dihina seolah-olah tidak ada seorang rakyat pun yang menyokongnya.

Tidak cukup dengan itu, Hang Jebat dituduh pula mengamuk setelah ditikam Hang Tuah membunuh ramai rakyat Melaka yang tidak berdosa. Sehebat manapun seorang pahlawan itu, mana mungkin setelah parah tertusuk keris di badan mengamuk tujuh hari tujuh malam membunuh ribuan manusia?

Mustahil pada saat ini untuk kita mengetahui apakah sebenarnya yang terjadi. Kisah Hang Tuah dan Hang Jebat berlaku sudah sekian lama. Tidak ada sumber bukti yang sahih yang dapat memisahkan yang mana fakta dan yang mana rekaan semata-mata.

Namun dalam pengkajian sejarah kemerdekaan negara yang hanya separuh abad usianya, banyak sumber boleh diselidiki untuk menghasikan ulasan yang adil dan saksama. Misalnya, dalam mengkaji persoalan siapakah pejuang kemerdekaan negara, tidak mungkin hasilnya akan menjurus hanya pada Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak dan pemimipin Parti Perikatan yang lain?

Nama-nama seperti Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ahmad Boestamam, Mustapha Hussain dan ramai lagi, kenapa lenyap begitu sahaja dalam buku-buku teks sejarah rasmi negara?

Yang pasti, yang terawal berjuang ke arah kemerdekaan bukanlah golongan elit dan bangsawan Melayu yang menubuhkan Umno pada tahun 1946. Yang terlebih dahulu menyemai semangat merdeka adalah orang-orang kebanyakan seperti Ibrahim Yaakub, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Burhanuddian Al-Helmy dan Mustapha Hussain. Malangnya, kerana mereka bukanlah daripada golongan elit masyarakat Melayu yang berdamping dengan penjajah British, usaha mereka tidak berhasil.

Namun perjuangan dan pengorbanan mereka tidak sia-sia. Walaupun telah sekian lama tidak diberi penghormatan, kisah perjuangan mereka kini mula terserlah melalui buku-buku yang disadur dengan interpretasi sejarah yang berbeza daripada apa yang sering dihidangkan dalam buku-buku sejarah rasmi negara.

Peranan dan sumbangan Umno ke arah kemerdekaan memang tidak dinafikan. Namun hakikatnya, ketika Umno ditubuhkan pada tahun 1946, kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu bukan matlamat yang diperjuangkan. Umno ditubuhkan asalnya untuk menentang penubuhan Malayan Union. Yang ditentang adalah perlucutan kuasa raja-raja Melayu dan undang-undang yang memberikan hak kewargenegaraan kepada semua golongan imigran yang termaktub dalam gagasan Malayan Union yang dicadangkan.

Malah Umno dalam tempoh lima tahun pertama penubuhannya begitu berkeras tidak mahu membuka taraf kerakyatan kepada orang-orang Cina, India dan orang-orang bukan Melayu yang lain di Malaya. Pengasas dan Presiden Umno ketika itu, Dato' Onn Jaafar mulai sedar kemerdekaan akan hanya tercapai jika masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama di Malaya dapat bersatu dan bekerjasama. Namun usahanya untuk membuka keahlian Umno kepada kaum yang lain ditentang hebat, memaksa beliau meletak jawatan dan mengasaskan parti politik yang lain.

Dalam keadaan Umno yang masih terkial-kial dengan isu kerakyatan, sudah ada sebenarnya usaha untuk menyatupadukan masyarakat berbilang kaum di Malaya di bawah satu suara untuk menuntut kemerdekaan. Usaha ini dipelopori pertubuhan-pertubuhan di bawah naungan Putera (Pusat Tenaga Rakyat) dan AMCJA (All-Malaya Council of Joint Action). Putera dipelopori Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) yang diketuai Burhanuddin Al-Helmy dan disokong hebat masyarakat Melayu di luar bandar. AMCJA pula didokong kesatuan-kesatuan pekerja dan beberapa pertubuhan bukan Melayu yang lain.

Malangnya semua pertubuhan ini tidak mendapat restu pihak British. Alasan utamanya ialah semua pertubuhan ini berfahaman kiri dan dituduh bersekongkol dengan pihak komunis. Maka kewujudan dan pengaruh mereka menjadi ancaman besar kepada pihak British yang mahu memelihara kepentingan mereka sendiri. Semua pertubuhan haluan kiri ini diharamkan dan ramai pemimpin-pemimpin mereka ditahan. Penahanan mereka membuka laluan untuk Umno memimpin perjuangan ke arah kemerdekaan yang sebelum itu bukan matlamat asal yang diperjuangkan.

Buku-buku teks sejarah sekarang tidak banyak mengulas tentang kisah-kisah ini. Sejarah kemerdekaan negara dirumuskan dalam fakta-fakta ringkas yang disusun dalam bentuk carta dan gambarajah. Mana mungkin pelajar-pelajar sekarang mampu menyelami dan menghayati sejarah negara dengan kaedah pembelajaran seperti ini?

Namun inilah realitinya sekarang. Sejarah hanyalah satu matapelajaran yang memerlukan penghafalan 'fakta' sepertimana yang termaktub dalam buku-buku teks dan rujukan.

Saya berpendapat semua rakyat Malaysia perlu didedahkan dengan penulisan-penulisan sejarah yang berbeza. Bermula dari sekolah menengah, golongan muda perlu didedahkan dengan kisah-kisah perjuangan semua golongan dan kumpulan pejuang kemerdekaan termasuklah kisah perjuangan Kesatuan Melayu Malaya, PKMM, Putera, AMCJA, Umno dan Parti Komunis Malaya. Semua pertubuhan-pertubuhan ini telah menyumbang ke arah kemerdekaan.

Maka, selain daripada membaca kisah perjuangan tokoh-tokoh seperti Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman dan Tan Cheng Lock, semua rakyat Malaysia perlu digalakkan juga memahami perjuangaan tokoh-tokoh lain seperti Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ahmad Boestamam, Mustapha Hussain, Rashid Maidin, Shamsiah Fakeh, Chin Peng dan lain-lain.

Antara tokoh-tokoh ini memang terdapat tokoh-tokoh komunis yang terlibat dalam pembunuhan dan keganasan. Namun keganasan sebenarnya tidak berlaku hanya di sebelah pihak. Dan pihak komunis tidak juga mengganas membabi buta tanpa sebab. Ada sejarahnya dan ada kisah di sebaliknya.

Fakta sejarah itu tidak semuanya hitam dan putih. Terdapat kisah dan interpretasi yang berbeza. Tidak salah untuk kita memihak kepada interpretasi yang tertentu, namun salah rasanya jika kita menafikan wujudnya interpretasi-interpretasi lain yang ada.

Secara peribadi saya percaya tatkala segala kisah perjuangan ini dirungkai dan dibahas, ramai yang akan bersetuju dengan kesimpulan bahawa kaedah yang diambil Tunku Abdul Rahman merupakan jalan terbaik untuk mencapai kemerdekaan. Tunku menuntut kemerdekaan daripada pihak British secara aman dan teratur.

Kebijaksaan Tunku berunding memastikan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu mencapai kemerdekaan pada tahun 1957 dengan mewarisi sistem dan prasarana pentadbiran yang licin dan berkesan. Ini banyak menyumbang kepada kemajuan negara yang lebih pesat berbanding dengan bekas tanah jajahan British yang lain seperti Ghana, Nigeria, India dan Pakistan.

Namun dalam keghairahan kita memperingati jasa dan pengorbanan Tunku dan rakan-rakannya, janganlah diabaikan pengorbanan tokoh-tokoh yang lain. Janganlah dinafikan kemerdekaan yang kita nikmati hari ini sedikit sebanyak adalah hasil perjuangan mereka juga.

Related article: 'Was Merdeka taken or was it given?' by Raja Petra Kamaruddin

Recommended short film: '10 Tahun Sebelum Merdeka' by Fahmi Reza

Kepentingan Kajian Sains Sosial

2010-08-21T00:09:00.006+08:00

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 12 Ogos 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Masalah kurang kajian dan pribumi pulang ke Bakun')

Sejak beberapa dekad yang lalu, kita ghairah menggalak pelajar-pelajar mengambil jurusan sains tulen. Hasrat kerajaan ialah untuk melahirkan jurutera-jurutera dan saintis-saintis tempatan untuk memacu pertumbuhan industri berat dan teknologi tinggi di dalam negara.

Bilamana tumpuan lebih diberikan pada bidang kejuruteraan, sains komputer, fizik dan pelbagai bidang sains tulen yang lain, jurusan sains sosial kurang diberi perhatian, walhal peranannya dalam perancangan dasar dan pelan pembangunan seharusnya tidak diabaikan.

Mengkaji kesan pembangunan kepada masyarakat adalah tugas dan bidang ahli-ahli sains sosial. Seorang ahli sosiologi misalnya akan mengkaji perihal kesan pembangunan kepada institusi keluarga, masalah sosial, kesejahteraan penduduk, taraf pendidikan dan kesihatan masyarakat.

Kajian-kajian yang dilakukan penting bagi merangka polisi kerajaan yang menjurus ke arah pembangunan yang lebih seimbang. Memang menjadi hasrat ahli-ahli sains sosial agar hasil kajian saintifik dijadikan asas pertimbangan bilamana sesuatu dasar yang baru dan projek pembangunan ingin dilaksanakan.

Maka sebagai seorang ahli seumur hidup Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia, saya menyambut baik kenyataan Ketua Menteri Sarawak Abdul Taib Mahmud baru-baru ini yang mengiktiraf peranan sains sosial dalam merancang pembangunan.

Ketika berucap pada satu majlis pertemuan dengan pelajar-pelajar dari Sarawak di London pada 26 Julai yang lalu, Abdul Taib Mahmud dilaporkan telah menyebut bahawa adalah penting bagi kerajaan negeri mencapai persefahaman dengan masyarakat Penan dan kaum-kaum asal yang lain tentang penempatan baru bagi mereka yang terpaksa dipindahkan kerana pembinaan projek hydro di negeri tersebut. Di sinilah, menurut beliau, sumbangan dan kemahiran ahli-ahli sains sosial amat diperlukan.

Pakar-pakar dalam bidang sains sosial memang boleh banyak menyumbang. Sebaik-baiknya, setiap kali sebelum suatu dasar atau projek pembangunan itu diluluskan, perlu dijalankan kajian impak sosial polisi dan projek berkenaan. Perlu ditekankan di sini, kajian-kajian sepatutnya dijalankan sebelum, bukan sahaja, selepas perlaksanaan.

Inilah yang sering menjadi masalah. Kajian-kajian sosial yang neutral dan saintifik tidak dijadikan asas pertimbangan. Yang lebih diutamakan adalah pendapat dan pendirian peribadi perdana menteri, ketua menteri atau menteri yang bertanggungjawab.

Lihat saja pada kronologi bagaimana dasar Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) diperkenalkan. Idea asal dasar ini datang dari perdana menteri ketika itu, Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Seterusnya dibawa ke persidangan Pemuda Umno untuk didebatkan. Tidak lama selepas itu dibawa ke mesyuarat kabinet dan kemudiannya terus diluluskan.

Tidak diketahui samada ada kajian dijalankan untuk meramal kesan jangka pendek dan jangka panjang dasar berkenaan. Tidak diketahui juga samada kajian terperinci telah dijalankan untuk mengukur samada guru-guru yang sedia-ada sudah cukup terlatih untuk melaksanakan PPSMI.

Nyata sekali kajian-kajian seperti ini tidak dianggap penting. Yang penting ialah pendapat dan keputusan perdana menteri dan mesyuarat kabinet. Selain daripadanya dianggap butiran yang boleh ditangani kemudian.

Proses yang sama kini sudah kelihatan dalam perbincangan usul Kementerian Pelajaran untuk menghapuskan peperiksaan UPSR dan PMR. Idea asal datang dari Muhyiddin Yassin selaku Menteri Pelajaran. Memang ada beberapa perbincangan meja-bulat diadakan. Namun, sepertimana yang berlaku sebelum dasar PPSMI dilaksanakan, kerajaan nampaknya sudah jelas menjurus ke arah penghapusan kedua-dua peperiksaan berkenaan.

Badan-badan dan pertubuhan yang mewakili guru-guru dan ibubapa sudah menyuarakan bantahan, namun ini nampaknya tidak begitu diendahkan. Ramai pihak menuntut agar apa jua keputusan yang diambil perlu dibuat berdasarkan hasil kajian saintifik yang telus dan mendalam. Sekali lagi, tuntutan ini tidak dianggap penting dan tidak dilayan.

Agak aneh juga memikirkan adakah Abdul Taib Mahmud, setelah hampir tiga dekad menjadi ketua menteri di Sarawak, baru sekarang sedar kepentingan kajian sains sosial dalam perlaksanaan pelan pembangunan? Apatah lagi bagi projek yang begitu besar seperti projek empangan Bakun, apakah selama ini kajian impak sosial langsung tidak dititikberatkan?

Untuk membina empangan ini, lebih 10,000 orang penduduk asal terpaksa dipindahkan. Mereka dijanjikan penempatan baru yang lebih baik yang lengkap dengan kemudahan-kemudahan asas dan dijamin peluang pekerjaan.

Pihak bertanggungjawab secara amnya merasakan mereka lebih tahu apa yang terbaik untuk penduduk-penduduk ini. Maka mereka dengan sendirinya memutuskan di mana penduduk-penduduk ini dipindahkan. Tidak banyak usaha dilakukan untuk menyelami kegusaran yang timbul di kalangan penduduk-penduduk asal ini dan adakah penempatan baru ini sesuai dengan cara hidup mereka sebelumnya.

Cuma sekarang baru terdetik di fikiran pihak bertanggungjawab untuk mengkaji kembali pelan penempatan semula. Hal ini diakui sendiri oleh penasihat alam sekitar kerajaan negeri Sarawak, Dr. James Dawos Mamit. Beliau mengakui sudah ada sebilangan penduduk asal yang mengambil keputusan pulang ke penempatan asal mereka kerana tidak mampu menyesuaikan diri di penempatan baru yang disediakan. Mereka sanggup pulang walaupun menyedari mustahil untuk mereka tinggal di sana bila empangan Bakun dibuka nanti.

Masalah-masalah seperti ini timbul kerana kurangnya perhatian yang diberikan pada kajian sosio-ekonomi dan sosiologi yang objektif dan mendalam. Tidak mengapalah, mungkin Abdul Taib Mahmud dan kerajaan pimpinannya sudah sedar akan kesilapan mereka dan kini mahu memperbetulkannya. Atau mungkin ‘kesedaran’ ini hanya bersifat sementara menjelang berlangsungnya pilihanraya negeri tidak lama lagi?

Keluarga atau Negara?

2010-07-31T13:12:00.004+08:00

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 22 Julai 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Jika PM guna wang negara selamatkan perniagaan anak')

Dalam salah satu episod siri drama televisyen popular 24, presiden Amerika Syarikat, Presiden Allison Taylor (seorang wanita) digambarkan berhadapan dengan dilema yang amat berat. Anak perempuannya telah mengaku mengupah seseorang untuk membunuh seorang saksi yang telah diberi imuniti dan perlindungan oleh kerajaan.

Ada sebabnya saksi ini dibunuh. Saksi ini adalah seorang tahanan yang bertanggungjawab membunuh anak lelaki presiden. Maka adik perempuannya mahu membalas dendam atas pembunuhan abangnya. Namun, ibunya selaku presiden bukan sahaja tidak mendakwa saksi ini atas kesalahannya itu, malah memberikan imuniti kepadanya sebagai syarat beliau bekerjasama memberkas penjahat-penjahat yang lain.

Bayangkan dilema yang dihadapi Presiden Taylor? Beliau ada dua orang anak. Seorang telah mati dibunuh. Yang seorang lagi kini berhadapan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup. Yang mati tidak boleh dihidupkan kembali namun yang hidup masih boleh dilindungi.

Yang boleh mengaitkan anak perempuan presiden dengan jenayah ini ialah sebuah pita rakaman yang merakamkan perbualan antara anak presiden itu dan orang yang mengatur pembunuhan tersebut. Sekiranya pita rakaman itu dimusnahkan, tidak ada bukti lain yang boleh membuktikan penglibatan anak perempuan presiden dalam kes tersebut.

Suami Presiden Taylor mengesyorkan agar pita rakaman itu dimusnahkan. Beliau menyaran isterinya menggunakan kuasanya sebagai presiden untuk melindungi anak mereka. Lebih-lebih lagi, orang yang dibunuh itu ialah orang yang bertanggungjawab sebelumnya membunuh anak lelaki mereka.

Berdepan dengan pilihan antara tanggungjawab sebagai seorang ibu dan isteri, dan tanggungjawab sebagai presiden yang bersumpah untuk mematuhi perlembagaan negara, yang mana patut dipilih? Mungkin situasi dramatik seperti ini tidak berlaku dalam realiti. Namun dilema seumpamanya dalam situasi yang berbeza pasti boleh berlaku.

Bayangkan seorang perdana menteri, anaknya berdepan masalah kewangan yang kritikal; perniagaannya hampir musnah dan hutangnya bertimbun. Dilihat akan si bapa akan anaknya yang muram dan sengsara, adakah si bapa selaku perdana menteri patut berdiam diri sahaja tanpa melakukan apa-apa?

Selaku perdana menteri, beliau punya kuasa dan pengaruh. Beliau boleh menggunakan sumber kewangan negara untuk menyelamatkan perniagaan anaknya. Perniagaan anaknya itu pun memang perniagaan strategik yang penting untuk negara. Walaupun ianya melibatkan anaknya sendiri, tidak salah rasanya menggunakan dana awam untuk membantunya.

Mungkin secara peribadi, perdana menteri itu mahu membiarkan anaknya merana memikul tanggungjawab kegagalan perniagaannya. Hasratnya agar undang-undang negara dipatuhi dan sumber kewangan negara tidak digunakan untuk tujuan peribadi. Namun bila isteri dan ahli-ahli keluarga yang lain turut mendesak agar bantuan diberi, mampukah perdana menteri itu berpeluk tubuh berpegang pada prinsip?

Jika perdana menteri itu tetap teguh berpegang pada prinsip, beliau berdepan risiko berlakunya perpecahan dalam keluarganya sendiri. Dalam drama televisyen 24, Presiden Taylor telah dengan berberat hati menyerahkan anaknya ke pihak berkuasa. Permintaan suaminya agar bukti pita rakaman dimusnahkan tidak ditunaikan. Suaminya marah dan kecewa sehingga membuat keputusan bercerai dengan isterinya.

Dialog falsafah antara Socrates dan Euthypro wajar dijadikan renungan dalam hal ini. Euthypro merupakan seorang pakar perundangan pada zaman Greek purba. Pada suatu hari, beliau terserempak dengan Socrates di perkarangan mahkamah. Tujuan Euthypro ke situ pada hari tersebut ialah untuk mendakwa ayah kandungnya sendiri atas tuduhan membunuh.

Socrates terpegun melihat akan seorang anak yang bersedia mendakwa ayahnya sendiri. Namun Euthypro berkeras bahawa tindakannya itu adalah satu tindakan yang mulia dan soleh. Maka tercetuslah dialog antara mereka akan apakah sebenarnya takrif kemuliaan dan kesolehan itu sendiri.

Socrates melontarkan pendapat bahawa kemuliaan dan kesolehan itu adalah sebahagian daripada keadilan. Namun beliau sendiri kemudiannya menyoal, adakah semua yang mulia dan soleh itu adil dan saksama?

Memang mudah untuk kita menyangkal, tidak ada yang kabur tentang apa itu sifat yang soleh dan mulia dan apa itu keadilan. Namun hakikatnya, lain orang lain pandangannya dan neraca keadilan mereka mungkin tidak sama.

Di kalangan ahli-ahli politik dan pemimpin negara, ada yang berfikir adalah adil bagi mereka menggunakan sedikit kuasa dan pengaruh untuk kepentingan diri sendiri dan keluarga. Rasionalnya, setelah begitu banyak masa dan tenaga dikorbankan untuk orang lain, kenapa tidak sedikit manfaat dan habuan diambil untuk diri sendiri?

Dan jika anak-anak atau ahli-ahli terdekat keluarga yang lain terlibat dalam sedikit masalah, kenapa tidak digunakan kuasa untuk menutup masalah itu? Kenapa tidak digunakan serba sedikit harta dan instrumen kerajaan? Kenapa tidak diarahkan pihak berkuasa tidak mengambil tindakan? Jika buruk imej keluarga pemimpin negara, buruk juga nama negara? Maka, bukankah ‘adil’ sekiranya imej pemimpin dan keluarganya dilindungi untuk kepentingan bersama?

Tidak mustahil inilah corak pemikiran yang ada di kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin negara. Soalnya sekarang, adakah kita mahu pemimpin yang mentalitinya seperti ini atau pemimpin seperti Presiden Allison Taylor dalam drama 24?

Sudah pasti, yang lebih baik adalah yang seperti Presiden Taylor. Namun itu watak di dunia fantasi. Realitinya bagaimana? Tuhan sahaja yang Maha Mengetahui banyak mana pemimpin-pemimpin negara yang tidak teguh prinsipnya.

Kesimpulannya, barangsiapa yang merasakan pegangan prinsipnya tidak seteguh Presiden Taylor, janganlah sesekali mengimpikan apa jua jawatan politik yang melibatkan kepentingan negara. Yang sedia ada dalam kerajaan pula, jika pegangan prinsip anda juga tidak teguh, undurlah diri dengan segera sebelum bala menimpa.

Mengapa Malaysia Tidak Pernah Layak Ke Piala Dunia?

2010-07-17T10:43:00.008+08:00

(Berikut ialah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 9 July 2010. Dipaparkan juga di bawah komen yang diberikan oleh 'Peminat Bolasepak' yang saya rasakan sangat bernas dan wajar diberikan perhatian yang serius)

Pertandingan Piala Dunia Bolasepak 2010 di Afrika Selatan sudah hampir ke penghujungnya. Sudah hampir sebulan peminat bolasepak di Malaysia bersorak menyaksikan pertarungan antara negara-negara selain daripada negara tanahair mereka sendiri. Dalam keghairahan bersorak pasti ramai yang tertanya, "bilalah agaknya pasukan kebangsaan Malaysia akan beraksi di pusingan akhir Piala Dunia?"

Melihat pada prestasi pasukan kebangsaan sepanjang beberapa tahun yang lalu, agak mustahil Malaysia dapat beraksi di pentas Piala Dunia. Senarai ranking mutakhir Persekutuan Bolasepak Antarabangsa (FIFA) meletakkan Malaysia di tangga 146, setaraf dengan 'gergasi' bolasepak yang lain seperti Turkmenistan, Burundi dan Madagascar.

Walhal, kurang 30 tahun yang lalu pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan duduk setaraf dengan Jepun dan Korea Selatan yang sudah berturut kali layak ke pusingan akhir Piala Dunia. Saya sempat menyaksikan pertarungan antara Malaysia dan Jepun sebanyak dua kali di Stadium Merdeka pada tahun 1980-an. Pertamanya di peringkat separuh akhir Pestabola Merdeka 1986: Malaysia menang 2-1 dalam masa tambahan. Perlawanan kedua ialah di pusingan kelayakan Piala Asia 1988: Malaysia tewas 0-1.

Sekarang, sekiranya Malaysia berjaya menewaskan Jepun ataupun tewas tipis di tangan mereka, pasti dianggap kejayaan yang sangat besar. Walaupun tewas 0-1 pada tahun 1988, hakikatnya Malaysia pada perlawanan tersebut menguasai pasukan Jepun sepanjang tempoh perlawanan. Kekalahan tipis ketika itu dianggap cukup mendukacitakan.

Kemerosotan pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan boleh dilihat daripada pelbagai sudut. Yang pasti, kemerosotan ini banyak mencerminkan beberapa perkara 'pelik' yang berlaku di dalam negara.

Pertama, jika dilihat pada barisan pemain kebangsaan sekarang, sudah tidak ada lain pemain berbangsa Cina yang menyarung jersi kebangsaan. Malah, hanya S. Kunalan, pemain dari Negeri Sembilan yang merupakan pemain bukan Melayu tunggal yang sering turun dalam kesebelasan utama pasukan kebangsaan.

Sudah pasti kemerosotan prestasi pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan bukan kerana tiadanya pemain berbangsa Cina. Cuma, apa yang berlaku ialah menularnya polarasi kaum dalam arena sukan negara. Bolasepak kini boleh dianggap sukan untuk kaum Melayu sahaja, manakala kaum Cina lebih tertumpu pada acara sukan lain seperti bolakeranjang dan bolatampar.

Dalam bersukan pun sudah kurang integrasi antara kaum! Bukankah ini sesuatu yang amat menyedihkan?

Saya percaya kepelbagain kaum dalam sebuah pasukan bolasepak ada manfaatnya. Lihat saja pada pasukan Jerman dalam kejohanan Piala Dunia kali ini. Dalam kesebelasan utama pasukannya yang membenam England dan Argentina, ada permain yang berbangsa Turki, ada yang berasal dari Ghana dan Tunisia, dan di bangku simpanan ada pemain-pemain yang berasal dari Sepanyol dan Brazil.

Pemain-pemain ini membawa pembaharuan dalam corak permainan pasukan Jerman. Jika sebelum ini mereka dianggap hanya bergantung kepada disiplin dan organisasi permainan yang tinggi, pasukan Jerman kali ini dilihat mempamerkan aksi menyerang yang baik dan kreatif.

Pasukan kebangsaan Malaysia dahulunya punya kelebihan ini. Pemain-pemain Melayu dan India lebih ekspresif mempamerkan skil permainan manakala pemain-pemain berbangsa Cina dan Sikh punya daya tumpuan dan disiplin yang tinggi. Maka, tidak hairan jika dilihat pada senarai pemain kebangsaan pada tahun 1970-an dan awal 1980-an, tonggak pertahanan negara dibarisi pemain-pemain seperti Soh Chin Aun, Santokh Singh, Lee Kin Hong dan Serbegeth Singh; dan tonggak serangan dibarisi pemain seperti Mokhtar Dahari, Shukor Salleh, Hassan Sani dan Zainal Abidin Hassan. Budaya yang berbeza membawa gaya permainan yang berbeza, dan ini membawa manfaat bila diadun dengan sempurna.

Seperkara lagi yang menyedihkan dalam bolasepak negara ialah penglibatan ahli-ahli politik. Memang benar, daripada sudut kewangan penglibatan ahli-ahli politik itu membawa manfaat. Mereka mampu menarik dana yang diperlukan untuk mengurus persatuan bolasepak tempatan. Selain daripada itu, penglibatan mereka sebenarnya tidak perlu.

Saya tidak faham misalnya mengapa jawatan presiden persatuan-persatuan bolasepak negeri sering dipegang menteri-menteri besar. Tidak cukupkah kerja di pejabat menteri besar sehingga perlu mencari kerja tambahan mengurus persatuan bolasepak? Mengapa tidak dibiarkan sahaja pentadbir profesional mentadbir dan membuat keputusan? Saya percaya ramai menganggap penglibatan ahli-ahli politik ini tidak lebih daripada usaha mencara publisiti murahan.

Kita tidak mahu ahli-ahli politik masuk campur kerana tidak mahu 'penyakit politik' meresap dalam bolasepak. 'Penyakit' yang paling ketara ialah kurangnya fokus pada rancangan jangka panjang. Banyak dana dan tenaga lebih tertumpu pada kejayaan serta merta. Siapa di kalangan ahli-ahli politik yang mahu membuang masa merancang pelan jangka panjang seperti 'Malaysia ke Piala Dunia 2018'? Tahun 2018 itu sangat jauh dan jangka hayat politik mereka mungkin tamat sebelum itu.

Sekiranya perancangan rapi dibuat, saya percaya pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan mampu bersaing di peringkat antarabangsa. Saiz dan tubuh pemain yang kecil tidak lagi boleh dijadikan alasan. Pemain-pemain Jepun dan Korea Selatan sudah membuktikan ia bukanlah penghalang untuk mengecap kejayaan. Kejayaan pasukan kebangsaan merangkul pingat emas Sukan SEA tahun lalu perlu dijadikan asas kejayaan yang lebih besar pada masa hadapan.

Bersorak untuk pasukan Brazil, Sepanyol dan Argentina dalam pusingan akhir Piala Dunia banyak membawa kepuasan. Namun, bagi setiap peminat bolasepak di tanahair, tidak ada yang lebih memuaskan dan membanggakan daripada bersorak untuk pasukan Malaysia dan mendengar lagu Negaraku berkumandang di Piala Dunia. Bilalah agaknya impian ini akan menjadi kenyataan?

Komen ‘Peminat Bolasepak’:

Point 1 : Polarasi kaum

Saya rasakan kurang adil jika kita jatuhkan hukuman polarasi kaum kepada kualiti bolasepak kita. Hakikatnya, memang itu sahajalah yg kita ada. Saya berpendapat jika ada kaum bukan melayu yg mahu bermain pun, tak akan berubah kualitinya. Germany memilih Khedira, Ozil dan Klose bukanlah kerana mahukan integrasi kaum, tetapi kerana itulah yg terbaik mereka ada. Saya yakin bahawa jikalau 23 pemain terbaik German adalah yang memang dilahirkan di German, mereka itulah yg akan dipilih.

Sepanyol pernah mencuba kaedah yg lebih kurang serupa pada piala dunia 1984 dengan seberapa boleh menyenaraikan pemain-pemain dari kesemua regional, contohnya Basque, Catalonia, Madrid, Valencia dan Andalusia. Ternyata, ia langsung tidak menjadi, dan persembahan Sepanyol pada piala dunia itu adalah tersangat mengecewakan.

Kesemuanya adalah bergantung sepenuhnya kepada perkembangan pemain-pemain kita. Kita selalu melihat kepada bolasepk Inggeris. Corak latihan, akademi bolasepak, kesemuanya adalah merujuk kepada pasukan-pasukan dari Inggeris, padahal, sebenarnya England tidak langsung menyerlah di peringkat antarabangsa. Corak permainan Inggeris yg pantas, laju dan fizikal sebenarnya tidak sesuai dengan keadaan fizikal kita yg sekarang lebih kecil dari Jepun. Bagaimana jika kita menitik beratkan kepada skil teknikal individu? Cara memegang bola, 'close-control', 'dribbling', 'possession', semua ini kurang ada pada bolasepak Inggeris. Kalau kita melihat kepada pemain-pemain dunia yg mempunyai skil seperti yg saya sebut di atas, kesemuanya bertubuh kecil! (Messi, Xavi, Pedro, Iniesta) Jika kita boleh menitik beratkan aspek ini pada permainan kita, tak mustahil kita boleh mempunyai Messi kita sendiri.

Point 2 : Politik

Saya setuju 100%. Tahukah kita bahawa bolasepak Jepun boleh berada di tempat mereka sekarang dengan pelan 20 tahun mereka yg bermula pertengahan 80-an? Dan kita dapat menyaksikan sekarang mereka boleh bersaing di pentas dunia. Dimana pelan kita? Sedangkan format liga malaysia pun seringkali ditukar 1-2 tahun sekali, apatah pula dengan 'blueprint'?

Bebaskan Mahasiswa Daripada Cengkaman AUKU

2010-06-24T23:22:00.005+08:00

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives published on its website on 17th June 2010)

Gara-gara turun padang meninjau perjalanan kempen pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor April lepas, empat orang mahasiswa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) kini berhadapan tindakan tatatertib. Mereka adalah 'mangsa' terbaru Akta Universti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) yang menghalang mahasiswa dan ahli akademik daripada terlibat dalam sebarang kegiatan politik.

AUKU yang diwarisi hari ini adalah salah satu 'harta peninggalan' bekas perdana menteri Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Pindaan ke atas AUKU pada tahun 1975 dibentangkan Dr Mahathir selaku Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu selepas berlakunya demonstrasi besar-besar anjuran gerakan mahasiswa pada tahun 1974. Demonstrasi tersebut dianjurkan bagi membela nasib petani-petani miskin di Baling, Kedah.

AUKU diperkenalkan atas alasan perlunya mahasiswa menumpukan masa dan tenaga pada pelajaran dan tidak membuang masa terlibat dalam kegiatan politik. Politik itu dianggap melalaikan. Mereka yang terlibat dalam politik dianggap sudah terpesong daripada landasan yang benar. Hasrat kerajaan ialah membendung kemungkinan mahasiswa gagal dalam pelajaran kerana keterlibatan mereka dalam kegiatan politik.

Tidak diketahui berapa ramai mahasiswa di universiti-universiti tempatan yang gagal dalam pelajaran kerana sibuk berpolitik. Mungkin benar ianya salah satu penyebab kegagalan namun pastinya ada penyebab-penyebab yang lain. Antaranya mungkin kerana sibuk bersukan, sibuk bekerja sambilan dan mungkin juga sibuk dilamun percintaan.

Sekiranya berpolitik, sebagai salah satu penyebab kegagalan, dibanteras sepenuhnya melalui AUKU, mengapa tidak AUKU diperluaskan bagi membanteras penyebab-penyebab kegagalan yang lain? Mengapa tidak diharamkan saja mahasiswa daripada bersukan, bercinta dan bekerja sambilan? Haramkan saja kesemuanya kerana kita mahu mahasiswa menumpukan hanya pada pelajaran.

Sebagai salah seorang tenaga pendidik di institusi pengajian awam, saya kurang mengerti mengapa berpolitik itu dianggap sesuatu yang begitu hina dan membahayakan. Memang benar, ada mahasiswa yang ponteng kelas dan gagal dalam peperiksaan kerana sibuk ke hulu dan ke hilir menghadiri ceramah-ceramah politik. Tetapi tidak semuanya begitu. Ada yang sibuk berpolitik tapi masih mampu mentadbir masa melaksanakan segala tugasan akademik dengan cemerlang.

Persoalannya, apakah sebenarnya golongan mahasiswa yang mahu dilahirkan melalui sistem pendidikan tinggi tempatan? Apakah kita mahu melahirkan mahasiswa yang hanya berminat membaca dan menghafal, atau adakah kita mahu mahasiswa yang mampu menghubungkan teori dengan kenyataan?

Saya pernah beberapa kali semasa kuliah cuba menilai sejauh mana pengetahuan am pelajar-pelajar saya di kelas. Saya bertanyakan soalan-soalan mudah seperti, 'apakah nama penuh Menteri Pelajaran?' dan 'apakah nama penuh parti PAS?' Agak menyedihkan bagi soalan-soalan mudah seperti ini, tidak sampai 25 peratus pun pelajar yang dapat menjawabnya dengan betul.

Yang menarik berkenaan kes empat mahasiswa UKM ini, kesemua mereka adalah pelajar program sains politik yang ketika pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor berlangsung, sedang menduduki kursus 'Analisa Pilihanraya' di Jabatan Sains Politik, UKM.

Tujuan mereka turun padang di Hulu Selangor adalah untuk meninjau realiti bagaimana kempen pilihanraya di negara ini dijalankan. Malangnya, apa yang sepatutnya dipuji sebagai inisiatif yang baik dijadikan jerat untuk memerangkap mahasiswa-mahasiswa ini.

Kesatuan kakitangan akademik tempatan sudah sekian lama menyeru kerajaan menghapuskan AUKU. Bukanlah tujuan saranan ini dibuat untuk mendesak mahasiswa terlibat dalam politik. Saranan ini dibuat atas kesedaran mahasiswa perlu diberi kebebasan menyelami pelbagai ideologi dan pemahaman. Bila lagi kalau bukan ketika menuntut di kolej dan universiti golongan muda berpeluang mengembang minda dan pemikiran?

Bukankah politik itu menganjur perdebatan dan merangsang pemikiran kritis di kalangan orang muda? Atau, adakah kita lebih selesa sekiranya golongan muda terpesona dengan muzik, wayang dan lain-lain hiburan?

Sebagai seorang pensyarah, saya pastinya lebih senang mendengar pelajar-pelajar saya menghadiri ceramah politik daripada menghadiri acara-acara hiburan. Saya juga pasti lebih gembira jika melihat pelajar-pelajar membaca Harakah dan Aliran Monthly daripada membaca Mastika dan Media Hiburan.

Perlu diingat, tidak semua mahasiswa yang terlibat dalam politik akan terpengaruh menyertai parti-parti pembangkang. Di kemuncak gerakan Reformasi pada akhir tahun 1990-an, berpuluh ribu mahasiswa seluruh negara turun menyertai demonstrasi anti-kerajaan.

Daripada puluhan ribu ini, tidak semua yang hingga sekarang masih setia menyokong parti-parti pembangkang. Ramai juga yang dulunya kuat melaung "Reformasi" dan menjunjung poster Anwar Ibrahim ke sana sini kini menyertai Umno dan parti-parti komponen Barisan Nasional yang lain.

Fahaman dan dokongan politik itu boleh berubah. Maka, janganlah disekat mahasiswa daripada mencuba dan mendekati pendekatan politik yang berbeza-beza.

Jika ya pun kerajaan bertegas tidak mahu menghapuskan AUKU, paling tidak laksanakanlah ia dengan adil. Empat orang mahasiswa UKM ini dilaporkan telah membantu berkempen untuk calon PKR dalam pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor. Ramai yang pasti tertanya, sekiranya mereka turun membantu berkempen untuk calon Barisan Nasional, adakah tindakan tatatertib akan diambil ke atas mereka juga? Barisan Nasional ialah sebuah gabungan parti-parti politik.

Kalau salah berkempen untuk PKR, pasti salah juga berkempen untuk BN!

Atau mungkin berkempen untuk BN itu tidak salah kerana BN itu kerajaan, maka berkempen untuk BN itu sebenarnya sekadar memberi khidmat pada kerajaan. Jika itulah rasionalnya, empat mahasiswa UKM ini tidak boleh dianggap salah juga. Sebabnya, kerajaan negeri di Selangor itu diterajui PKR, maka berkempen untuk PKR juga boleh dianggap memberi khidmat pada kerajaan negeri.

Saya percaya beberapa pemimpin muda Umno seperti Saifuddin Abdullah dan Mohd Puad Zarkashi mahu ruang yang bebas diberikan kepada mahasiswa untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan politik. Mereka sedar jika ruang yang bebas ini diberikan, bukan parti-parti pembangkang sahaja yang boleh menerima manfaat. Umno juga boleh secara terbuka mengembangkan pengaruhnya di kampus-kampus melalui sayap Putera dan Puteri-nya.

Empat mahasiswa UKM ini kini telah membawa kes ini ke mahkamah. Agak sukar membayangkan mahkamah akan memihak kepada mereka, namun sekurang-kurangnya kes mereka ini akan menarik perhatian ramai akan perlunya AUKU itu dihapuskan.

FIFA World Cup: The Moral Equivalent of War

2010-06-15T12:29:00.011+08:00

It was William James who first called for a moral equivalent of war. In his article published in 1910, James wrote:

"I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."

Football (or soccer) was probably the last thing in James' mind when he wrote this classic piece. In fact, what he suggested then was, we should all go to work at coal and iron mines, and spend our energies for dish-washing, clothes-washing, window-washing, road-building and tunnel-making! He also did not mention anything about the Olympic Games, which at the time was beginning to grow as a major international sporting event.

James himself was rather clueless about what the moral equivalent of war is, but there is no doubt today that sports is the closest to James' vision. While many would argue that the Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event of all, I have no doubt that as far as the moral equivalent of war is concern, the FIFA World Cup is the better candidate.

There are too many different games in the Olympics which means only a few big nations can realistically become the overall champion. In the World Cup however, all the 32 teams competing in the finals have the same number of players and play the same number of matches in the opening round. That puts all the teams more-or-less on equal footing.

Moreover, football as a game embodies a lot of our psychological nature. Psychologists have for long believe that human beings have an innate desire to compete. And in addition, with reference to the Freudian perspective, have the need for catharsis; to release some of the overabundance psychic energy.

People in the past went to war because that was probably the only social event which gives them the opportunity to compete and collectively release some psychic energy. Understandably, war is filled with aggressive and destructive behaviours that are simply the manifestations of the energy released.

Football provides the same opportunity. In this game, players need to be aggressive to win. Similar to a battle in a war, a football game cannot be won by strength and skills alone. It must be supported by clever tactics and strategies. And most importantly, football is a team game where teamwork is of paramount importance although the heroics of individuals can prove to be crucial; again very similar to what happens in war battles.

We no longer live in times where envy, pride and jealousy would propel someone to physically destroy the enemy (at least not most of the time). These 'sins' still exist between and against people of different nations. But rather than going to war against the enemy, the battle can be fought on the football field. Players representing each nation are the soldiers who battle to preserve the honour of the country, while the spectators are the common citizens who watch with pride the valiancy of their 'warriors' fighting on their behalf. And the best thing of all about football is, there is minimal chance of civilian casualties.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa offers the prospect of some tantalising encounters. As early as the second round, either England or the United States may battle against Germany. Of course, none of the players of these countries were around during the First and Second World Wars, but the memories of both would surely spice-up the build-up to such an encounter.

Meanwhile, at the quarter-final stage; if both teams advance as expected, England and Argentina will do battle, a match that would surely bring up memories of the bitter Falklands War fought by the two nations. Argentinian football legend and current national head coach Diego Maradona has repeatedly said that beating England in the 1986 World Cup was the sweetest moment in his football career. No doubt this was largely because of the bitterness carried over from the Falklands War. If the two nations do meet again this year, the reciprocal animosity between players and fans from both countries will again be the focus of attention.

If England advances to the semi-final stage, their likely opponent is Holland, which is another juicy encounter. After more than a century where people from both countries fought a long and bitter war in South Africa (the Second Boer War), they may do battle again on the very same soil, this time for the honour and pride of advancing to a world cup final match.

Football may well be a silly old game where 22 grown-ups run like crazy chasing after a white ball. But football today is more than just a game. The FIFA World Cup, football's biggest tournament is the moral equivalent of war where people of different nations battle for their nations' pride and glory. There is no need to bludgeon your opponents to win this 'war'. All you need is the right tactics and strategies and to fight on the field in the name your country. And the satisfaction of winning would be just as sweet.

Isu 'Allah': Salahkah Orang Melayu Beremosi?

2010-06-11T01:03:00.005+08:00

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website on 27th May 2010)

"Salahkah orang Melayu beremosi?" Begitulah keluhan yang dilontar saudara Akramsyah Sanusi ketika berucap di pentas Bloggers Universe Malaysia (BUM 2010) hujung minggu yang lalu. Konteks keluhan ini adalah isu kalimah 'Allah' yang masih belum bertemu jalan penyelesaian. Saudara Akramsyah seterusnya menambah, sekiranya ramai di kalangan puak majoriti (orang Melayu di Malaysia) hatinya terguris kerana isu ini, puak minoriti perlu bertolak ansur demi memelihara kesejahteraan dan keamanan negara.

Ada benarnya apa yang diluahkan saudara Akramsyah. Untuk memelihara keharmonian antara rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama, emosi masing-masing perlu dihormati dan dijaga. Jika orang Cina atau Melayu mengadakan majlis keramaian dan diundang pula tetamu yang beragama Hindu, janganlah dibiarkan segala hidangan yang disediakan mengandungi daging lembu. Nanti terguris hati tetamu beragama Hindu yang hadir. Emosi mereka pasti terganggu.

Emosi orang Cina juga boleh terganggu sekiranya adat dan budaya mereka tidak dihormati. Contohnya, sekiranya kita ingin memberi hadiah harijadi kepada seorang rakan berbangsa Cina, janganlah diberikan hadiah sebuah jam dinding atau jam perhiasan. Emosi dan perasaan rakan berbangsa Cina itu pasti akan terganggu juga. Manakan tidak! Dalam budaya masyarakat Cina, menghadiahkan seseorang sebuah jam seumpama mengucapkan selamat tinggal kepada orang yang ajalnya hampir tiba.

Emosi mempengaruhi kelakuan dan motivasi seseorang. Ini telah dibuktikan dalam banyak kajian dalam bidang psikologi. Namun, bertindak kerana emosi bukanlah suatu kaedah yang efektif. Emosi kita adakalanya tidak rasional yang mungkin berpunca daripada salah faham atau kepercayaan pada fakta yang salah.

Contohnya, pada penghujung tahun 1990'an, emosi dan perasaan masyarakat Melayu tercalar hebat akibat laporan kes murtad seorang wanita beragama Islam. Ada pihak yang mendakwa jumlah kes murtad ini mencecah ratusan ribu di seluruh negara. Namun, bila dibandingkan dengan fakta yang ada, sepertimana yang dilaporkan dalam kajian pensyarah Universiti Teknologi Mara, Dr. Mohamad Azam Mohamed Adil, angka yang sangat besar itu jelas tidak munasabah. Memang kes murtad itu ada namun jumlahnya jauh lebih kecil daripada apa yang digembar-gemburkan.

Emosi yang berkobar-kobar ternyata tidak semestinya berlandaskan fakta dan kebenaran. Maka agak malang sekiranya saudara Akramsyah terus berkeras menggunakan alasan emosi sebagai panduan ke arah jalan penyelesaian. Isu kalimah 'Allah' memang banyak mempengaruhi emosi, namun tidakkah terlintas di benak fikiran Akramsyah dan lain-lain pihak yang membantah keputusan mahkamah tinggi dalam kes ini bahawa emosi mereka itu mungkin tidak rasional dan tidak berasas?

Di pentas yang sama, saudara Akramsyah turut mendakwa dengan lantang bahawa tidak ada satu pihak pun setakat ini yang telah memberikan cadangan jalan penyelesaian. Dakwaan yang sangat menghairankan kerana pelbagai cadangan sebenarnya telah dilemparkan.

Contoh terbaik ialah analisa dan cadangan yang diberikan pensyarah Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia, Ustaz Zaharuddin Abdul Rahman. Dalam artikelnya yang bertajuk 'Nama Allah: Hukum Asal, Dakwah dan Siasah' yang siarkan di blognya, Ustaz Zaharuddin menjelaskan dengan terperinci bahawa dari segi hukum, penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' oleh orang-orang bukan Islam itu sebenarnya diharuskan. Yang dibimbangi adalah dari sudut dakwah dan siasah, yaitu sekiranya penggunaan ini disalahgunakan untuk kegiatan dakwah agama lain kepada orang-orang Islam. Walaupun Ustaz Zaharuddin secara peribadi bersetuju dengan pendirian melarang orang-orang bukan Islam daripada menggunakan kalimah Allah, di penghujung artikelnya beliau mencadangkan:

"Jikalau keputusan mahkamah (selepas rayuan) tetap mengizinkan penerbit Kristian menterjemah kalimah 'God' kepada Allah dalam penerbitan mereka, saya bersetuju dengan pandangan pelbagai pihak yang mencadangkan agar Kerajaan mengadakan segera muzakarah dan dialog di antara ulama, pakar undang-undang dan pihak Kristian bagi memastikan kebenaran itu tidak digunakan untuk mengelirukan umat Islam dan segala penulisan dihadkan kepada penganut Kristian semata-mata. Tatkala itu syarat-syarat dan perjanjian perlu dibuat bagi menjaga kehamonian masyarakat dalam Negara."

Nah, tidak cukupkah cadangan seperti ini yang diberikan, atau mungkin pada tanggapan saudara Akramsyah, hanya pandangan dan cadangan yang selari dengan pendirian Umno sahaja yang wajar dipertimbangkan. Cadangan Ustaz Zaharuddin ini ternyata tidak jauh berbeza dengan pendirian PAS dan PKR dalam isu ini, dan selari juga dengan undang-undang yang sedia ada yang melarang segala usaha dakwah agama lain kepada penganut agama Islam.

Emosi sebilangan orang Melayu yang panas akibat isu ini banyak diapi-apikan media pro-kerajaan dan tindakan kurang bijak yang diambil agensi-agensi agama dalam kerajaan. Mimbar Jumaat di seluruh negara misalnya telah digunakan untuk mempengaruhi orang-orang Islam agar membantah sekeras-kerasnya keputusan mahkamah yang membenarkan kalimah Allah digunakan orang-orang bukan Islam.

Persoalannya, mengapa tidak mimbar yang sama digunakan untuk menerangkan mengapa dari segi hukum, tidak ada dalil kukuh yang menghalang orang bukan Islam daripada menggunakan kalimah Allah? Mengapa tidak dijemput Tokoh Ma'al Hijrah 2009, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi menyampaikan syarahan perdana bagi menghurai isu ini dengan mendalam yang disiarkan secara langsung ke seluruh negara?

Bukankah kaedah seperti ini akan dapat meredakan emosi yang panas dan membalut hati-hati orang Islam yang terguris? Bukankah cara ini lebih positif dan bermanfaat dalam usaha memupuk persefahaman antara rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama? Atau, adakah saudara Akramsyah dan yang lain-lain yang sealiran dengannya sebenarnya tidak mahu emosi yang panas ini disejukkan?

Di akhir sessi perbincangan isu ini di BUM 2010, saudara Akramsyah bijak menyebut bahawa isu ini sebenarnya memberikan peluang keemasan bagi sesetengah pihak untuk tampil sebagai 'hero' yang menyelesaikan masalah. Saya amat bersetuju dengan pendapat ini, namun kurang bersetuju dengan 'hero' yang dicadangkan saudara Akramsyah. Beliau berpendapat, orang Kristianlah yang patut menjadi 'hero' dengan mematuhi perintah larangan yang diputuskan kerajaan, lantas menampilkan ciri manusia yang berhati mulia sepertimana yang dituntut dalam ajaran agama Kristian.

Saya berpendapat, orang yang paling berpeluang tampil sebagai 'hero' ialah Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak. Bayangkan sekiranya beliau dengan tegas mengambil langkah-langkah menganjurkan muzakarah antara pemimpin-pemimpin agama, dan mengadakan sessi-sessi penerangan yang disampaikan ulamak-ulamak tersohor seperti yang disarankan di atas? Populariti dan kredibiliti Najib akan melonjak tinggi sebagai 'Bapa 1Malaysia' yang sejati yang ikhlas memperjuangkan perpaduan dan keharmonian antara kaum dan agama di Malaysia. Sungguh malang, peluang keemasan ini nampaknya sudah dilepaskan.

Hanya Cantik Di Atas Kertas

2010-05-21T15:08:00.004+08:00

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website under the title 'Bila rumah, kereta dan harta melampaui pendapatan' on 13th May 2010)

Ketika berkhidmat di sebuah syarikat perunding peniagaan lebih sedekad yang lalu, saya diberi peluang terlibat dalam sebuah projek merangka misi dan visi sebuah organisasi utama di Malaysia. Maka tersemburlah semasa perbincangan segala frasa yang cantik dan hebat yang difikirkan dapat menjadi lambang kemegahan organisasi berkenaan. Misi dan visi itu biarlah cantik. Samada ianya berpijak di bumi yang nyata atau sekadar mimpi di awangan tidak menjadi persoalan.

Inilah antara lumrah kehidupan di negara kita. Di atas kertas segala-galanya nampak cantik dan hebat. Namun realitinya tidaklah sehebat mana, malah adakalanya sangat menghampakan.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, pada penghujung pemerintahannya sempat menaikkan taraf Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM). Suruhanjaya ini dikatakan setaraf dengan suruhanjaya bebas pencegahan rasuah di Hong Kong yang diiktiraf keberkesanaannya di serata dunia. Berbekalkan misi yang hebat untuk "mewujudkan masyarakat Malaysia bebas daripada rasuah berlandaskan nilai-nilai kerohanian dan moral yang tinggi, (dan) menjadikan SPRM agensi pembanterasan rasuah yang professional dan unggul"; ramai pemerhati terpegun dengan langkah berani yang diambil perdana menteri dan kerajaan. Suruhanjaya ini diharap dapat bertindak dengan bebas, adil dan professional bagi mengembalikan keyakinan rakyat terhadap usaha kerajaan Barisan Nasional membanteras rasuah di setiap sudut dan peringkat.

Di atas kertas, misi dan visi SPRM memang gah dan hebat. Bidang kuasanya begitu luas. Pakaian rasmi para anggotanya pun tampak segak dan kemas. Namun, dalam tempoh lebih setahun SPRM diwujudkan, pencapaiannya masih mengecewakan.

Yang paling mengecewakan pastinya kes Teoh Beng Hock yang hingga kini berdepan beribu persoalan. Samada benar beliau membunuh diri atau mati dibunuh sepertimana didakwa sesetengah pihak, umum masih mempersoal apakah rasional beliau disoal-siasat hingga larut malam? Yang diketahui umum, beliau disiasat sebagai seorang saksi, bukan pun sebagai orang yang disyaki. Dan dakwaan rasuah dalam kes itu pun melibatkan jumlah tidak sampai RM3000. Tidak pula diketahui samada beliau suspek jenayah besar yang memerlukan siasatan segera seakan-akan keselamatan negara berdepan ancaman getir yang sangat serius.

Tidak lupa juga kes dua enjin pesawat jet F5 yang hilang dicuri. Yang didakwa bagi kes ini hanyalah dua orang individu yang tidaklah tinggi pangkat dan kedudukannya. Walhal ramai beranggapan lebih ramai yang terlibat memandangkan objek yang dicuri bukannya kecil dan tidak mudah diurus dibawa ke luar negara. Memanglah siasatan kes ini lebih menjurus kepada siasatan dalaman pihak tentera. Namun tidak masuk akal sekiranya tiada langsung individu-individu daripada agensi-agensi kerajaan dan badan-badan berkanun lain yang terlibat.

Begitu juga ceritanya berkenaan kes-kes salah laku yang termaktub dalam Laporan Audit Negara 2008. Antara contoh kes salah laku yang dilaporkan ialah komputer riba yang berharga kurang RM5000 sebuah yang dibayar harga lebih RM40,000, 12 pokok pinang yang berharga kurang RM2000 dibayar harga RM9000, dan kerugian lebih RM1 billion yang ditanggung kerajaan bagi projek landasan keretapi berkembar elektrik bagi laluan dari Rawang ke Ipoh.

Kes-kes seperti ini sebenarnya sudah sekian lama dilaporkan. Dalam beberapa buku beliau yang diterbitkan pada tahun 1970'an, Professor Syed Hussein Alatas telah mengulas masalah rasuah di negara ini dengan cukup mendalam. Dan contoh kes rasuah yang dibincang beliau banyak berkisar pada apa yang terkandung dalam laporan tahunan Jabatan Audit Negara.

Sebagai contoh, dalam bukunya Intellectuals in Developing Societies (Intelektual Masyarakat Membangun), Alatas memetik kandungan Laporan Juru Audit Negara Kerajaan Persekutuan 1968 yang melaporkan bahawa dalam tempoh tiga tahun (dari tahun 1965 hingga 1967), Jabatan Telekom ketika itu telah kehilangan 1,662 peti kabel tembaga, seberat 598,556 paun yang bernilai hampir sejuta ringgit! Alatas juga memetik dalam buku yang sama kes kontrak pembangunan kapal korek yang bernilai hampir dua juta ringgit yang ditandatangani kerajaan persekutuan pada tahun 1964. Kapal korek itu hanya beroperasi selama tiga bulan sebelum mengalami kerosakan. Dilaporkan tidak ada pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkan bagi kes berkenaan.

Memandangkan kes-kes seperti ini sudah berlaku sejak lebih 30 tahun yang lalu, secara logiknya dengan wujudnya agensi pencegah rasuah seperti BPR dahulunya, dan SPRM sekarang ini, kes-kes seperti tidak lagi berlaku secara berleluasa. Namun, sepertimana yang terkandung dalam Laporon Audit Negara 2008, dan sepertimana yang diakui SPRM sendiri baru-baru ini, rasuah di sektor awam masih ditahap yang serius dan membimbangkan. Maka tidak menghairankan sekiranya masih ramai di kalangan rakyat negara ini yang masih kurang yakin dengan peranan dan tindakan SPRM.

Sebilangan besar rakyat Malaysia tidak partisan dalam persepsi mereka. Mereka hanya mahu melihat keadilan terlaksana. Bilamana adanya pemimpin-pemimpin politik (baik di pihak Barisan Nasional mahupun Pakatan Rakyat) dan pegawai-pegawai kerajaan yang rumah, kereta dan harta bendanya jelas melampaui pendapatan yang diterima, ramai yang tertanya-tanya mengapa perkara seperti ini dibiarkan berleluasa.

Misi dan visi SPRM itu cukup hebat dan cantik. Namun janganlah hanya cantik diatas kertas. Bukankah rasuah itu suatu barah yang boleh menghancurkan negara? Sejarah telah membuktikan bagaimana kerajaan-kerajaan terdahulu runtuh kerana rasuah. Malaysia pastinya tidak mahu terjerumus ke arah yang sama.

Adakah Serangan Peribadi Strategi Bijak Dalam Pilihanraya?

2010-04-30T22:31:00.007+08:00

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website on 22 April 2010.)

Sepanjang tempoh kempen pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor minggu ini, calon Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Zaid Ibrahim diserang pelbagai tohmahan berkenaan cara hidup dan keperibadiannya. Moral dan akhlaknya dipersoalkan. Beliau dikatakan seorang kaki minum dan kaki judi yang tidak layak diangkat sebagai pemimpin orang-orang Melayu dan Islam.

Serangan peribadi atau pembunuhan karakter (character assasination) seperti ini mempunyai sejarah yang cukup panjang dalam dunia politik bukan sahaja di Malaysia bahkan di serata dunia. Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang pertama, Tunku Abdul Rahman pernah menjadi sasaran kritikan seperti Zaid Ibrahim. Beliau juga dikatakan meminum arak dan berjudi, namun bilamana isu ini dibangkitkan di parlimen, beliau dengan lantang mencabar: "ahli-ahli parlimen yang tidak pernah melakukan dosa, sila berdiri!" Kata-kata itu cukup untuk meredakan serangan peribadi ke atas dirinya.

Pembunuhan karakter terbesar dalam sejarah politik negara tidak syak lagi merujuk kepada apa yang berlaku pada Anwar Ibrahim pada tahun 1998. Beliau yang ketika itu merupakan Timbalan Perdana Menteri sebelumnya terkenal dengan imej Islamik dan tatasusila yang tinggi. Tidak semena-mena muncul bukan satu atau dua tapi lima puluh 'dalil' mengapa Anwar Ibrahim tidak boleh menggantikan Dr. Mahathir sebagai perdana menteri. 'Dalil-dalil' yang tersenarai melibatkan antaranya skandal seks dengan pelacur-pelacur luar negara, hubungan seks sejenis, hubungan seks dengan isteri orang lain, namanya yang membawa maksud peperangan (An'WAR'), dan banyak lagi.

Serangan peribadi seperti ini tidak menyasar kepada isu-isu utama politik dan kerajaan. Ianya lebih bertujuan untuk melemahkan mangsa secara psikologikal dan melunturkan imejnya pada kacamata masyarakat. Kempen negatif seperti ini pastinya jauh lebih mudah direncanakan berbanding dengan kempen positif yang memerlukan daya fikir dan intektual yang lebih.

Namun, walaupun ianya mudah dilaksanakan, adakah ianya sering membuahkan hasil yang diharapkan?

Pada tahun 1863, Perdana Menteri Britain Lord Palmerston didakwa terlibat dalam skandal seks dengan seorang wanita yang sudah berkahwin. Ramai di kalangan penyokong-penyokong parti pembangkang menganggap skandal ini akan meruntuhkan populariti Lord Palmerston dan menyebabkan beliau kecundang pada pilihanraya umum seterusnya. Tetapi, lain pula yang berlaku.

Populariti Lord Palmerston kian bertambah dan beliau dipilih semula sebagai perdana menteri selepas pilihanraya umum Britain pada tahun 1865. Beliau yang ketika itu sudah pun menjangkau umur 78 tahun dianggap ramai rakyat Britain sebagai masih mampu dan bertenaga untuk melaksanakan tugas sebagai perdana menteri. Jika tidak, mana mungkin beliau pada usia sebegitu masih mampu membuat hubungan dengan wanita lain!? Rasional yang agak pelik namun itulah yang berlaku.

Kesan yang agak sama dapat dilihat dalam kes Anwar Ibrahim berdasarkan pada apa yang berlaku pada Pilihanraya Umum 1999. Serangan peribadi ke atas Anwar yang diharap dapat melemahkan kepercayaan orang-orang Melayu ke atas dirinya jelas membuahkan hasil yang sebaliknya. Buat julung-julung kalinya, sokongan orang-orang Melayu terhadap Umno jatuh dengan teruk. Kalau tidak kerana undi kaum Cina dan India, nescaya kerajaan Barisan Nasional tumbang pada pilihanraya umum tersebut.

Maka, agak menghairankan mengapa Umno dan Barisan Nasional dalam kempen pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor ini masih mahu menggunakan taktik lapuk ini. Tidakkah mereka sedar bahawa masyarakat sekarang sudah semakin bijak dan terdedah dengan pelbagai sumber maklumat selain daripada RTM dan Utusan Malaysia?

Zaid Ibrahim ternyata telah membalas serangan ini dengan bijak. Beliau tidak mengelak dan tidak juga cuba menutup kesalahannya yang lalu. Beliau mengaku terlibat dalam perbuatan yang dimaksudkan namun kini tidak lagi. Kalau benar orang itu sudah bertaubat, apa lagi yang hendak dikatakan? "Taubatnya tidak sah?" Itu bukan kuasa kita sebagai manusia untuk menentukan.

Sebaliknya apa yang berlaku ialah serangan peribadi ini terpantul kembali ke arah mereka yang memulakannya. Di dalam internet, telah mula tersebar gambar-gambar dan kisah-kisah pemimpin-pemimpin Umno yang meminum arak dan terlibat dalam kegiatan perjudian. Malah, Ariff Sabri (ahli Umno dan penulis blog Sakmongkol AK47) jelas mengatakan bahawa ramai pemimpin Umno minum arak dan berjudi. Maka, apa yang asalnya dianggap peluru menyerang lawan kini melantun balik ke arah mereka yang menembaknya.

Walaupun Barisan Nasional mungkin akan menang di Hulu Selangor, kemenangan itu adalah kerana sikap naif sesetengah pengundi dan sokongan orang-orang Melayu yang sentiasa setia bersama Umno. Kesan jangka panjang pula, Umno dan Barisan Nasional mungkin akan hilang selama-lamanya sokongan orang-orang Melayu di bandar, golongan-golongan muda dan yang terpelajar, dan sokongan orang-orang bukan Melayu. Mereka tidak lagi mahu melayan politik kelas rendah seperti ini.

Maka menguatkan lagi keluhan yang pernah diungkap Ketua Pemuda Umno, Khairy Jamaluddin bahawa Umno kini semakin hari semakin menjadi parti yang tertumpu pada satu kumpulan spesifik dalam masyarakat Melayu sahaja yakni kumpulan yang nasionalistik dan taksub pada bangsanya sendiri. Walhal Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) yang kurang sedekad lalu dianggap parti yang konservatif dan berfikiran sempit, telah mula menampakkan kematangan berpolitik. Pengaruhnya di kalangan masyarakat bandar dan orang-orang bukan Melayu semakin berkembang tanpa melemahkan sokongan tradisinya di kalangan orang-orang Melayu yang konservatif dalam hal-ehwal agama.

Kita sudahpun masuk ke dekad kedua dalam abad ke-21. Dan negara kita sudahpun menjangkau usia lebih 50 tahun. Bilakah agaknya kita boleh mencapai kematangan dalam berpolitik? Saya percaya dalam Umno dan Barisan Nasional, ada ramai ahli-ahlinya yang berkebolehan yang mampu bermain strategi politik yang lebih positif dan matang. Silalah tampil dan bawa perubahan.

Masyarakat Bijak & Kebebasan Bersuara

2010-04-15T22:09:00.005+08:00

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website under the title 'Tak mudah jadi pemimpin zaman sekarang' on 8th April 2010)

Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak dalam ucapannya pada perhimpunan mingguan Jabatan Perdana Menteri pada hari Isnin yang lalu mengakui bahawa salah satu cabaran besar dihadapi kerajaan sekarang ialah bagaimana untuk menangani masyarakat hari ini yang semakin hari semakin bijak. Dengan kebijakan dan kelayakan yang ada, mereka tidak mahu lagi hanya menurut dan mendengar, tapi mahukan lebih kebebasan bersuara untuk melontarkan pendapat dan kritikan.

Kesediaan perdana menteri menerima kenyataan ini sangat-sangat dialukan. Kerajaan Umno dan Barisan Nasional sudah sekian lama memainkan hujah ketaatan dan kepatuhan kepada pemimpin sebagai alasan untuk terus managih sokongan rakyat. Hujah yang berasal daripada mentaliti feudalistik ini terus dicanang terutamanya di kalangan orang Melayu. Prinsip asasnya ialah, walau apa jua kelemahan pemimpin dan pemerintah, pantang anak Melayu menderhaka!

Pada golongan muda, sering dilaungkan pula hujah ketaatan yang diadun pintaan untuk membalas budi dan berterima kasih. Semua orang Melayu yang menerima bantuan biasiswa dan pinjaman kewangan daripada kerajaan disaran agar tidak sesekali berpaling tadah menyokong selain daripada Umno dan Barisan Nasional. Yang perlu ditunjukkan adalah sikap taat setia dan berterima kasih kepada kerajaan. Mana mungkin digigit tangan yang menyuap makanan.

Hujah-hujah seperti ini sudah tidak lagi berkesan. Sepertimana yang diucapkan perdana menteri, masyarakat kini semakin bijak. Bijaknya mereka sehingga ramai yang tahu membezakan antara ketaatan kepada rakyat dan negara dan ketaatan kepada pemimpin-pemimpin politik dalam kerajaan.

Memang benar kerajaan banyak menabur bantuan biasiswa dan kewangan. Namun, dana yang digunakan untuk bantuan-bantuan ini bukanlah milik parti-parti politik Barisan Nasional. Dana yang digunakan adalah milik awam, milik rakyat Malaysia keseluruhannya. Maka, semua penerima-penerima biasiswa perlu berterima-kasih kepada rakyat Malaysia dengan menggunakan sepenuhnya ilmu dan pengalaman yang ada untuk membangunkan negara.

Antara sumbangan yang boleh dilakukan ialah dengan memperjuangkan pembentukan kerajaan yang lebih telus, adil dan efisyen. Fikrah perjuangan tidak semestinya dengan Umno dan Barisan Nasional. Ada yang memilih berjuang bersama parti-parti pembangkang. Tidak kira fikrah perjuangan mana yang dipilih, matlamatnya tetap sama yakni untuk membangunkan tanahair yang tercinta.

Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak pastinya sedar bahawa tidak munasabah untuk mengharapkan golongan muda yang berpelajaran tinggi dan terdedah dengan pelbagai falsafah ideologi dan teori pemikiran dengan mudah dapat menerima apa sahaja yang diluahkan kerajaan. Setiap dasar akan diteliti, setiap kata-kata akan diamati, dan jika ada kelemahan dan kepincangan yang dikesan, bersedialah mendengar kritikan.

Justeru itu, perlu ada ruang yang luas yang disediakan bagi rakyat berbahas dan berbincang isu-isu yang membelenggu negara dan kerajaan. Rakyat perlu diberi kebebasan melontarkan hujah, cadangan dan kritikan agar pemimpin kerajaan diingatkan bahawasanya tanggungjawab mereka bukan untuk bersenang-lenang di atas kerusi empuk pejabat kerajaan, tetapi untuk mencurahkan segala tenaga dan tumpuan kepada masalah negara dan rakyat.

Kebebasan bersuara yang diharap bukanlah kebebasan mutlak tanpa batasan. Dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama seperti di Malaysia, garis panduan yang kemas perlu digubal untuk memandu perbincangan dan perbahasan pada setiap peringkat. Kita tidak mahu kebebasan hingga ke tahap pemimpin-pemimpin kerajaan dan parti-parti politik dihina dan dijadikan bahan gurauan yang keterlaluan. Tidak molek juga sekiranya kebebasan itu sampai ke tahap gambar-gambar wajah pemimpin-pemimpin dipijak dan dibakar.

Cukuplah sekadar ruang yang luas diberikan agar segenap masyarakat dialu-alu mengutarakan hujah dan pandangan. Janganlah diugut mereka dengan ancaman dakwaan dan tindakan undang-undang walaupun mungkin hujah yang diberikan tajam dan pedas mengkritik dan mendedahkan kepincangan dalam kerajaan.

Lantaran muncul individu-individu seperti Raja Petra Kamarudin yang lantang menuduh perdana menteri dan kerajaan terlibat dalam pelbagai skandal, yang mahu dilihat ramai bukanlah tindakan undang-undang diambil ke atas mereka. Yang mahu dilihat adalah respon terperinci bagi setiap tuduhan yang dilemparkan. Bersumpah di dalam masjid mana mungkin cukup untuk meredakan desas-desus dan syak-wasangka.

Yang perlu diamati adalah cara bagaimana hujah itu disampaikan dan bahasa yang digunakan. Berbahasalah dengan cermat dan tertib. Tidak perlu terjerit-jerit sambil menghunus keris. Tidak perlu juga kata-kata nista yang menghina bangsa dan agama lain. Sekiranya terbukti kritikan yang disampaikan palsu dan berniat jahat, barulah tindakan undang-undang dikenakan.

Perbezaan pendapat adalah lumrah setiap sistem demokrasi. Tugas seorang pemimpin bukanlah untuk melayan hanya hujah yang menyokong dan melenyapkan semua yang tidak. Seorang pemimpin yang baik perlu bersedia mendengar kesemuanya, mempertimbangkannya sedalam mungkin dan bertindak hanya setelah semuanya dikaji.

Bukannya mudah menjadi pemimpin zaman sekarang. Masyarakat yang kian sofistikated pemikirannya tidak mahu pemimpin politik dan wakil rakyat yang hanya tahu menguruskan gotong-royong dan menyampaikan derma dan sumbangan. Mereka mahukan tokoh-tokoh yang arif akan isu-isu politik dan ekonomi dan berani berdepan segala hujah dan kritikan yang dilemparkan.

Sekiranya masih ada pemimpin-pemimpin politik di Malaysia baik di pihak Barisan Nasional mahupun di pihak Pakatan Rakyat yang masih menganggap kedudukan mereka setaraf dengan pemimpin zaman feudal dan golongan bangsawan dahulu kala yang tidak boleh disanggah segala hujah dan tindakan mereka, nescaya tidak lama jangka hayat politik mereka.

Structural Violence and The Exploited Poor

2010-03-23T11:38:00.007+08:00

Discussions on violence in the society often focussed on what peace psychologists refer to as episodic violence. This refers to episodes of violence which involves physical confrontations between two or more aggressors that result in physical destruction, injuries and human casualties.

What is seldom talked about is another type of violence: structural violence. This refers to socio-economic policies and infrastructures that perpetuate a constant and widening gap between the rich and the poor. Essentially, what happens here is economic structures and public policies are built and maintained as such that the rich becomes richer and richer while the poor remain helplessly trapped in a state of destitution.

Compared to most other countries who gained independence after World War II, Malaysia has been fortunate to witness only a few occurrences of episodic violence. In fact, the May 13, 1969 incident remains the one and only major episode of communal violence to occur in the country since its independence in 1957.

What precipitated the episodic violence in 1969 was structural violence that continued to divide the major racial groups along economic lines. The Chinese were typically the rich merchants and businessmen, the Malays were farmers, fishermen, school teachers and clerks, while the Indians were mostly plantation and common labourers.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced in the aftermath of the 1969 incident was a profound attempt to reduce this structural violence. The NEP has without a doubt helped millions of Malays to pursue tertiary education, assisted thousands to set-up their own businesses, and uplifted the socio-economic status of at least two generations of Malays since its implementation.

However, although the policy was originally conceived for implementation for only 20 years, there are sections in the Malay society who believe the policy should remain for many more decades, if not forever. Loudest among them in recent days are the new 'warriors' who are part of PERKASA, an ultra Malay-nationalist group led by the one and only Dato’ Ibrahim Ali.

If someone who is poor and was clearly a victim of oppression shouts from the top of his lungs about justice for the poor Malays, I would take him seriously and pay attention to what he has to say. But when the same call is made by someone who quite obviously has continued to live a comfortable life having successfully and cunningly exploited the system, I can only shake my head in utter disbelief and dismay.

There are indeed many Malays who have remained poor despite almost 40 years of NEP. A few others however have become extremely rich but rather than giving something back to the society have continued to accumulate enormous wealth for themselves and their families by continuously exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in the policy.

Prominent blogger Haris Ibrahim in a recent posting described an interesting example of how some people had worked through the system to gain tremendous financial profit at the expense of others. His posting described how a few people who were privy of the government's plans in the early 1990's to build Putrajaya and KLIA, were scheming a plan to purchase the land around the area while the land was still cheap and then sell it for a much higher price to the government when plans for the new township and international airport are announced later.

Easy money indeed. Legally acceptable, perhaps, but most definitely morally wrong. The original land owners ought to have earned maximum profit from the land sale. And who were these naïve and unsuspected land owners? They were mostly poor Malays.

Certainly this is only one of many such examples. I, myself have had the experience of people approaching me to take part in a similar scheme. An almost complete stranger once approached me about a certain section of Langkawi Island which at the time was not yet developed. I was told then that the land can be bought cheap from the locals and in less than a year can be sold back at tremendous profit to the government when developments are approved.

Such devious schemes are made possible by the structural violence we have in this country. I sincerely wish therefore that PERKASA in its noble efforts to fight and defend Malay rights and privileges, will not set its sights only on the non-Malays. Please set your targets on the numerous unscrupulous Malays who are greatly responsible for the structural violence against the exploited poor.

Islamisasi dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam

2010-03-04T16:12:00.002+08:00

Dalam ceramah-ceramah kempen pilihanraya anjuran Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP), antara hujah yang sering dikemukan untuk menggesa pengundi bukan Melayu supaya tidak mengundi Barisan Nasional (BN) ialah apa yang disifatkan mereka sebagai dasar Islamisasi kerajaan BN yang keterlaluan. Maka, dicanangkanlah kata-kata seperti "semua undi pada MCA adalah undi pada UMNO dan tanda sokongan terhadap dasar Islamisasi kerajaan".

Proses Islamisasi di Malaysia sangat sinonim dengan zaman pemerintahan Dr. Mahathir. Berbeza dengan perdana menteri sebelumnya, Dr. Mahathir sering disebut sebagai perdana menteri Malaysia pertama yang konsisten amalan agamanya dan tidak terpaut pemikirannya dengan ideologi pemisahan agama dalam urusan politik dan negara. Oleh yang demikian, Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam dalam agensi-agensi kerajaan diperkenalkan Dr. Mahathir sejak dari awal pemerintahannya.

Mungkin agak terlalu optimis untuk kita menganggap Dr. Mahathir sebagai pelopor gerakan Islamisasi di Malaysia yang ikhlas dalam perjuangan menegakkan syiar Islam. Keikhlasan itu sedikit sebanyak pasti ada dalam lubuk hatinya namun tidak dapat diabaikan juga kemungkinan inisiatif Dr. Mahathir ini lebih bersifat reaktif kepada situasi sosio-agama di dalam dan luar negara pada ketika itu.

Di peringkat antarabangsa, peristiwa yang menjadi pemangkin pada kebangkitan gerakan Islamisasi di seluruh dunia tidak syak lagi adalah revolusi Islam di Iran pada tahun 1979. Sebelum itu juga, bibit-bibit kebangkitan ini terserlah hasil pengaruh perjuangan kumpulan Ikhwanul Muslimin di Timur Tengah dan penyebaran meluas tulisan-tulisan pemikir Islam seperti Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb dan Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi.

Dari situasi ini, di Malaysia lahirlah pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam seperti Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) dan Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) yang didokongi golongan muda. Dan pemimpin mereka yang paling lantang dan yang paling terkenal sepanjang tahun 1970-an tidak lain dan tidak bukan ialah Anwar Ibrahim.

Telah ditakdirkan, walaupun sebelumnya beliau kuat mengkritik kerajaan, Anwar Ibrahim akhirnya menyertai UMNO pada tahun 1982 hasil pujukan dan pelawaan Dr. Mahathir yang baru mengambil-alih tampuk pemerintahan pada ketika itu. Teori penyertaan Anwar ke dalam UMNO masih dibahaskan hingga ke hari ini. Yang sering didesas-desuskan adalah janji Dr. Mahathir memberi mandat kepada Anwar untuk menggerakkan proses Islamisasi dalam kerajaan daripada pelbagai sudut dan bidang.

Maka lahir dan berkembanglah insitusi perbankan Islam, institusi pengajian tinggi Islam dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam Di Sektor Awam hasil usahasama Dr. Mahathir dan Anwar Ibrahim. Hingga kini, Malaysia dikenali serata dunia sebagai penggerak utama perbankan dan produk-produk kewangan Islam. Dan dalam bidang pendidikan, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia kekal dengan imejnya di dalam dan di luar negara sebagai insitusi pengajian tinggi Islam yang progresif dan moden.

Proses Islamisasi dalam institusi perbankan dan institusi pengajian tinggi tidak banyak mengundang kontroversi. Yang menjadi kontroversi ialah bila ianya menyusup ke sektor awam terutamanya dalam sistem pendidikan kebangsaan. Lebih menyulitkan lagi bilamana proses ini dianggap berselindung di sebalik agenda politik untuk menarik undi and sokongan pengundi-pengundi Melayu. Lantas, proses Islamisasi ini dilihat ramai orang bukan Islam sebagai tidak lebih dari usaha UMNO untuk mengekang pengaruh PAS di kalangan masyarakat Melayu Islam di Malaysia.

Akibat daripada pertandingan 'siapa yang lebih Islamik' antara UMNO dan PAS ini, pelbagai polemik dan polisi agama diketengahkan tanpa mengambil kira pandangan dan reaksi masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia. Di sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan, pendidikan agama Islam diberi lebih penekanan. Bacaan doa setiap hari dan ceramah agama semasa perhimpunan mingguan diperkenalkan di banyak sekolah-sekolah. Adakalanya, majlis sambutan perayaan agama seperti Ma'al Hijrah dan Maulidur-Rasul juga diadakan semasa perhimpunan mingguan di mana semua pelajar-pelajar bukan Islam turut serta secara paksa-rela.

Sebagai orang Islam, saya tidak punya masalah dengan kekerapan aktiviti-aktiviti agama di sekolah-sekolah. Saya sendiri pernah menjadi pembaca doa dan menyampaikan pidato agama dalam perhimpunan mingguan walaupun sekolah saya di Petaling Jaya ketika itu hampir separuh pelajar-pelajarnya adalah pelajar-pelajar bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam. Tidak terlintas di fikiran yang rakan-rakan bukan Islam saya di sekolah mungkin tidak selesa dengan aktiviti-aktiviti agama yang dijalankan.

Namun kini saya menyedari perasaan kurang senang jelas tersemat di hati mereka terutamanya di kalangan masyarakat Cina yang kesannya jelas kelihatan sekarang ini. Sejak awal 1990-an, kebanyakan ibubapa Cina tidak lagi memilih menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah kebangsaan. Walaupun terpaksa membayar kos perbelanjaan yang lebih tinggi, lebih 90 peratus ibubapa-ibubapa Cina memilih untuk menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan Cina. Fenomena ini jelas memberi kesan yang agak negatif kepada keharmonian hubungan antara kaum Melayu dan Cina.

Melihat akan situasi ini, patutkah proses dan dasar Islamisasi kerajaan dipersalahkan?

Jika dilihat secara objektif, fenomena kebangkitan kesedaran agama tidak berlaku di Malaysia sahaja dan tidak juga hanya melibatkan penganut agama Islam. Di kalangan umat Islam, kebangkitan agama berlaku di hampir semua negara-negara Islam dari Maghribi hinggalah ke Indonesia, dan turut berlaku di kalangan masyarakat minoriti Muslim di negara-negara Barat.

Di kalangan penganut Hindu di India, fenomena kebangkitan agama berkembang begitu kuat sehingga tertabalnya kerajaan fundamentalis Hindu pada tahun 1998. Di Amerika pula, fenomena ini melibatkan perkembangan kumpulah-kumpulan fundamentalis Kristian yang cukup berpengaruh dalam parti Republikan di sana. Secara amnya, sejak beberapa dekad yang lalu, pengaruh ideologi sekularisme sudah sedikit berkurangan hasil kebangkitan pengaruh agama dalam kehidupan masyarakat di seluruh dunia.

Jadi, apa yang berlaku di Malaysia bukanlah suatu yang unik. Namun, ianya tidak juga boleh dipandang ringan dan dibiarkan tanpa diambil sebarang tindakan.

Dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama seperti di Malaysia, perlu ada persefahaman yang melibatkan usaha dan pengorbanan daripada semua pihak. Saya masih tidak menganggap bacaan doa yang tidak pun memakan masa lebih dari lima minit dalam perhimpunan mingguan di sekolah-sekolah sebagai satu masalah. Namun saya bersetuju, tidak sesuai sekiranya waktu perhimpunan itu yang melibatkan semua pelajar Islam dan bukan Islam digunakan untuk ceramah agama dan majlis perayaan Maulidur-Rasul dan Ma'al Hijrah. Pihak sekolah seharusnya boleh mengatur program pada waktu yang lain khas bagi pelajar-pelajar Islam untuk majlis-majlis berkenaan.

Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia, walaupun benar merupakan golongan majoriti di sini, perlu juga mengambil berat perasaan dan sensitiviti golongan minoriti. Begitu juga bagi masyarakat bukan Islam yang perlu mengambil tahu sensitiviti dan pegangan hidup orang-orang Islam.

Saya kurang bersetuju dengan pendapat yang menganggap penyelesaian pada cabaran ini adalah pendekatan Islam yang sekular dan liberal. Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia dan di seluruh dunia amnya tidak dapat menerima fahaman dan pendekatan sekularisme yang memupuk pemisahan amalan agama dalam urusan kerja. Umat Islam menganggap ajaran Islam itu sebagai satu cara hidup yang mempengaruhi segala kegiatan dan tingkah laku. Maka, jika ada sebarang desakan atau paksaan agar amalan agama dikesampingkan, ramai orang Islam pasti akan memberontak dan menentang.

Bagi fahaman Islam liberal pula, sekiranya fahaman ini bermaksud kesederhanaan dan keterbukaan hingga ke tahap penerimaan terhadap perbuatan-perbuatan terlarang seperti hubungan seks luar nikah, amalan homoseksual dan pergaulan bebas antara lelaki dan perempuan di kalangan orang-orang Islam, majoriti umat Islam pastinya akan menolak dan menentangnya juga. Namun, sekiranya fahaman ini lebih menjurus kepada keterbukaan dari segi kesediaan untuk berdialog dan berdebat secara ilmiah isu-isu fekah semasa, ramai yang boleh menerimanya sebagai salah satu usaha menangangi cabaran Islam di zaman moden.

Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) pada pilihanraya umum yang lalu tampil dengan slogannya 'PAS Untuk Semua'. Memang mudah berslogan namun untuk direalisasikan perlu perbincangan menyeluruh yang melibatkan pemimpin-pemimpin dan ilmuwan-ilmuwan Islam dan bukan Islam agar persefahaman dapat dibentuk dan kata sepakat dapat dicapai. Saya yakin dan percaya, ada jalan dan caranya agar dasar Islamisasi dapat diteruskan bagi memenuhi keperluan masyarakat Islam tanpa perlu menyinggung perasaan dan membangkitkan penentangan daripada masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia.

(Artikel ini telah dipaparkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives. Klik di sini untuk melihat arikel asal)

Do We Really Want The Best and The Brightest?

2010-02-22T10:34:00.017+08:00

Professor Doran Hunter, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and Senior Fulbright Scholar was at IIUM recently where he delivered a series of talks centred around the issue of moral and good governance. During his last lecture, he was asked about his views on the necessity to have the best and the brightest to lead a moral and good government. His response was quite astounding.

He first made reference to the classic book The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam who explained how the best and brightest people who advised President John F. Kennedy on Vietnam; all of them were wrong on how to best deal with the tensive situation. JFK in fact was the only one who was sensible enough to understand that war should be the absolute final resort, not a strategic move for any kind of psychological and moral victory. And the reason JFK was so adamantly against full military action was not because he was the best and brightest or even smarter than all his expert-advisers. He felt so strongly about it simply because he was once a soldier, thus knew very well what wars are all about especially the countless sufferings and hardships they bring.

Professor Hunter then drove home the point that the best and brighest are not always right. They may be the brightest as far as intelligence and academic achievements are concern, but without any real experience dealing with real-life situations, all their knowledge could be dangerously superficial. Which is why Americans have most often voted in presidents who were either former senators or former governors. These people may not necessarily be the brightest but they have the experience and the practical understanding on how to govern effectively and get things done. Hence the conclusion by Professor Hunter, he would never agree with the idea of using technology in genetic science to 'breed' an elite group of the best and brightest individuals to lead nations and governments.

Professor Hunter however seemed to have contradicted himself when responding to queries on his views on President Obama and his cabinet members. Although a Republican, Professor Hunter admits that he voted for Obama because he graduated from the best law school in America (at Harvard University) and has deep respect and understanding of the American Constitution having taught 'Constitutional Law' at several universities prior to his direct involvement in politics. Professor Hunter further exclaims that President Obama has managed to put together a remarkable cabinet whose members are among the best and brigthest in America.

These views may appear contradictory at a glance but once thought about further and deeper may not necessarily be so. President Obama's academic credentials were not the only reason why millions of Americans voted for him. His unique family and social background and experiences as a community organiser convinced many Americans that he truly understands the routine hardships and predicaments of millions of ordinary Americans. As the comedian Chris Rock once said in an interview during the campaign period back in 2008; "it's simple, vote for the guy with one house (Obama)... The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy (John McCain) can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses." (McCain and his wife were reported to own 12 houses)

Intelligence and academic credentials alone are not enough. But if they are blended with a deep sense understanding and experience of realities as viewed by the common people, that would be a powerful combination.

In my recent article to the Centre for Policy Initiatives, I expressed the need to find Malaysia's very own Manmohan Singh. I admit the article focussed more on the current Indian Prime Minister's impeccable academic and professional credentials, but those who are familiar with his personal background would know that Manmohan Singh also came from humble origins. His experience growing up in pre-partitioned India and as a Sikh in a Hindu-majority society I'm sure has helped him enormously while serving as prime minister.

Which begs us to ask, are only those from a lower social class whose families were poor and endured extreme hardship capable of becoming a compassionate and just political leader? Or from another point-of-view, are those with upper-class family background who grew up with wealth and comfort incapable to fully understand the plight and realities of the common people?

Malaysia's current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is a living-ebodiment of this challenge. As a son of a former prime minister, how can he possibly understand the daily and routine hardship faced by many Malaysians? How can he possibly for example appreciates the struggles of a fisherman or a rubber-tapper who wakes up at 5 am every morning to work? Does he know what it feels like to struggle every month to pay various bills and expenses - water, electricity, food, children's expenses etc?

I'm sure he doesn't, which is why he appears most of the time like the feudal leader he is rather than a leader for the people. But that's not his fault, isn't it? I mean, should his father Tun Abdul Razak denied him the comfort of living in the Prime Minister's official residence and sent him to school in a far away kampung and let him live a wooden pondok just so that he knows what it feels like to be poor?

This is fast encroaching into issues in parenting vis-a-vis the challenges of modernity, which deserves a different posting, later...

Menangani Prejudis dan Stereotaip Negatif Kaum

2010-02-08T23:58:00.004+08:00

Seorang kenalan saya di Amerika pernah menceritakan bagaimana pada satu hari, ketika duduk berehat sebentar di sebuah pusat membeli-belah, beliau ternampak dua orang lelaki berkulit hitam berlari dengan pantas sambil dikejar seorang pegawai keselamatan. Lantas timbul hasrat kenalan saya ini untuk membantu lalu dikejarnya dua orang lelaki itu, diterjah salah seorang daripadanya dari belakang dan dihempap badannya ke bawah. Lelaki berkulit hitam itu mengerang kesakitan lalu berkata; "saya tuan punya kedai, kenapa awak tangkap saya?!" Terperanjat sungguh kenalan saya ketika itu. Beliau hanya mampu memohon maaf dengan penuh rasa kesal kerana bukan sahaja tersalah menangkap orang, tapi membiarkan juga pencuri yang sebenar melarikan diri.

Kenalan saya bukan sebarangan orang. Di Amerika beliau terlibat dalam pelbagai aktiviti kemasyarakatan yang melibatkan golongan minoriti di sana. Bahkan, beliau sering terlibat dalam kempen-kempen dan forum yang menentang sikap prejudis terhadap apa jua golongan bangsa dan beragama. Maka, walaupun beliau berkulit putiih, profilnya sama sekali tidak menggambarkan beliau sebagai seorang yang bersikap negatif dan agresif terhadap masyarakat lain.

Ramai antara kita sebenarnya tanpa disedari bersikap prejudis dan menaruh sterotaip negatif terhadap orang lain. Fenomena ini telah dibuktikan dalam banyak kajian dalam bidang psikologi sosial. Kajian di Amerika misalnya ada melaporkan hampir 80 peratus masyarakat kulit putih di sana tanpa disedari menaruh sikap prejudis terhadap masyarakat berkulit hitam. Sikap implisit ini tidak semestinya dizahirkan melalui perbuatan atau kata-kata secara terbuka, namun dalam situasi tertentu ianya tetap terserlah.

Di Malaysia, isu prejudis dan sterotaip kaum ini sering dianggap isu sensitif bukan sahaja di pentas awam, tapi juga di kalangan ahli-ahli akademik. Oleb sebab itu, tidak banyak kajian saintifik yang dilakukan untuk meninjau sejauh mana masyarakat pelbagai kaum di Malaysia menaruh sifat perjudis terhadap satu sama lain.

Namun yang jelas, jika ditinjau daripada kelakuan dan percakapan harian, masalah ini tidak boleh dipandang ringan. Di kalangan rakan-rakan dan sanak saudara saya yang berbangsa Melayu, sering kedengaran keluhan bilamana ada barang yang dibeli dianggap mahal, peniaga Cina yang cepat dipersalahkan. "Orang Cina, sebab tu lah mahal".

Di kalangan orang Cina, ada juga prejudisnya. Seorang graduan universiti tempatan berbangsa Melayu pernah menceritakan pengalaman beliau menghadiri temuduga di sebuah syarikat swasta. Semua penemuduga yang hadir berbangsa Cina. Ketika sessi temuduga berjalan, mereka sering berbisik di antara mereka dalam bahasa Mandarin. Yang tidak disedari mereka calon temuduga itu sebenarnya boleh berbahasa Mandarin kerana bersekolah rendah di sekolah Cina. Beliau faham benar apa yang dibisikan yang antaranya ialah "Ma-lai-ren lan-dou... Ma-lai-ren mei-you da-nao (orang Melayu malas... orang Melayu kurang pandai)".

Mengapa ini terjadi? (bersambung...)

Klik di sini untuk membaca artikel penuh di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives.

Kaum & Budaya Apa Yang Lebih Hebat?

2010-01-21T23:06:00.003+08:00

Masyarakat kita hari ini dikelilingi kepelbagaian. Kita terdedah dengan individu-individu yang berbeza warna kulit, budaya dan pegangan hidup berbanding diri kita sendiri. Maka dalam keadaan ini, dilema yang menanti adalah samada kita tetap teguh dengan cara dan budaya kita sendiri atau perlu kita mengalah dan menerapkan budaya orang lain.

Tidak kira siapa, Melayu, Cina, India, Arab dan sebagainya; nalurinya ialah mempertahankan adat dan budaya masing-masing. Jika ditanya, pasti ramai yang beranggapan budaya-nya-lah yang terbaik dan selainnya tidak setanding. Dalam sains sosial, fenomena ini dinamakan etnosentrisme (ethnocentrism). Walaupun sering dianggap negatif, etnosentrisme sebenarnya suatu yang normal dan setiap individu itu sebenarnya, sedar atau tidak, ada ciri-ciri etnocentrik.

Orang Melayu misalnya, rata-rata menganggap masakan Melayu itulah yang paling sedap, nasi itu hidangan wajib dan sambal belacan pelengkap hidangan. Mee, burger, spagetti atau apa saja selain nasi bukanlah makanan sebenar. Nasi sahajalah yang boleh mengenyangkan. Tidak kira di mana jua, di negara sendiri atau di perantauan, nasi-lah satu-satunya makanan asasi.

Saya sendiri pun lebih kurang begitu. Saya pernah tinggal di utara Eropah, pernah menyantap hidangan ikan salmon yang segar. Seringkali ke negara Cina menikmati mee dan sup daging yang enak. Namun kalau ditanya, hidangan apakah yang paling sedap, saya tidak teragak-agak menyatakan gulai tempoyak ikan patin yang paling sedap di dunia.

Saya bangga dan selesa dengan masakan Melayu. Namun, saya tidak pernah menghadapi masalah menyesuaikan diri bila berada di luar negeri. Saya pastinya tidak pernah kelaparan walau di mana saya berada walaupun tempat itu tiada nasi putih dan sambal belacan. Tidak pernah terlintas di fikiran saya walau di mana saya pergi untuk membawa periuk nasi, cili dan lesung batu.

Ini perihal diri saya. Orang lain bagaimana? (bersambung...)

(Sila lihat artikel penuh di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives, atau The Malaysian Insider)

ALLAH: The Bestower of Peace

2010-01-12T07:59:00.008+08:00

Malaysia welcomed the coming of the new year, quite literally, with a bang. On 31st December 2009, Justice Lau Bee Lan of the Kuala Lumpur High Court overturned the Home Ministry's decision to prohibit Herald (a Catholic publication) from using the word 'Allah'. In her oral judgment, Justice Lau explained that pursuant to Articles 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution, Herald has the constitutional right to use the word in its publication. The word 'Allah' therefore, according to Justice Lau, is not exclusive only for Muslims but can also be used by Christians and other religious groups in the country.

In less than two weeks after the above judgment was delivered, we have seen very strong reactions from Muslim organisations and individuals expressed through street demonstrations, articles and statements in the internet and other media, and (most unfortunately) a series of attack on churches nationwide.

I do not wish to throw myself in the middle of this debate. There are enough statements and articles both supporting and opposing Justice Lau's judgment. For Muslims, those who are against the use of 'Allah' by non-Muslims can go to Zulkifli Noordin's blog to find support for their arguments, while those who prefer a more reconciliatory tone can refer to Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad's article.

What I wish to express here are mainly a few salient points. With reference to the official stand of PAS (Pan-Islamic Party of Malaysia), and as reiterated in Dr. Dzulkefly's article linked above; as far as Islamic jurisprudence is concern, it is not wrong for non-Muslims to use the word 'Allah'. This opinion is based on precedence which can be traced back to the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the long-standing practice of Christians in the Middle-East.

Those like Zulkifli Noordin however have argued that if Christians are allowed to use 'Allah' to refer to God, it will create confusions among Muslims. The concern here is, if these Christian publications are read by Muslim readers, they will be confused and can be easily tempted to deviate from their Islamic belief.

Looking at these two opposing points-of-view, I honestly do not see why this is thought to be such a big problem. Opinions and statements attributed to Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) respectively have clearly shown that Islam does not prohibit the use of the word 'Allah' by adherents of other religions.

The more legitimate issue is the concern that 'Allah' will be used by Christian missionary groups to preach Christianity to Muslims by propagating the idea that the concept of God in both Islam and Christianity are the same. Here is where some important points from the judgment and existing laws in the country need to be referred to.

Justice Lau herself stated in her judgment that as far as Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution is concern, it is an offence for non-Muslims to use the word 'Allah' to propagate their respective religions to Muslims. In fact, one should realise that proselytisation of any religion (other than Islam) on Muslims is prohibited by the same article. Similarly, all religious publications (other than publications on Islam) are not allowed to be distributed and sold in public. They are restricted only to members of the respective religious groups.

To understand further the context behind the Catholic Church’s decision to pursue this case in the first place, one needs to understand the plight of the Christians in Sabah and Sarawak. Bernard Dompok, a Christian cabinet minister explained that Christians in Sabah have been using the word 'Allah' for more than a century, services in churches in the state are conducted mostly in Malay and the Bible they refer to is the Malay version which refers to God as Allah.

With all these points in mind, the solution I believe is quite simple: Christians should be allowed to use the word 'Allah' but they should not use it other than for services in churches and in restricted publications. Any other official usage of the word is strictly prohibited and action can be taken against those who fail to abide by it.

This is what I honestly feel, or maybe I'm just ignorant and naïve? Allahu'alam.

Not My Master

2009-12-21T20:52:00.008+08:00

Whenever I'm asked to name the best book I've read, the first book that comes to my mind is Islam and Secularism, the magnum opus of one of Malaysia's finest contemporary scholars, the eminent and most respected Professor Syed Muhammad Naguib Al-Attas. First published in 1978, the book provides the most eloquent explanation on the concept of religion in Islam, an excellent morphological analysis of the Quranic term ad-Din, and a comprehensive outline of the Islamization of knowledge philosophy. Certainly, I am just one of many who were deeply inspired by this book especially those who like me were reading and studying books on philosophy and social sciences written by scholars in the West. To comprehend and accept those ideas while remaining faithful to our religious standing and belief was not easy. Islam and Secularism gave us the answer, and the confidence and faith to carry on without doubt and fear.

Professor Al-Attas was the Founder-Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC). This 'Beacon on Top of The Hill' was a hugely respected institution attracting students from many parts of the Muslim world. It won't be an understatement to say that most of them came for the sole purpose of studying under this giant intellectual figure. Some even came upon giving up their professional careers. They all share the same burning desire: to learn under the feet of this most learned scholar, a scholar deemed to be without peers; a scholar who deserves the loftiest of praises and reverence.

I too shared the same dream. ISTAC was the place for intellectuals, and I certainly wanted to be one. By the time I was in my final year of my undergraduate studies at IIUM, I had read all the books (published by ISTAC) plus many other scholarly papers written by Professor Al-Attas. I also became a regular visitor to ISTAC attending almost all his public lectures and talks. Unfortunately, instead of increasing my desire to study at ISTAC, these regular visits left me disenchanted and disillusioned.

What turned me off was the unmistaken air of arrogance emanating from the honourable professor/master and his students/disciples. On one occasion, a young member of the audience posed a mild critical comment on Al-Attas' views on Islamization. He was simply brushed aside with the reply, "tell me, what do you know about Islamization?" On another occasion, after delivering a talk on leadership in Islam, the professor was asked a simple and harmless question: "are leaders born or made?" The answer given was swift and demeaning: "of course they are born... you should read more books". And as these words were said by the master/professor, his disciples/students were laughing and smiling proudly in agreement.

Furthermore, being a student of the social sciences, I wasn't quite amused by the good professor's habitual condemnation of sociology and psychology. "These sociologists... according to them, religions are all rituals!" I've heard this exact statement coming from him quite a number of times. True, they are a number of sociologists who said so, but not all. After all, sociology is not Durkheim and Durkheim was not the only sociologists in history. And in Malaysia, the late Syed Hussein Alatas (as far as know) never said anything as sweeping as that. As for psychology, the eminent professor once exclaimed that other than to treat psychological disorders, psychology is practically useless. In this case, the good professor and his enlightened students probably thought psychology is nothing more than Freud's ambiguous psychoanalytic theory and Skinner's mechanistic behaviourist perspective.

Let there be no doubt that I do believe that Professor Al-Attas is a truly remarkable scholar whose scholarly achievements deserve great respect and acknowledgment. Having said that, I certainly do not see the need to constantly reiterate (especially not in front of him) lofty praises such as "he is a genius..., the most outstanding scholar..., his book (Islam and Secularism) is one the most important books written by a Muslim in the last century..." etc. Professor Al-Attas is a great scholar, but so was his elder brother Professor Syed Hussein Alatas and his 'intellectual-nemesis' Professor Ismail al-Faruqi.

As-far-as the Islamization of knowledge (IOK) is concern, I am truly of the opinion that Al-Attas' perspective is most profound and outstanding. His argument that Islamization begins with the mind vis-à-vis the individual and the emphasis on language and metaphysics was brilliantly explained in Islam and Secularism. But IOK is not exclusively his. Scholars from South Asia would vouch for the work of Sayyid Abu 'Ala Mawdudi as ideas that are more practical and comprehensive and written about much earlier. On the other hand, Muslim students in the United States back in the early 1980’s would fondly recall the IOK masterplan outlined by Ismail al-Faruqi in his book published by IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought). Great minds think alike. Thus, as my former teacher and current Dean of ISTAC, Professor Ibrahim Muhamad Zein once said, these are different perspectives of IOK. Professor Zein predictably was duly rebuked by an Al-Attas' disciple who reaffirmed the argument that there is one and only one true and original concept of IOK, and that belongs to Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas.

All-in-all, throughout my journey as a student, I am firmly guided by the Malay proverb "ikut resmi padi, makin tunduk makin berisi" i.e. the more knowledge one have, the more humble one should be. This is sadly what I fail to see in Professor Al-Attas and his many students/disciples. What I've seen instead is an intellectual arrogance which abhors differences of opinions even those coming from other eminent scholars. While I was genuinely elated to see Professor Al-Attas presenting his talk on 'Reviving the Worldview of Islam' earlier this month (the first time I've seen him lecture in more than five years), I wasn't quite happy to hear that he is still bitter about what happened to ISTAC, and his continuous insistence that others "don’t know (and) don't understand" as if those who do not agree totally with his views are of substandard levels of intelligence. And because of that, although I will always be a fan of his books and lectures, I can never be one of his disciples. Allahu'alam.

Power Is Intoxicating... Even For A Tok Guru

2009-12-11T07:08:00.009+08:00

If one is in need of evidence why no one, absolutely no one should stay in power for too long, no matter how great his/her past achievements were, and no matter how capable and pious the person is; search no further than Malaysia's very own Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat.

When he appointed his son-in-law as the CEO of Kelantan Chief Minister Inc., he was reported to have said, "I appointed him because he is qualified, not because he is my son-in-law". He defended his decision then but now, facing with a mountain of allegations of misconduct against his son-in-law, rather than apologising for his mistakes, Nik Aziz said: "I did not ask him to resign, I just give him the advise. It is up to him. It is not his mistake, neither is mine. It is the State Legal Adviser’s fault". This is of course after what many thought he had done the right thing in asking his son-in-law to resign. Well, apparently he did not. How could the state legal adviser possibly advised him back then when he was so adamant about his decision?

No one in his right mind would want to accuse the saintly Nik Aziz as corrupt or power-crazy. But the man is a mere mortal. He has weaknesses. He has now become so accustomed to and comfortable with his position that he seems incapable to understand things the way others understand them. It seem like it's not that easy anymore for him to agree to a view different from his own, and to see things from an objective point-of-view. To appoint your own son-in-law to the highest position in a state government agency is wrong, period! Yes, he may be capable but was he the only capable person around at that moment? Was no one else, absolutely no one else who could take up the job other than him?

And on the infamous haj sponsorship issue, we find further evidence of how even a pious man like Nik Aziz can be intoxicated by power. He was reported to have said he isn't greedy to accept the sponsorship (RM65k per person package for he and his wife, and his daughter and the infamous son-in-law) but merely wanted to fulfill the wishes of his sponsors. Well, if Nik Aziz is just a religious teacher and not a state chief minister, the sponsorship wouldn't be an issue. But since he is still the chief minister and the sponsor is someone who helms private companies with business dealings with the Kelantan state government, OBVIOUSLY it is a problem. How can anyone not see that?! Nik Aziz's loyalists have argued, people in UMNO have done worst. Of course, but two wrongs do not make a right. If UMNO people do that, they are wrong, and you are wrong too if you do the same.

It is indeed very sad that the illustrious political career and legendary status of Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat will be forever tarnished by these issues. And for this to happen at the tail end (assumingly) of his tenure after almost 20 years as Kelantan Chief Minister, and at the time when support for PAS is gaining momentum in other states in the peninsular is most, most unfortunate.

I Would Have Been A Communist...

2009-11-24T11:25:00.018+08:00

At a recently held forum organised by the Socialist Party of Malaysia, one of the guest speaker, Muhammad Sabu of the Pan-Islamic Party of Malaysia (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia-PAS) said had he lived during the time of Karl Marx, he too would have been a communist!

Most people would not expect someone from an Islamic party to say something like that expecially when communism is often considered a deviant anti-religious ideology. However for me, I can understand and accept that because I was and very much still a huge admirer of left-wing philosophy.

Growing up in the city (Petaling Jaya), my parents probably deserve lots of credit for not allowing me to think I was from a well-to-do family. In fact, I thought our family must have been quite poor because I very seldom got the chance to wear branded clothes and apparels unlike most of my classmates in school. Only when I went to a boarding school in Muar, Johore for the final two years in secondary school that I fully realised that my family was in fact quite rich and there are indeed many who are much less fortunate.

As I began to put these pieces of realities of life together, I recalled the images I often saw but never reflected upon, of the rich and poor in Petaling Jaya. Before the arrival of the great Khir Toyo, Petaling Jaya (and the entire state of Selangor) was filled with squatter settlements (kawasan rumah setinggan). Nearby my parents old house in SS7 Kelana Jaya, there were two such settlements. The one opposite the Subang Golf Club was most remarkable. Remarkable in the sense on the very same road, there were huge bungalows with an average of half-a-dozen cars parked inside. If there ever was a competition for the best image to illustrate the gap between the rich and poor in Malaysia, photos of this particular road would be a main contender. Here was where one could see the rich with all their opulence and the downtrodden poor living side-by-side.

When I was studying for my bachelor's degree, I started to read more serious writings. And one such works I was curious enough to read was Karl Marx's Das Kapital. Around the same time, I read about the struggles of Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi etc, while dwelling into the works of leftist Muslim thinkers like Syed Husin Alatas and Ali Shariati. I can't say I was truly inspired by what I read but it certainly persuaded me to entertain some revolutionary ideas. My visits to Pakistan and China later on made me realised more about the scope and gravity of income inequality and the brutal effects of capitalism in other societies.

Socialism is clearly the best economic ideology to best confront the growing gap between the rich and poor. But as some critics have said, socialism is a lousy and ineffective system simply because it operates on the naive assumption that man can overcome their own greed and selfish interests. Most socialist regimes in the past failed simply because their respective leaders weren't able to control their own desires. Instead of giving power back to the people, they installed themselves as the new ruling class and oppressed the very people they claimed to have championed.

My brief experience living in Finland however made me realised that human beings can in fact be conditioned to share what they have. The Finnish people, as well as citizens in other Scandinavian countries are very proud of their social welfare system that ensures no one is left too far behind in the economic ladder. Certainly, this is more Islamic than the ruthlessly selfish capitalist system.

On that note, just like Muhammad Sabu, I have no doubt that I too would have been a communist had I lived during Karl Marx's time. Marxism has many flaws, and socialist regimes past and present indeed are mired with numerous problems but it remains today the most potent rival to the evils of capitalism, and strangely perhaps, an important and strategic ally of Islamic movements.

Related article: Neo-Liberalism and the 'War on Terror' Industry, by Farish A.Noor

Singapore and It's Malay Heritage

2009-10-28T21:06:00.007+08:00

A few years ago, I applied to Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore for my doctoral studies. My application was viewed favourably that I was eventually offered to study there with a full scholarship. Although I had to refuse the offer eventually due to personal reasons, the experience I had throughout the process was quite interesting.

When I came for an interview at NTU, the head of the division said the university needs "more Malay-male role models". I was quite touched by her remark. In fact, to be honest I was very surprised. Surprised because one of the myths many Malays in Malaysia believe is, Chinese in Singapore do not care about the Malays and would not want them develop in any way.

There are quite a number of other myths about Singaporean Malays embraced by many here in Malaysia. A classic one is the belief they are not allowed to fire life bullets when they go for military training in the national service programme. In addition, there is this deep suspicion that no Singaporean Malays, no matter how capable and qualified, are allowed to hold top positions in the military and police. And to top it all, is the Mahathir-esque belief that most Malays in Singapore are oppressed and so depressed that if allowed will migrate in droves to Malaysia to be with their Malay brothers and sisters across the strait.

I've travelled to Singapore a couple of times in the last two years. I've met quite a number of Malay entrepreneurs and professionals. These are highly educated and successful individuals whom I can't imagine would want to migrate to Malaysia even if offered money to do so. Those who went for military training have fired hundreds of life bullets each. And I was duly informed that there are in fact high-ranking Malay military officers in the Singaporean army.

In the years I've been teaching at IIUM, I've also had a number of students from Singapore. These students most often were among the best in every class. Their English immaculate, their Malay refined, and their Arabic splendid. Most of these students yearned to go back to Singapore upon graduation to work and contribute to their society. I have never met anyone among them who expressed desperation to remain in Malaysia for whatever reason.

With all this in mind, the least we can say they must be something good going on for the Malays in Singapore. Oppressed and depressed? I don't think so.

Many negative things were said in reaction to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Singapore in the aftermath of the US presidential election last year that a Malay cannot become the prime minister of the country at any time in the foreseeable future. I personally however, did not find the statement harsh or offensive. I accepted it from a pragmatic perspective. The head-of-government of any country I believe should always be from the majority group. To have someone from a minority group will create unnecessary tension in the society which may proof detrimental to the stability of the country. For the very same reason, I don't think a Chinese or Indian non-Muslim can ever become the prime minister in Malaysia.

What about President Obama? With all due respect, Barack Obama is a minority only in terms of his skin colour and race, but in all other remaining aspects (religion, mother-tongue, education etc) he shares the same characteristics and background with the majority of the society. If Obama is a Muslim, who's mother tongue is Swahili (and speaks English with an African accent), schooled in a madrasah in America, would Americans vote for him as president?

As a Malay from Malaysia, what then are my views about Singapore? I am a normal human being with emotions and feelings, and in addition a keen reader of history. Deep in my heart Singapore will always be Singapura, the lion-city founded by Sang Nila Utama (not Stanford Raffles) in the 14th century. And just like any other Malay states in the Malay Archipelago, Singapore has a history that spans more than 700 years. For me then to read or hear from anyone that Singapore's history began in 1819 is rather annoying. And the images of Singapore that I enjoy best are not those of the city's modern skyscrapers or even the durian-like Esplanade, but the splendid Masjid Sultan and Istana Kampung Glam nearby.

If there are any Chinese Singaporeans who are reading this, if you are beginning to feel the above paragraph is some sort of revelation that I am in fact a Malay chauvinist, allow me to invite you to imagine a hypothetical scenario.

Imagine the city of Shanghai in China, governed and administered by Western powers today just like it was 100 years ago; imagine IF third and fourth generation Europeans are now the majority in the society, all the streets in the city are named in English, the medium of instruction in schools at all levels is English (Chinese is only an optional language course), as a result hardly anyone in the city speaks proper Mandarin; history of the city in the national school syllabus focuses mainly with events starting from the Opium War and the coming of the British in the early 19th century (with very little emphasis on what happened before that), Sir Charles Elliot is taunted as the founder of Shanghai, a life-size sculptor of him is erected at the heart of the city and buildings and hotels named in honour of him...

Even though you are not a Chinese citizen, but as someone whose ethnic background is Chinese, and in addition have read and appreciated the 2000 years Chinese history of Shanghai, when you visit Shanghai and witness all this, how would you feel?

The emotions I feel at times as a Malay visiting Singapore is a kind of sadness brought about by a sentimental lost. I'm sure many Chinese would feel the same way too in the hypothetical situation mentioned above. Nevertheless, these emotions, though undoubtedly negative, do not necessarily lead to antagonism and hatred. A strong sense of realism will eventually creep in that things of the past are confined to history, and everyone now must look forward to the future in the best interest of all. And harbouring thoughts about instigating revolutionary changes in the society's demography is definitely not an option worth considering. The Chinese-dominated Singaporean government has provided many opportunities to the Malays. This can never be denied and should never be questioned.

Having said that, I do feel the Singaporean government can do a bit more to appreciate Singapore's Malay heritage. An issue that I feel very strongly about is respect towards the Malay language. I've found most of the Chinese and Indian Singaporeans I've met; especially amongst the youth today have very little command of Malay. Most of the Malay words they know are those that are now part of Singaporean-English (Singlish), which are mostly swear words like bodoh (stupid), gila (crazy), and mati (die).

Now, even if there are political reasons for not wanting to encourage Singaporeans to learn Malay, would it make sense to do so for pragmatic reasons? Is Malay not the national language of Singapore's next-door neighbours? Wouldn't it be advantageous to have all Singaporeans able to speak, write and read Malay for their own convenience when travelling to and doing business in Malaysia and Indonesia?

I apologise if any of what I've written here offends anyone in any way. My intention is none other than to express my honest views. My apologies if there are any factual mistakes. I stand corrected.

1Malaysia, 1World... 1Universe?

2009-10-13T21:39:00.015+08:00

"One Nation, One People". This is the catchphrase Malaysia's Prime Minister Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak most often uses to explain his 1Malaysia 'philosophy'.

Hardcore UMNO supporters, and those who have no interest in international politics would probably think this catchy phrase was originally invented by Prime Minister Najib. Well, just google the whole phrase and you'll know the exact same phrase has been used by politicians in the US and the UK, in Singapore and Indonesia, and in various other countries like Denmark, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Liberia, Armenia, Bhutan, Israel, Guyana and most probably, many more.

And if you think the term '1Malaysia' is unique, read about what Ehud Barak did to garner more support from Israel's diverse communities for the country's national election back in the late 1990's. He created an electoral coalition called 'One Israel' to attract voters who traditionally did not vote for and had negative views towards his Labour Party.

Not content with constantly badgering people in Malaysia with his '1Malaysia' slogan, our honourable Prime Minister recently went international to call for a '1World'! Sorry Mr. Prime Minister, Michael Jackson had beaten you to this more than 20 years ago with his song "We Are The World".

All past Prime Ministers of Malaysia and politicians from both sides, past and present, talked about national unity, racial integration, religious harmony, multiculturalism etc. What they disagreed essentially was on how to do it. The real truth is, 1Malaysia is not something new, and as can be deduced from Ehud Barak’s 'One Israel', is not even original. The only thing new is the ingenious way it is written (putting a digit together with a word), and the practice of attaching the term to anything and everything – 1Malaysia Formula One Team, Amanah Saham 1Malaysia, 1Malaysia Earthquake Fund, and 1Malaysia Lantern Festival.

Many local varsities I'm sure are in the race to set-up the Institute of 1Malaysia in addition to various conferences, seminars, exhibitions, campaigns, promotions, opening ceremonies, and whatever else that can be organised in the name of 1Malaysia. All this will be done as if '1Malaysia' is a completely new philosophy that came from our current Prime Minister's brilliant mind that no one else in this world dead or alive had ever thought about before.

Don't get me wrong. As a Malaysian who truly and deeply loves his country, I appreciate any good ideas for the nation no matter from where they come from; the Prime Minister, government ministers, opposition figures, wives of politicians or any Ahmad, Ah Chong or Mutusamy in the street. What I do find appalling is excessive sloganeering with no concrete measures to support the grand ideas mooted, and worse, clear intentional actions done to the contrary.

With President Obama now a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize, Prime Minister Najib may now have an added motivation to continue with his quest for '1World'. And to do even better than Obama and other earthly pretenders, Najib and his spin-doctors should start working on his '1Universe' speech to be delivered at the inaugural 'Intergalactic General Assembly' later in the future.

Related article: '1World, 1Malaysia...different planet'

Desiring Purity

2009-09-22T21:09:00.015+08:00

There were many times many years ago when I prayed to Allah SWT to grant me all the good qualities a man can have and exterminate from me all that is bad. My intention was simple. I wanted to be a man free from all bad habits and characteristics and acquire all that is good as much as what an ordinary man can hope to have. I was hoping though that this purification process would be an easy and instantaneous one, something akin to waking up one morning purified from any sense of arrogance, vanity, greed, envy and all other deadly sins and bad characteristics, and at the same time engulfed by the purest of all noble qualities - sincerity, humility, honesty etc.

It just doesn't work that way, does it? You don't get all these qualities and exterminate all that is bad that easily. You can't even learn how to do this in schools and universities. No amount of religious and moral education can guarantee a personality of such purity. Education may help to a certain extent but ultimately it is one's experiences in life that matters. And often, they involve hard and difficult moments.

For example, how does a person acquire humility and sincerity and eradicate from himself arrogance and vanity. Of course there are many who profess to be humble and sincere but are these really valid pronouncements or merely delusions? On the other hand, how can someone possibly know he is not selfish and arrogant? You may think so about youself but does that mean others must share the same assessment?

When I was making that do'a, I probably thought I wasn't far off from the ideal personality I wanted. I wanted to get married at that time and prayed to Allah SWT to bless me with a companion to enable me to complete the purification process. I honestly thought that was the only missing piece in me and once I get it everything will be smooth and easy.

I know now that I was and still am far off from that ideal. There were times in the past I perceived my own actions as honest expressions of self-confidence, totally ignorant of the fact that others saw them as signs of arrogance. At other times, I saw myself as standing firm to my beliefs and principles when in fact I was stubborn, inconsiderate and insensitive towards the feelings of others.

Purification of one's soul is not, has never been and will never be an easy process - something for us to contemplate on as we seek forgiveness from family members and friends in this blessed month of Shawal. Eid Mubarak!

Revitalising Islamization (or Islamicization)

2009-09-12T10:45:00.014+08:00

Discussions on Islamization of knowledge (IOK) have been revitalised in the last few months. Both the Kulliyyah of Economics and the Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences have held several forums on the issue since early this year. Yesterday, a session was held at the Kulliyyah of Economics and the presenter for the day was Tan Sri Professor Dr. Mohd Kamal Hassan, a former Rector of the university who has been with IIUM since its inception in 1983.

Much of Kamal Hassan's presentation yesterday focused on issues often discussed in previous IOK talks I've attended over the years. These were namely the historical and philosophical background of the IOK project, the rationale behind IOK and a brief survey of the different IOK perspectives. An interesting and unique point however was made when he addressed an issue that cropped up towards the end of his tenure as Rector of the university: his personal preference for the term 'Islamicization' instead of 'Islamization'.

Several reasons were given and all these were highlighted in his paper which was distributed to members of the audience. The first was in support of the views of the late Professor Muhammad Hamidullah who said the term 'Islamization' is often understood in the context of religious conversion and proselytisation. This therefore may create some misunderstanding among Muslims and instill unnecessary anxieties among non-Muslims.

The strongest reason given is explained in the paragraph below:

"...while "Islamisation" conveys the idea of having to embrace Islamic theology or ontology or axiology or eschatology or epistemology as the case may be, the term "Islamicization" includes the idea that something is "acceptable by Islamic values, norms, standards or criteria", or something is "in harmony with the values and perspectives of Islam", such as the ideas or practices of good governance, excellence, professional competency, integrity, goodness, beauty, efficiency, punctuality, beneficence, best practices, harmless innovations or better ways of doing things, as long as those ideas, practices or institutions - many of which could also be found in non-Muslim personalities, organisations, cultures or countries - that do not conflict with the belief system, the law and ethics of Islam."

For me personally, although I am in agreement with all the points above, I would still prefer to stick with the term 'Islamization'. 'Islamization' is without doubt often understood to refer to religious conversion (especially in the study of history), but I believe can be argued today to have integrated the scope and meaning of "Islamicization" detailed in the above paragraph. On a more lighter note, the word "Islamicization" is quite a mouthful to pronounce. Many have struggled to pronounce it and that cannot be good if indeed we want people to talk and discuss about it more. The struggle to just get the pronunciation correct may put many people off.

Towards the end of his presentation, Kamal Hassan expressed his concern on the future of IOK at the university. IOK, or to be exact "Islamization of Human Knowledge" is IIUM's niche area "enshrined in the university's constitution as an important component of its sacred mission... As such it must remain as the core concern of the university which should never be marginalised or peripheralised."

I'm not sure whether Kamal Hassan was merely expressing a personal view, or was it in reaction to certain current developments at the university or the changing scenario in Malaysian politics. Whichever, I managed to put out a question on how we should respond to the argument that Islamization is a threat to nation-building and national integration in the context of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia. Kamal Hassan's answer dwelled more on a futuristic premise that nation-states will someday become obsolete but he did express his hope that future Malay-Muslim leaders in the country would see themselves as Muslims first, hence put priority on Islamic values and principles while governing the country. That is in fact the whole issue that requires some serious discussion for I know for sure it is an issue that many non-Muslims as well as Muslims liberals in Malaysia are currently questioning.

The talk was definitely a fruitful one. Future sessions are already in the pipeline and I am looking forward to attend them.

Independent But Still In Love

2009-09-02T10:25:00.011+08:00

British rock legend Rod Stewart was once booked to perform an evening concert in Kuala Lumpur. The planned date was 31 August 1995. Since the date coincided with Malaysia's Independence Day, various sections in the society demanded the event to be cancelled. Many believed to have the concert on such an important occassion is inappropriate and insensitive to the feelings of those who had struggled for the country's independence. After all, Rod Stewart is British, and the British were the oppressive colonizers here.

The concert was eventually cancelled. Being a fan of classic rock music and a bit of a concert-goer at that time, I was extremely disappointed. I remember writing in my log book (I was taking an English language intensive course at the time) about how silly I thought the decision was. My contention was, yes, the concert happened to fall on Merdeka Day, but it was scheduled to be held in the evening, not during the day. All the talk and spirit of patriotism, nationalism etc are normally expressed in the morning. There won't be much anymore by night time so why not let some of us enjoy a good performance from a rock legend?

I must admit my attitude and viewpoints then were bad and immature. Yes, to have a rock concert held on the country's independence day is indeed inappropriate.

Having said that, I still can't accept the rhetoric about Rod Stewart being British and somehow represents the British colonizers and the colonial period. We Malaysians in fact are a strange lot. We talk about oppression under the British and hail our heroes who fought against them but in our day-to-day actions still embrace and adore their tradition and culture.

I have never understood for example why in a very warm climate country like ours, we still emphasise suit-and-tie as the utmost formal attire. If you walk to a departmental store and talk to the sales assistant in English with an immaculate English accent, the sales assistant will treat you like a king and serve you politely. And talking about departmental stores, has anyone thought about the irony of having shops in an independent Malaysia with the name 'East-India Company' and 'British India'? Was not the East-India Company the British company who cheated our sultans and took away many of our lands? Can anyone of Indian decent stomach a shop and clothing brand by the name 'British India'? Of course, this is Malaysia not India. But imagine, if you are a Malaysian visiting India today and you see shops with the name 'British Malaya'? That doesn't sound so nice, does it?

Someone once told me a joke: "if you throw a coin in London's Oxford Street (especially during the end-of-the-year shopping season), one-out-of-four times you will hit a Malay". A slightly different version says you will hit either a 'Datuk' or a 'Datin'. Whichever, the joke demonstrates how Anglo-philic we are despite the often-heard jibes and rhetorics against the British, and Western values and Western culture in general. After all, isn't our flag look conspicuously similar to America's?

The Rise of China

2009-08-08T10:20:00.001+08:00

The rise of China as a global superpower was one of the issues often discussed throughout the International Visitors Leadership Programme (IVLP) I took part in back in September 2007 (with visits across six different cities in the US). I had read mostly optimistic views about the issue hence, found it quite surprising that in many of these discussions, some very strong pessimistic views were expressed instead.

A fellow participant from Taiwan especially (not surprisingly I guess), conveyed on numerous times his views that the West, especially the United States, should recognise the Republic of Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation-state and not be afraid of any kind of backlash from Beijing. According to him, China needs the rest of the world more than the other way around. Also, to him, China is facing a multitude of domestic problems ranging from socio-economic to environmental issues, which will hinder significantly China’s economic progress in the near future and eventually prevent it from ever becoming a genuine economic and military superpower.

Every country has its own domestic issues. China, the world’s most populous nation obviously has more and of various kinds compared to others. Some outsiders therefore, I believe are too quick to complaint about the situation here.

I’ve visited China every year for the last six years. I admit, on certain issues, I used to have some very negative views. For example, I found it hard to accept that despite being a communist country, education and health-care services are not provided free to its citizens. I’ve observed how Chinese parents struggle financially to pay for their children’s education and how much people here have to spend from their own pocket for medical treatment.

I had lived in Finland for almost two years and witnessed in this socialist-democratic country the generosity and efficiency of the state in providing free education and health-care services to its people. A socialist Finland and a communist China I thought should have similar approaches when it comes to public services.

But really, to compare China and Finland is not even like comparing apples and oranges. Apples and oranges are indeed different but at least they are of similar sizes. China and Finland are more like durian and melon seed! The total population in Beijing alone is a few times more than that of Finland. Still, the Finnish government has struggled for a number of years to maintain the social welfare system for its five million citizens. Can anyone imagine the financial and administrative challenges of maintaining a similar system for one-and-half billion (one thousand and five hundred million) people?

What we can see in China today in fact is a careful and well-planned process of liberalisation to encourage healthy competition, individual responsibility, and careful financial planning. The moment a child is born, parents know they have to plan ahead for the child’s future. Basic education is available for all but only those who excel will receive financial assistance from the state. No one is refused basic health care services. State medical insurance scheme are also now available and the premiums are reasonable.

The Chinese government I believe is more than aware of its own domestic issues and are well-placed to deal with them successfully. Always, the most important challenge in providing effective governance is to strike a fine balance between freedom and control. The Chinese has been able to do this remarkably well for the last decade despite the predictions of a few doomsayers.

Can China rise then as a genuine global superpower? I think China already is, and has been one for a number of years now and will remain so for many decades to come. I do not think the Chinese government harbours any ambitions of military takeovers of its neighbours hence the discussion about China as a future military superpower does not really matter. But China’s rise as an economic superpower, despite the various socio-political-economic issues it has to face, is obvious and inevitable. A country that constitutes a-fifth of the world’s population will always play a major role in this era of globalisation.

Countries around the world are all competing for stronger ties with China. Heads-of-governments of Malaysia, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, as well as foreign ministers of Great Britain, United States and others had all purposely arranged for official visits to China at the start of their respective tenure.

As for me, I have forged my own ties with the Chinese people for the last six years. My Chinese wife and I recently welcomed our third child, a baby girl born in the north-west Chinese city of Lanzhou, whom we hope and pray will grow to be a global citizen with the best of both Malay and Chinese Islamic values.

Tales of Refugees

2009-06-24T16:25:00.014+08:00

In January 2004, when I informed my senior officer at UNHCR that I would be quitting my job to take up a teaching position at IIUM, I was 'demoted' to a position called Temporary Protection (TP) Screener. I was only expected to start at the university in April, so I was still able to work if the office allowed me to. However, my original position as 'Programme Assistant' was a new position that required much training and exposure. Since I had already decided to quit within the next two months, the senior programme officer and I agreed it would be better for the office to find a long term replacement and train her for the position. But because I could still be around for the next two months I was asked to fill-in as a TP Screener. I agreed and I'm glad I did.

Previously, as Programme Assistant, I was always inside the office going through files and papers working mostly on the computer. As a TP Screener, I was in the frontline dealing directly with asylum seekers. At that time, the office was receiving a huge number of people from Aceh, Indonesia. My main task was to process the Acehnese who came to the office, interview them individually and later make recommendations to the Protection and Eligibility Officers whether each case should be processed further. To obtain an official refugee status, being screened by a TP Screener is the first stage of a very long process. There are at least two other stages of evaluation that an asylum seeker has to go through. The whole process therefore may drag on for years depending on the severity and imminent nature of each case.

Just two days into this new position, I encountered one of the most shocking experiences in my life. An Iranian asylum seeker, whose refugee application had received multiple rejections, set himself ablaze just outside the UNHCR compound. I went to the scene together with other colleagues when we heard noises of commotion outside and was stunned to find a man engulfed in flames. To this day, the things I remember most about the incident are the smell of human flesh burning in front of my eyes and the unbelievable composure of the man (he moved very casually the entire time when he was in flames and after it was put off). He died at the hospital nine hours later.

Dealing with Acehnese refugees felt quite awkward to me. Mostly because, to a certain extent I am one of them. My maternal great-great grandfather was supposedly from Aceh who came to the peninsular sometime in the mid-19th century. According to the 'legend', he was hunted by the Dutch for rebelling against them. He came to the peninsular therefore as a refugee, to seek asylum and to start a new life. And there I was, a century-and-a-half later, interviewing people who arrived to these shores in similar predicaments.

I met some interesting characters in my two months as TP Screener. Most who came were nice and friendly, some looked terrified, while a few were quite aggressive. Most of the time though I was able to engage into extended conversations with them about the situation in Aceh and about their personal ordeals (which I have to say, was something I wasn't supposed to do). Almost all the men had physical scars to show to proof that they were victims of the Indonesian army's brutality while some of the women talked about personal encounters of sexual abuse. I kept an open mind all along assuming that these accounts were true. Some of my colleagues though cautioned me that many of them might be lying just to get my sympathy. Perhaps. Possibly some of these people were wonderful actors but when I saw tears and distinct signs of fear in their eyes and movements, I certainly did not think they were.

I was blessed though to have encountered one of the most heart-warming stories in life one can ever imagine, the story of a young Acehnese mother and her children. She arrived in Malaysia together with her husband and two small children two years earlier. After going through the whole process with UNHCR, the whole family was put on the priority list for resettlement in a third country. The Canadian government had evaluated their case and agreed to allow them to resettle in Canada. While waiting for the papers to go through, the husband received news from home that his father was very ill and had expressed his wish to see his son before he dies. The husband was a wanted man in Indonesia, so to go back would be incredibly risky. But he went back nonetheless promising his wife and informing UNHCR that it will be a very quick visit.

After more than six months, the husband still had not returned. Eventually some news came from Indonesia that he was in fact detained upon arrival in Sumatra and was sent to jail. Nobody had heard anything about him since then which indicated quite strongly that he could already be dead. Meanwhile, in Kuala Lumpur, his wife and two children were about to finally receive the green light to go to Canada. The wife however was faced with the difficult situation of moving to a strange foreign country as a single-mother with two young children.

A friend of her husband then offered to marry her to help her resettle in Canada. Although he was also an Acehnese, being an unmarried young man, he was not high in the priority list and honestly did not have any prospect to be offered resettlement to a third country. Some people therefore would think that this man was merely taking advantage of this young mother's unfortunate situation. She did not doubt his sincerity though for the man had been helping her to look after her children for the past few months. She agreed to marry him. UNHCR and the Canadian authorities had no objections and allowed him to replace her 'late' husband's place to move to Canada.

Two weeks before their departure date, a man walked into the UNHCR office and claimed he was the 'presumed dead' husband. His family members and UNHCR officers were both convinced that he was indeed the man he claimed to be. Apparently, he managed to break out from prison a few months back and was finally able to sneak back to Malaysia. His wife (or his ex-wife to be exact), although was happy to see her long lost husband (now ex-husband), was now no longer married to him. She had already taken a new husband about a month earlier. What made things more complicated was this. The Canadian government was willing to accept only a fix number of refugees. So, since the wife was now married to another man, her 'ex-husband' who had suddenly reappeared would not be allowed to follow her and their two children to Canada. What she had to do then was to choose, which husband to take? Her new husband whom she had recently married, or her ex-husband who had been wrongly presumed to be dead?

Imagine the dilemma this young Acehnese mother was facing. On one hand, she wanted to be grateful to her new husband who had cared for her and her children in the last few months, while on the other hand she felt the need to be loyal to her ex-husband who is also the father of her two children. The children ultimately were the deciding factor. The wife strongly believed they needed their father more than anything. But being now legally married to another man, she could not just dump her new husband and take back her previous one. Specific procedures in the shar'iah (Islamic law) must be followed. She had to, first-of-all ask for divorce from her husband, and then remarry her ex-husband. What happened at this point was most touching and memorable.

UNHCR arranged for a special meeting with all persons involved which included a representative from the Canadian embassy. In that unforgettable meeting, the wife made the official request to her husband, an emotional plea to him to let her go to allow her and her children to be reunited with her ex-husband. She chose her words very carefully and spoke in a very gentle voice. She repeatedly thanked her husband for what he had done for her and her children, and apologise profusely and desperately to him while tears were flowing freely from her eyes.

Theoretically, it would have been perfectly legal if the husband refused to divorce his wife. No one would be able to say anything against it as he was legally the husband who held the rights to either divorce or not to divorce. After a brief silent yet very anxious moment, he spoke softly and agreed. By that time, tears were flowing on everyone's cheek. Even the Canadian man was moved to tears even though he did not quite understand what was actually spoken. He was to play an important role in the conclusion of this emotional tale when he went back to lobby the authorities in Canada to allow this unfortunate soon-to-be-divorced-husband to resettle in the country. Somehow, he succeeded! Thus, in the end 'both husbands' went to Canada together with the young mother and her two children.

As the world 'celebrate' (not sure whether this is an appropriate word to be used here) World Refugees Day four days ago (20th June), the stories of refugees I met during my time as a TP Screener reminded me of the scale of suffering others have to endure and how fortunate indeed I am to be exempted from such experiences. Refugee crises worldwide have gotten much worse since my time at UNHCR. In Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the number of refugees are mounting. Events that precipitate the escalation of the crisis do not involve these refugees. They are caused by those in the echelons of power whose lives are seldom directly affected by the tragedies they help create; which might just push one to question, is there justice in this world?

I believe in the end justice will be served, if not in this world, in the hereafter. Those who wrongly suffered will attain salvation and those who created mischief and caused suffering to others will be made to rue their actions.

Why Mahathir Hates Lee Kuan Yew?

2009-06-18T21:21:00.020+08:00

I have read for many years about Tun Dr. Mahathir’s deep resentment and suspicion against Singapore. From his writings in The Early Years to his occasional jibes against the 'little red dot' after stepping down as Malaysia's prime minister in 2003, Dr. Mahathir's feelings towards Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew are clear and obvious. His recent blog post The Modern Middle Kingdom, is the latest evidence to this. Many may wonder from where did all these negative feelings and emotions come from? Allow me to offer some answers.

Dr. Mahathir obtained his medical degree in Singapore (the University of Malaya was then located there), and it was during his studies there he met his wife Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah. For most people, your alma mater and the place where you first met your wife would always have a special place in your heart. You would have fond memories of the place and would always want to visit it whenever you can. Well, Dr. Mahathir is not like most people. He is different!

When Dr. Mahathir was a university student in Singapore, he regularly contributed articles to the Straits Times. Writing under his famous pen-name C.H.E. Det, he once wrote:

"Early in the modern history of Malaya, it was discovered that the Chinese were the most suitable people for the opening up of undeveloped areas, and it became the policy of the government, then centred in Singapore, to encourage Chinese immigration. Neither the government nor the increasing number of Chinese British subjects saw any reason to enforce severe restrictions on the quota. Thus, numerical superiority coupled with their native diligence and business drive born out of the hard life in China, proved beyond the capacity of the easy going Malays to compete. With the passing years they sank lower and lower until they now form the lowest stratum of Singapore’s society. And so in the island today the Malays, once the owners and rulers are to be found only in the poorer quarters living in dilapidated attap and plank huts, sometimes only a stone’s throw from the palatial residences of Chinese millionaires. The few Malays in the city live in the servants' quarters of Chinese and European houses."

(Excerpt from Dr. Mahathir’s article published on 9 April 1950. The full article plus others can be found in the book The Early Years.)

Dr. Mahathir obviously found it very annoying that the majority of Malays in Singapore were poor and uneducated, fit only to become common labourers and trishaw-pullers. It annoyed him further to see the Chinese as masters and the Malays their servants when historically the Malays are the natives of Singapore while the Chinese came to the island only because of the British.

Not surprisingly, when Lee Kuan Yew was at the height of his campaign for a 'Malaysian Malaysia', hence seen to question the provision on special Malay rights in the Federal Constitution during Singapore’s brief stint in Malaysia (from 16 September 1963 to 9 August 1965), speaking as a true Malay nationalist, Dr. Mahathir (then Member of Parliament of Kota Star) made the following stinging remark towards Lee in parliament:

"They (Singaporean Chinese) have never known Malay rule and cannot bear the idea that the people they have so long kept under their heels should now be in a position to rule them."

And Lee Kuan Yew responded with the following:

"Of course there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses? ... If we delude people into believing that they are poor because there are no Malay rights or because opposition members oppose Malay rights, where are we going to end up? You let people in the villages believe that they are poor because we don't speak Malay, because the government does not write in Malay, so he expects a miracle to take place in 1967 (when Malay becomes the sole national language). The moment we all start speaking Malay, he is going to have an uplift in the standard of living, and if doesn't happen, what happens then? ... Meanwhile, whenever there is a failure of economic, social and educational policies, you come back and say, oh, these wicked Chinese, Indian and others opposing Malay rights. They don't oppose Malay rights. They, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved..."

(Excerpts from Dr. Mahathir's and Mr. Lee's speeches at the Malaysian Parliament on 25 May 1965, quoted in The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew)

In a speech he gave five days later in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew made further reference to Dr. Mahathir's remarks:

"You know what they said in Parliament, Dr. Mahathir from Kota Star? -- "We in Singapore are not accustomed to Malay rule. We are not like people in Kelantan and Terengganu." Well, let me tell him this: when we joined Malaysia, we never agreed to Malay rule; we agreed to Malaysian rule; never Malay rule. This is all bunkum. Somebody has made a grave error of judgment if they believe that we agreed to Malay rule. (We) never agreed to it."

(Excerpt from Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s speech on 30th May 1965. Click here to access the full text)

For Dr. Mahathir then, Lee Kuan Yew was nothing more than a Chinese snob who dared to question the fundamental belief that Malaysia is the motherland of only the Malays. The Malays therefore are the only rightful leaders of this country while others may acquire limited supporting roles. Indeed Dr. Mahathir once said in reference to Lee Kuan Yew's foray into Malaysian federal politics in 1965, as "the mad ambition of one man to see himself as the first Chinese Prime Minister of Malaysia." And, he described Lee’s political strategy as to "assume a brave front and dare everyone in the hope that it will overawe what it presumes to be the less clever and more timid groups into refusing to rise to the challenge." (quoted in Paradoxes of Mahathirism)

Needless to say, Dr. Mahathir was not one to be easily overawed and intimidated. And during his 22 years as Prime Minister of Malaysia, he was determined not to act in any way that may be perceived as if Malaysia was intimidated by its southern neighbour. He would condemn anyone from his administration whom in his opinion had done so, which explains why he was so livid with Abdullah Badawi for cancelling the 'crooked bridge' project because that to him was a clear indication that Malaysia was submitting meekly to Singapore's wishes. And I'm sure it must have angered Dr. Mahathir too to see the current Malay UMNO leaders acting like (as described by a colleague) a group of nervous students having a meeting with their school headmaster, when they met with Lee Kuan Yew during the latter's recent visit to Malaysia.

Having presented some of these political-historical background of Dr. Mahathir's resentment against Lee Kuan Yew, I do however believe at the core of all this, the uneasy relationship between these two iconic figures in history is due to their similar personalities. Both are strong leaders with almost absolute convictions on their own abilities and strengths. Both share the same leadership motive patterns of having high need for power and low need for affiliation. They care more about doing things they believe to be right; and have very little concern about whether they are popular and conventional.

Both however are genuinely sincere leaders. Their love and dedication for their respective countries can never be questioned.

Existential Vaccum Revisited

2009-05-30T09:51:00.007+08:00

One of my favourite books of all time is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Dr. Frankl, who founded the clinical psychological technique called logotherapy, was a resident at the Nazi-German's concentration camps during World War II. In the first part of the book, Dr. Frankl wrote about his observation of how some of his fellow inmates were able to withstand all the sufferrings while some others quite simply gave up, refused to try, and eventually die. Those who survived, according to Dr. Frankl, had one thing in common - they all had reasons to live and those reasons kept them alive no matter what.

In the second part of his book, Dr. Frankl explains what he believes to be a modern phenomenon - the existential vacuum. Dr. Frankl believes the reason why many people today are stressful and depressed is because they do not have a reason to live. Today, there are many who live their lives based on hedonistic principles where everyday is just like any other day to maximise pleasure and minimise stress. Not much thought is given on how one may contribute to more profound goals in live, and on how to carry one's responsiblities beyond the essential and necessary.

We are servants of God, children of our parents, parents to our children, members of our organisations etc. All these ought to give us many reasons to live to fill-up the existential vacuum which Dr. Frankl had explained.

Perhaps Dr. Frankl wasn't quite right to say that there is a vacuum. The reasons to live are there and they are part of our existence regardless of whether we know and understand them. Perhaps the real challenge is to be conscious of and internalise the right reasons to live. When a fanatical football fan kills himself when the team he supports loses a championship game, his problem is not that he does not have a reason to live. His problem was having the wrong reason for his existence.

My life today revolves almost entirely around my family. My children especially, are my reasons to live and persevere come whatever may. But sometimes I do wonder, is that a good enough reason to define my existence?

Floored By Mosquito

2009-05-23T21:54:00.003+08:00

Last year, more than 40,000 dengue cases were reported in Malaysia with more than 100 dengue-related deaths. Worldwide, the total number of cases last year was estimated at more than 50 million cases. That was last year. This year, I am officially part of the statistics.

I had high fever exactly two weeks ago. At first, we thought it was just a normal fever, so I consumed the usual – panadols and antibiotics. When the fever did not subside after more than three days, I was asked to take a blood test. The result confirmed I had dengue fever.

Having dengue fever doesn't cause you much pain. But it sure does make you feel extremely uncomfortable. Your body becomes weak, your joints ache and you have no appetite to eat. Alhamdulillah (Praise to Allah), I didn’t have to endure it for long. I was hospitalised for five days, constantly given sodium chloride to boost my platelet level until my whole body was bloated with liquid; and now finally feel strong enough to resume normal daily activities.

What have I learned from this experience? Well, I learned first-hand how a tiny insect can floor an adult human being. And it added more to what I was made to realise since a few years back that you can only stretch your body so much. Once it breaks, you’ll be made to rue the times you wasted your health on.

Waterboarding and Torture

2009-04-27T16:19:00.019+08:00

The recent release of CIA Interrogation Memos has caused great consternation among many both in the US and around the world. The memo described the interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, authorised by the previous Bush administration.

The most controversial technique is waterboarding. Here, the prisoner's body is strapped on a board, legs fully stretched and hands tied behind his back around the board. The board is slanted to one side to position the prisoner’s head lower than his feet. The prisoner’s face is covered with a wet cloth and cold water will be poured over and over the prisoner’s face. With the cloth covering the face, the prisoner is not in danger of drowning but the prisoner will feel as if he is drowning and going to die. What the interrogators hope to achieve is that the prisoner will eventually succumb, beg for the procedure to stop and agree to cooperate with his captors.

US attorneys declared in 2002 that waterboarding causes "no pain or actual harm whatsoever". Therefore, it cannot be considered torture because it does not result into any "severe pain and suffering". Other US government officials claimed the technique will not cause any negative psychological effects and it is essentially the same technique used in US military trainings.

No matter how some people may want to twist it, waterboarding is indeed a method of torture. It is in fact something that has been practiced for at least a few hundred years, most notably during the 15th century Spanish Inquisition, World War II and the Vietnam War.

People have justified the use of such technique by citing the need to extract vital information from captured prisoners (click here to access an interesting presentation on the morality of waterboarding). I sympathise with such views and will not totally dismiss it despite my overall objection to the use of torture.

Some people here in Malaysia may think that this happens elsewhere only, not in this country. Well, you might just want to do some research on prisoners and detainees here to catch a glimpse of what has been going on in this 'peaceful' country of ours. One important reference is Dr. Syed Husin Ali's book Two Faces. Currently the Deputy President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Malaysia's main political party), Dr. Syed Husin Ali who was then professor of anthropology at the University of Malaya, and member of the now defunct Malaysia's People Socialist Party (Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia) was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for six years from 1974 to 1980.

In his book, Dr. Syed Husin described how he was slapped, punched and kicked repeatedly, and made to stand shirt-less while the air-conditioning was blasting straight towards him. Apparently, one of the things his interrogators wanted him to 'confess' was that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia) was a communist agent! The good professor of course did not comply and had to endure detention under the ISA for his lack of cooperation.

During my brief stint working at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) here in Kuala Lumpur, I heard worse accounts of tortures endured by illegal immigrants. I have no way to verify them of course but these stories, if indeed they are true, are living proof of Professor Philip Zimbardo's chilling theory on how easily ordinary human beings can be so evil and cruel to others.

All-in-all, let's hold on to one of the foundational values in all religions of the world: 'do onto others what you want others to do onto you'.

Related Article: Torture in detention: Guantanamo to Malaysia by Josh Hong

Dreams: To Believe or Not To Believe?

2009-04-22T07:56:00.010+08:00

Someone once confided in me about his wife's pledge to never again see her own mother. The wife had been ill for quite some time and the doctors were not able to explain why. Eventually she decided to seek advice from a spiritual figure, a sheikh, who then told her to perform solat istikharah. The sheikh told her that the cause of her illness will be revealed in a dream immediately after. What she saw in her dream on the same night she'd performed istikharah was her own mother! And since she had absolute faith in her sheikh, she began to believe that the cause of her prolong illness was indeed her mother. She believed her mother had put black magic (sihir) on her because she was still displeased with her for marrying someone she did not approve.

I know of other people who dreamnt about marrying certain individuals, again upon performing solat istikharah. And again, since they believed these were 'clear signs' from Allah, they were convinced that the persons they saw in their dreams were destined to be their future husbands or wives. From then on, they put themselves under tremendous pressure waiting to be married to the identified persons, ignoring and rejecting marriage proposals from other individuals. Once the pressure became unbearable, they revealed their dreams to the persons they dreamnt about, hence passing the pressure to them to accept their 'destinies'.

There are quite a number of studies on dreams in Islam (click here to access an entire book by Dr. Umar Azam who wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject). As explained in a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim, there are generally three different types of dreams, (1) righteous dreams (rahmani) which are from Allah, (2) dreams that causes sadness (syaitani) which are from the devil, and (3) dreams from the ramblings of the mind (nafsani).

Many people are quick to conclude that just because the content of their dreams were positive, they must fall under the first category of gladtidings from Allah. What more when they had these dreams immediately after solat istikharah, a practice based on a number of authentic ahadith.

I will never question the authority of these hadith but I would definitely question our abilities to truthfully understand and interpret dreams. Interpretation of dreams is a complex art, much more complex I'm sure that just putting on the keywords like what we have here. Some dreams may have a negative manifest content, but the interpretations and meaning behind them could very well be positive. Some dreams may seem to indicate we should decide in a certain way but the interpretation may actually be an advice to decide completely the opposite.

To believe, or not to believe? In the end, I believe one should consult more than one spiritual figure to really understand his/her dreams. I do believe there are people of impeccable levels of spirituality among us but they are not infallible. At least, ask for a second opinion.

Nuclear-Free World

2009-04-07T12:33:00.007+08:00

US President Barack Obama has expressed his vision of a nuclear-free world. Speaking in Prague, during his first official visit to Europe, President Obama explains that although the goal may not be achieved anytime soon, the United States, as the only country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons, has the moral responsibility to lead the mission and ensure the framework is firmly laid for other countries to follow.

Albert Einstein was the man who was partly responsible for the invention of nuclear weapons. He did not make them of course, but it was his theory of relativity which inspired the idea of such a ferocious weapon of mass destruction. He did however, at the start of World War II, encourage the Americans to develop the bomb. He even exerted some pressure on the Americans to do so as quickly as possible due to his fear of what might happen if Germany and Hitler managed to build it first.

Einstein nonetheless never expected the weapon would be used. He wanted the bomb to be made to scare the Germans off, to prevent them from pursuing their world conquering ambitions. In other words, the bomb was made to make the world safer from the dangers posed by the Germans.

When the bomb was eventually used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein became a very troubled man. He later on said, President Roosevelt (had he been alive) would never have authorised the use of nuclear bombs especially on civilian targets. And a few months before he died, Einstein was quoted to have said that the role he played in the creation of nuclear bombs was the "one great mistake in my life" (quoted in Robert Clark's book Einstein: The Life and Times)

Einstein's initial justification on why the bomb must be made is the exact same logic applied by countries with nuclear weapons today. They acquire nuclear arsenals allegedly not with the intention of using them, but to make their countries safer by preventing others from threatening and attacking them. On a smaller scale, the same justification is used by many countries to build up their military capabilities by allocating billions of dollars annually for their militaries.

Those who are for nuclear weapons and continuous military investment would often argue that the world is infested with bad and evil people. Weapons are needed to battle them. If we don't develop weapons, they will and the world will be in danger. So the good guys must have some weapons to prevent the bad guys from attacking others. And the good guys must also have the most powerful weapon, not for them to use it of course, but to scare the bad guys from causing massive destructions. Therefore, only the good guys must have nuclear weapons, and the bad guys should not.

Problem is, who decides who are the good guys and the bad guys? Who decides that the Indians are the good guys and the Pakistanis not? Who decides that Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot? What are the criteria used to decide who can and cannot have this and that?

I firmly support President Obama's call for a nuclear-free world. Since we can't really decide on who should and should not have it, everyone should not have it then. Unless of course, some people think we need the bomb to prevent alien invasion!

Learning To Be Altruistic

2009-04-02T21:13:00.008+08:00

Many years ago, when I was walking back home from a grocery store, I went pass a crowded bus stop. As I passed through the crowd of about 30 people, I heard a faint voice asking for help coming from the sitting area inside. I turned my head and saw two young ladies; one of them was resting her head on the other lady's lap. Seeing that I was somewhat responding to her call for help, the second lady pleaded to me to help bring her friend to a clinic. Her friend looked really ill. She was very pale and was breathing heavily.

Without much hesitation, I offered to help and brought the lady to the nearest clinic. I carried her in my arms to a clinic which was about 100 metres away. And while I was doing this, everyone around the bus stop stared at me as if I was doing something wrong.

This happened years ago before I began my studies in psychology. Eventually, I realised what I did that day can be considered an example of altruistic behaviour. On the one hand, yes, I am proud of what I did, but on the other, I am sad to have witnessed a real example of bystander effect. I was clearly not the only person who heard the call for help from the two ladies. But amazingly, not only did none of them there offer to help, everyone of them (including the two people sitting right next to the two ladies) had turned their faces away deliberately pretending not to hear a thing.

I should probably mention here that the two ladies were Indonesians (recognisable by their accent), and they were both wearing shorts. I don't know, probably others thought they were involved in immoral activities but even if that was true, does that mean they did not deserve to be helped?

I never saw the two ladies again. The few people that I've told about this have mostly given me mixed reactions. They praised me for what I did while at the same time scolded me for my supposed naivety. How a small act of helping someone can be considered naive is beyond me. I certainly did not expect anything for what I did, nor did I think it was really praiseworthy.

To be altruistic is to be able to tell ourselves, for whatever we do we should not expect anything (tangible and intangible) in return. I don't know from where really I learned this but this has always been one of the philosophies in life that I greatly cherish. Probably it has even become an obsession of some sort that I often become extremely annoyed whenever I see people demanding for rewards and appreciations for their good deeds.

In studies on organisational behaviour, altruism is a dimension of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). I've just completed a research project on the work culture of primary school teachers here in Malaysia. One of the variables we looked at was OCB. When we compared the scores on OCB among Malay, Chinese and Indian school teachers, we found Malay school teachers scoring significantly higher than the Chinese and Indian respondents.

Teaching is a tough job, which certainly requires a degree of dedication that goes beyond any extrinsic motivation. Why Malay school teachers here were found to be significantly better on this quality however was difficult for us to explain. Perhaps, just perhaps, their passion for teaching is far higher, seeing it more as a noble deed and service to the society rather than a job that gives them their monthly salaries.

A quantitative cross-cultural comparison study like this unfortunately does not tell us the details about many things. Of interest to me personally is to know how we can teach people to be altruistic. My two small children often demand things in return whenever we (my wife and I) ask them to do something. Yes, they are children but how can I teach them or make them learn eventually that they should not expect anything from anybody? I want them to live by the principle that the most important thing in life is to do what is right, without thinking much (if not at all) about receiving any reward in return.

If only we know how to do this, I'm sure this world would be a far, far better place. Our children, and everyone in the society, from the most common labourers right up to presidents, kings and prime ministers; can thus be taught the mentality that we live to serve, not to serve for a living.

Wanting Something So Much...

2009-03-29T22:39:00.012+08:00

There were a few movies which after watching them, had left me completely dumbfounded. One of them is an Iranian movie called 'The Bride' (released in 1990). Starring the famous Iranian actress Niki Karimi, the movie tells a story of a young man who, after much struggle and perseverance, finally managed to marry the woman of his dreams.

Sounds more like a romantic fairytale, isn’t it? But this movie has such a surprising twist it left me wondering how a common incident in life can indeed lead to tragic and unfortunate consequences.

The opening scene of the movie shows how the man was made to agree by his then future father-in-law to achieve a set of conditions before he could be allowed to marry the daughter. I can't recall exactly what these conditions were but there were difficult enough that the young man took more than two years before finally achieving them.

After the wedding, the ecstatic young man drove his bride to their honeymoon. Throughout the journey, he was in such jovial mood he boasted to his wife about how proud he was to marry her despite the trouble her father had given him. He even boasted about some illicit ventures he was involved in during the years he struggled to meet her father’s conditions. Though not entirely amused by her husband’s antics, the wife was nonetheless happy and was looking forward to their future together when SUDDENLY...

...an old lady appeared from nowhere walking slowly to cross the street. Since the man was still preoccupied with his boasting of his 'achievement', he didn’t see the old lady until it was too late. He knocked her down unconscious, but... she was not dead.

Amazingly, the man refused to neither bring the old lady to the hospital nor report the accident to the police. Instead, he removed the body from the road and placed it inside his car trunk. Horrified by her husband's actions, she pleaded to him to do what is right and follow the course of the law. Her husband stubbornly refused and his very reason was something like: "I have struggled and sacrificed so much to marry you. If I bring the old lady to the hospital, the police will investigate the accident and I may be found guilty and be put to jail. I will be separated from you. I will NOT let that happen!"

When we want something so much, we may act in such irrational ways that betray our conscience and moral-logical principles. No doubt we will be burdened by a deep psychological tension but this can quite comfortably be neutralised by the defence mechanisms of denial and rationalisation. Desperate people think and act in desperate ways. They believe in their own perception of destiny, clouded surely by some delusions of their own invincibility.

Be-as-that-may, in the end, the truth will prevail, always...

"Only 19% Malays Want UMNO To Rule" Really?!

2009-03-18T00:37:00.013+08:00

The Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research recently released the report of its survey on 'Perceptions on UMNO Party Elections 2009' (the summary of its main findings can be accessed here).

The official media publication of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS), Harakah; pounced on the opportunity to cite a particular finding of the survey claiming that "Hanya 19 Peratus Melayu Mahu UMNO Memerintah" ("Only 19 Percent Malays Want UMNO To Rule"). Many other pro-PAS and Pakatan Rakyat blogs and news media have since made similar claims.

19 percent is a really shocking figure. I've done some preliminary research on Malay support for UMNO and based on what I've gathered, I don't believe the number of Malays supporting UMNO could be that low. So I read through the report on the main findings to find the evidence for this remarkable claim.

Of relevance are the findings reported on pages 15 and 44. Both pages report responses to the question "As a Malaysian, what is your hope for UMNO?" Page 15 reports the responds from the overall sample (n=1031) which includes Malay, Chinese and Indian respondents. While on page 44, one will find the breakdown of responses from male and female Malay respondents (n=592).

What intrigued me is the question "As a Malaysian, what is your hope for UMNO?" My first reaction was, was this an open-ended or close-ended question? Looking at the nature of the findings, my immediate guess was it must have been an open-ended question.

I emailed Mr. Ibrahim Suffian, Director of the Merdeka Centre to seek some clarifications. I am grateful for his reply and the information he relayed to me confirms my suspicions. Firstly, it was indeed an open-ended question. And according to him, the answers given by respondents were later on recorded into similar categories of answers.

The question now is, since it was an open-ended question (and a very general question I should stress), can we make the interpretation that because only 19 percent Malay respondents indicated their hopes for UMNO to "continue lead the country", only 19 percent Malays want UMNO to rule the country? And those who 'did not express hope' for UMNO to continue lead the country, can we be certain they 'do not want UMNO to rule' the country?

I am of the opinion (and Mr. Ibrahim Suffian agrees with me) that the best way to test the claim that only a small minority of Malays want UMNO to continue rule the country, is to put forward in a survey more specific items such as: "I want UMNO to continue lead the country", and respondents respond to a Likert Scale (from 'Strongly Agree' to 'Strongly Disagree') or 'Yes/No'. If the results show only a small number of respondents (say for example only 19 percent of the sample) indicating agreeableness to the statement, only then can we confidently and responsibly claim that "only 19 percent of Malays want UMNO to rule."

Let me stress that by writing this piece, I am not in any way questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Merdeka Centre. I have great respect for Mr. Ibrahim Suffian and highly appreciate the effort he and his research team has put in to provide credible scientific data on public opinion. However, I do at times question the maturity and wisdom of those who use these numbers to fulfil their own prophecies and political opinions.

Less than two weeks ago, I attended a forum in which Mr. Ibrahim Suffian was one of the three panellists. The organiser of the event was a pro-Pakatan Rakyat Perak-ian NGO. Mr. Ibrahim Suffian was the last panellists to speak. Before he spoke, both panellists before him, and the forum moderator especially, expressed their personal views that if the Perak state election is held at any time in the near future, Pakatan Rakyat will sweep through with a landslide victory.

Clearly, speaking based more on facts and numbers rather than emotions and sentiments, Mr. Ibrahim Suffian explained that even though Pakatan Rakyat may well win a Perak state election, the margin of victory may not be very significant. Realistically, PR can only hope for an improved majority of elected members to the Perak state parliament.

Why? Because despite all its weaknesses and mistakes, UMNO still has a considerable number of loyal members and supporters who will always vote for UMNO and only for UMNO. These are mostly the more elder members of the community who have seen and can only see UMNO ruling the country. The number of these UMNO loyalists may have shrunk in the last few years, but they remain until today strong and formidable.

Allah knows how much I am sympathetic to the struggles of Pakatan Rakyat, and how much indeed I wish for the coalition to be given the chance to govern the country. To achieve that however is not that easy. There are more work to be done and much persuasion to be made. Please do not make the same mistakes UMNO and Barisan Nasional made in the runout towards last year’s general election, and that is to believe in their own spin and to be deceived by their own propaganda.

Freudian Personality Psychology

2009-03-11T13:44:00.006+08:00

Psychoanalysis is the first formal approach in the study of personality psychology. The emphasis of this approach is on unconscious forces within an individual. Sigmund Freud is universally considered the founder of the psychoanalytic school. According to Freud, the basic elements of personality are instincts, a driving force or impulses that mediate between the mind and the body (Schultz & Schultz, 2001). In addition, Freud proposed the three levels of personality: the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, while the structures of personality were explained by the concepts id, ego and superego.

In analysing the psychoanalytic approach to the study of personality from the Islamic perspective, one has to first consider the differences in the understanding of the concept of human nature. The psychoanalytic approach has a very pessimistic view of human nature as the ultimate goal of all human behaviours according to Freud is to reduce anxiety (Freud, 1926). In addition, on the issue of free will and determinism, Freud believed that human personality is determined by the life and death instincts, and the invincible and inaccessible unconscious forces within an individual.

Islam believes man's nature is inclined towards good since the essence of man is spiritual goodness (Ali, 1995). On free will and determinism, the emphasis is more on free will. An essential element of man's free will is imbued in the term ikhtiyar, derived from the root word khayr (good). Hence ikhtiyar is not merely about exercising choice but choosing what is good and beneficial (Al-Attas, 1990).

On the influence of unconscious forces, Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Al-Fawa'id acknowledged that all behavioural actions begin with wasawis (concealed whispers) (Badri, 200). This unconscious element however, is not viewed as the powerful deterministic force in the magnitude described by Freud. These inner fleeting thoughts, which may incline towards both good and bad behaviour, can be easily steered towards good and away from evil by an individual's deep sense of faith (iman) and religiosity.

In explaining personality development, Freud introduced the five psychosexual stages starting with the oral stage followed by the anal, phallic, latency and genital stages. Freud believed that an individual's personality is largely shaped by the experiences in the first five years of a person’s life (encompassing the first three stages of the theory).

This huge emphasis on early childhood experiences is not in harmony with the perspective of Islam. Islam's view on human nature is more optimistic where human beings are deemed to be naturally incline towards goodness and are always capable of improving. Every living individual has continuous potential for growth and self-development which can never be exhausted. The spectacular transformation in the personalities of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Umar al-Khattab and Abu Dhar al-Ghifari in particular; transformed from the greatest of bullies during the Jahiliyyah period to amongst the most pious Muslims upon conversion to Islam, are outstanding examples of how radical personality changes and improvements can occur even during adulthood.

(The above is an excerpt from an unpublished paper entitled 'Personality Psychology From An Islamic Perspective' written in 2007)

Story of the Reed

2009-02-28T12:37:00.005+08:00

"The cry of the flute is indeed fire, not air; He who lacks fire, may he die in despair.

It's a blaze of love that sets the reed on fire; It's the yearning of love that wine boils in desire.

Only the sense-less can the hold the sense so dear; Where can ever the tongue find a better fan than ear."

These are excerpts from Professor Amir Zekrgroo's own translation of the Preface of Rumi’s Mathnawi, the "Ney-Nameh", or the "Story of the Reed" presented yesterday in the second of his series of lectures on ‘Rumi and his Mathnawi’. (Click here to access the original Persian and various English translation of the Ney-Nameh)

The story of the reed begins as a story of pain, the pain of separation from one's habitat and nature; a mythical way of expressing a lover's infinite longing for The Beloved. This represents the deep spirituality of the Sufis, who yearn for none other than God’s love and blessings.

For centuries, people have cut bamboo reeds to make flutes and pens for writing; the former emits the beautiful sound of the wind, and the latter the splendid art of beautiful writings. One is amazed then, how a thin and bland stick could be so useful and soothing.

Professor Zekrgoo contends, the reed symbolises the perfect man, who is hollow of ego and worldly desires. As Muhammad Iqbal once exclaimed: "the ego is partly free, partly determined, and reaches fuller freedom by approaching the Individual who is most free: God."

Against Post-Conventional Morality

2009-02-17T22:25:00.003+08:00

In his theory of morality development, Lawrence Kohlberg proposed that the highest stage of moral reasoning is the post-conventional stage. At this stage, right-or-wrong is decided either through social contract orientation (the will of the majority), or through a universal ethical principles orientation. The latter is an internalised standard where one’s personal conviction, derived from one’s active reasoning; is held supreme regardless of conformity with social mores.

People who I have debated with on the issue of homosexuality would often apply their own personal conviction to argue for its permissibility. In tandem with modern principles of human rights, they would argue that since homosexuals do not cause any harm to their own personal lives or create disorder or anarchy in the society, homosexuals should be allowed to practice their preferred sexual orientation.

The human rational mind is no doubt capable of complex processes and meticulous reasoning but to committed adherents of religions, is still subjected to morality by divinity. We believe in submission to a divine code of law derived from the scriptures and teachings of our religious teachers.

For Muslims, the shari'ah (divine law derived from the Quran and Prophetic traditions) is supreme and its authority is not subjected to personal whims and fancies. As Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali once wrote:

"In matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Quran or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights or duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote, although these too have a certain role to play in the determination of the ahkam (religious rulings)." (Kamali, M.H., Freedom of Expression in Islam, p.107).

To stand against homosexuality is to follow directly the authority of the Quran. Therefore, to all Muslims, including Muslim clinical psychologists who have been trained to refer to DSM IV (in which homosexuality is not classified as an abnormal behaviour), homosexuality must be prohibited, and for those who have ignorantly acquired such orientation, they must be corrected.

For proponents of liberal ideologies, submission to religious principles is a sign of weakness as the human mind is deemed capable enough to come to its own conclusion on what is right and what is wrong. And the underlying philosophy remains, that unless a behavioural practice is proven to cause harm to other individuals in the society, the practice should be considered legal and permissible no matter how much others may dislike it.

To that, I would invite people to stretch their imagination and apply the same philosophy to another type of sexual behaviour: incestuous relations. If a man decides to have sex with either his mother or his own daughter in the privacy of his own residence, shouldn’t we consider it legal and permissible too since it does not harm other individuals in the society?

Lessons from Puyi

2009-02-07T18:15:00.015+08:00

A few weeks ago, my eyes were glued to the television for two hours watching the History Channel special programme on 'Puyi: The Last Emperor of China'. Aisin-Gioro Puyi, who was forced to abdicate in 1912, was the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty which ruled China for more than 200 years. The Chinese emperor institution however had existed for much longer, since 221 BC with the unification of Chinese territories under the ancient Qin Dynasty.

In my younger more radical years, I used to imagine turning Malaysia into a republic. This is a country where we have not one, but nine kings ruling over the nine Malay royal states in the Federation of Malaysia. My disdain then was based on what I perceived to be a waste of economic resources to maintain the institution and what I observed to be neurotic submissiveness to rulers who have at best mythical claims to their inborn positions. These sentiments were so strong in me that for a number of years I adopted the pen name Megat Seri Rama when writing to various newspapers and magazines.

Now, having read more on Malaysia’s political history, and after internalising a more moderate and accommodating political philosophy, I believe it is important for us to maintain the monarchy as an institution that provides check-and-balance to the executive, especially, upon hearing the words of wisdom from some of the present day monarchs, some of whom have impeccable academic and professional qualifications; on their deep sense of realism on the need to earn the respect of the people.

The current crisis in Perak however has compelled me to reconsider that opinion and revisit my previous radicalism. As a Malay, I respect the role of the Malay Rulers and trust them to always act in the best interest of the people. But when an honourable state government leader is forced to resign due to the works of devious characters and political chameleons, I feel the seething anger of the people and understand why many have now turned against the Ruler. Anyone who reads the messages left on His Royal Highness Sultan of Perak’s official guestbook would realise the explosive magnitude of public anger (the guestbook has now been deactivated).

From the perspective of Malay tradition, these angry reactions are acts of betrayal and blatant shows of disrespect to the Ruler. After all, the Malay Rulers, as did Puyi, are perceived as Rulers with a divine mandate, who must be accorded with respect and reverence of the highest order. The Malay Rulers are descendants of Sang Si Perba; a descendant of Iskandar Zulkarnain, to whom on behalf of the Malay people, Demang Lebar Daun made a sacred oath of loyalty, an oath which bounded the Malays forever as loyal servants of the King. This is the story told in the 'Malay Annals' that justifies the divine mandate of the Malay Rulers.

Let us be honest. This is a myth! Just as the Ummayyah and Abbasid families never had any divine right to kingship, neither do any of our Malay Rulers. Nor do the Al-Saud family is Saudi Arabia, the Al-Sabah family in Kuwait, the Al-Maktoum family in Dubai, and all other monarchs in the world for that matter.

However, we respect and preserve the monarchy tradition to safeguard the interest of the people and to maintain social order. But when the interest of the people is not safeguarded, the role and existence of the Malay royal institution are bound to be questioned.

Millions of Chinese wept when Puyi was forced to abdicate and leave the Forbidden City. Millions of Russians did too when the last Tsar and members of his family were killed by the Bolsheviks. But all these tears for the lost of a historical-cultural institution were powerless to withstand the uprising of the masses.

Let there be no doubt that I do not want to see an uprising against the Malay Rulers. The institution must be preserved as a symbol of Malay-Muslim leadership accorded with the appropriate level of respect. But if the crisis in Perak is not resolved in a fair and just manner, the institution will continue to be ridiculed and questioned. And the consequent tragedy may well alter the social order of the Malaysian society forever.

Politics, Accountability and The Crisis in Perak

2009-02-05T23:48:00.007+08:00

One of the common principles in all the great world religions is the principle of accountability. In cyclical religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, the nature of your next life will be determined by your deeds in this current life. In linear religions like Islam and Christianity, all your deeds; known and unknown to others in this world, will be accounted for in judgment day during which according to the Islamic tradition, our limbs and sense organs will testify for all our actions.

With my limited knowledge of Malaysia's constitutional law, it is beyond me to make sense of the legality of the collapse of the Perak state government today. But as a social scientist, I should try to make sense of why and how three members of the Pakatan Rakyat state government made the switch of allegiance to Barisan Nasional. Try as I might, understand I do not.

Some have alleged 'Godfather-like' scenarios where offers that can't be refused were made. These are extrinsic factors that I have no doubt occurred to some extent but without any direct knowledge, I dare not add any details and speculate. But surely, these three PR chaps; who all held executive positions in the PR state government, are adult enough to have reached Piaget's formal operations and Kohlberg's post-conventional stages to comprehend between what is right and wrong, ethical and non-ethical behaviours, and understand the sacred meanings of the words honesty, trust and justice.

It is beyond me to understand how these poor souls can look at themselves in the mirror, and how can they possibly defend their honour and dignity in front of their family members, party supporters and friends. Do they not understand shame, or have they become incapable of shame?

The two PKR state assemblymen or political clowns par excellence, who were previously too ill to come to work and to return home to their families, and had to seek 'specialist treatment' in Pekan, Pahang, were seen smiling from ear-to-ear during the press conference yesterday announcing their defection. And why were they smiling? Could it be that they were proud of their frog-like political stunt, or have they become lunatics who smile for no apparent reasons?

Surely they must know what they've done is wrong. They have betrayed their party leaders and members, colleagues in the state government and legislature, members of their constituents, and more importantly their own conscience (whatever that is left of it). But such is the dual nature of human beings that we are able to, not only perform physical gymnastics but also mental and moral gymnastics.

Defecting is by itself wrong but perhaps to this two clowns it is right when done for a noble cause (for example, to preserve Malay-Muslim dominance on state governance, or to ensure a life-long financial security). To betray your colleagues and voters is obviously wrong too but these sins can surely be extinguished by going for umrah and hajj every year. After all, a prayer performed in masjid-ul haram is equal to 100,000 rewards. Staying for a week in Mecca and performing all the five daily prayers at the sacred mosque will bring a massive total of 3.5 million rewards. Surely that must be enough to 'pay back' for this one tiny act of betrayal. And so they may think. Allahu’alam.

What happened today will forever remain a black mark in Malaysia's political history. Never will we forget, never will we forgive, and never will we want it to happen again. And that goes to you too Brother Anwar Ibrahim. Admit and bear some responsibility for what happened today to salvage your own dignity and credibility.

Those who were wronged today, most notably the honourable and respectable YAB Dato’ Seri Ir. Muhammad Nizar Jamaluddin, will someday have their vengeance and justice served, if not in this world, in the hereafter!

When Rumi Met Tabrizi...

2009-01-31T23:05:00.003+08:00

Professor Amir Zekrgoo of ISTAC, in his first of a series of lectures on ‘Jalalluddin Rumi and His Mathnavi’ presented last Friday, shared an interesting narration of the first meeting between Rumi and his spiritual companion Shamsuddin Tabrizi.

Rumi, who was already at the time a respected scholar and spiritual figure, was reading a book; immersed in deep concentration, when he was abruptly asked by the wandering dervish, "what are you doing?" Rumi replied, "something you cannot understand", to which Shams reacted by taking the book off Rumi’s hand and throw it to water! Rumi picked it up and was surprised to find none of the pages of the book was wet. He then asked Shams, "what are you doing?", and Shams replied, "something YOU cannot understand!"

Thus began one of the most intense spiritual relationships between two spiritual beings the world has ever known. And as Professor Zekrgoo asserts, Rumi’s association with Shams turned him "from an ‘alim (scholar) to an ‘arif (mystic)... and made a poet out of a preacher".

To Rumi, this was the life-changing and humbling experience which paved the way for his self-actualisation. The spiritual bond he had with Shams was the 'sparkle' that gave him the inspiration and spiritual zeal to express his creative ideas.

Many of us are still in search of that elusive 'sparkle' that we hope will change our lives forever and allow us to realise all our potentials. But how and where does one find that 'sparkle?' Or, should we not search for it and instead let the 'sparkle' finds us?

"Don’t search for water, search for thirst..." Hence the lesson; taught to me by Professor Fareed Ahmad on humility vis-á -vis knowledge: "the more you know, the more you know you don’t know". Or, as beautifully described by the Malay proverb: "ikut resmi padi, makin tunduk makin berisi"; the more knowledge one acquires, the more humble one should be.

Is Chinese New Year a Cultural or Religious Festival?

2009-01-25T17:20:00.016+08:00

Tomorrow, Chinese communities all over the world will celebrate the coming of a new year; the year of the ox, an animal which symbolises hard work and perseverance.

Here in Malaysia, Chinese New Year is considered by many as a cultural festival. Hence, anyone who identifies his/her ethnic background as Chinese, regardless of his/her religious beliefs, would and should celebrate Chinese New Year. For this reason, non-Muslim Chinese who convert to Islam would still celebrate Chinese New Year because the festival is considered part of their cultural tradition and celebrating it is not considered against their Islamic faith.

However, is Chinese New Year really only an ethnic-cultural festival?

If we look at the rituals and practices in conjunction with its celebration, traditionally, preparations begin at the start of la-yue, the twelfth and last month of the Chinese lunar year. La-ba-zhou (eighth-day porridge) is celebrated on the eighth day of this month with the making of delicious porridge, a practice originated from Buddhists in China in memory of the enlightenment of Buddha. Dong-zhi (Winter Solstice) which falls on the 22nd of the month is celebrated with the eating of Chinese dumpling, a practice based on a Chinese custom which symbolises that a person is now one year older.

Then, a few days before the eve of Chinese New Year, every family has to send their home-god (jia-shen) to the heaven (through the observation of a variety of religious rituals such as the burning of incense and yellow-paper money) to report their deeds for the entire year while at same time to bring them more luck, wealth and prosperity for the coming new year. For the people in northern China, they pray to the god of the kitchen (zao-shen), to the people in the south especially among fishermen, to the god of the sea (hai-shen), while among merchants and businessmen they pray to the god of wealth (cai-shen).

So, New Year’s Eve is a very important time not only for family reunion; where all members in a family should return home to pray to the spirit of their ancestors to ask them to protect and bring the family more prosperity, it is also an important time to warmly welcome the return of the home-god who will come back to bring them luck and blessings for the new year. For this very reason, all members in the family would traditionally stay-up the whole night (shou-sui) at the family home on New Year’s Eve. In relation to that, at the stroke of midnight, which marks the start of the New Year, family members will burn firecrackers to drive away ghosts, evil spirits and bad luck to ensure the home god’s smooth return from heaven.

On the first and second day of Chinese New Year, members in the family are not allowed to go out of the house, not even to visit neighbours and friends; to avoid the flowing out of good luck, and to prevent bad luck from coming in to the family. Sweeping the floor inside the house is not allowed on the first two days of the new year to prevent good luck from being swept out from the house. Only on the third day till the fifteenth day of the new year, people may celebrate new year with their friends and neighbours.

Of course, not all of these practices and rituals are observed by Chinese communities today. Nevertheless, the points above clearly support the motion that Chinese New Year is in fact a religious festival. One has to understand that the traditional religion of the majority of Chinese is an amalgamation of teachings in Buddhism, the ethical philosophy of Confucianism and the metaphysics of Taoism, sprinkled with doses from Chinese myths and legends. The influences of these different sources of inspiration in the rituals and practices observed during Chinese New Year celebrations are indeed very clear and apparent.

It is for this very reason that ethnic Chinese Muslim communities in China do not celebrate Chinese New Year. Chinese New Year to them is a non-Muslim religious festival, and as Muslims, and because of their knowledge of the background of the various non-Islamic religious rituals and practices, they believe they should not participate in its celebration. Some of the elders in Chinese Muslim communities have in fact emphasised to their families to eat the most basic of food on New Year’s Eve, to clearly emphasise that the festival is not part of their family culture.

Since Chinese New Year is in fact a religious festival, should Chinese converts to Islam refrain totally from its celebration? Religious beliefs do not abrogate family obligations. As such, a Chinese-Muslim convert should attend the family reunion dinner on the eve of Chinese New Year as part of his/her family obligation. But the person should not participate in any of the religious rituals associated with the festival.

Celebrating Chinese New Year should not be seen as a mandatory Chinese-ethnic-identity-confirming behaviour which defines one’s Chinese cultural identity and origin. There are at least 50 million Chinese Muslims in China who do not and have never celebrated Chinese New Year. The fact that they don't celebrate it does not make them less Chinese than others who do. They respect it as an occasion celebrated by their non-Muslim neighbours and friends but they do not participate in its celebration. As Muslims, their festive occasions are the Eid celebrations, which are celebrated twice-a-year by all Muslims all over the world.

(This post was co-authored by my wife who is a Hui Chinese Muslim from Gansu, China)

President Obama: Lowered Expectations

2009-01-20T12:58:00.011+08:00

Today, the world will witness the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America, President Barack Hussein Obama, the first African-American president in the history of the country; the first African in fact to serve as head of government of a country beyond the African continent!

That the event today will be one of the most memorable in history is of no doubt. And its significance from the perspective of race and ethnic relations in America and in other parts of the world can never be underestimated. But to expect President Obama to be the financial guru to solve the US sub-prime mortgage crisis, the mastermind of a new international economic architecture, the mediator of all conflicts in the world; in short the man with the solutions to all the problems in America and beyond, such expectations are made in dreams, never in touch with reality.

I never quite understood how George W. Bush got elected (twice!) as the US President. To me, it was very obvious that both Al Gore and John Kerry were the more qualified candidates. Both men were clearly more intelligent, and looked by far the more capable. President Bush on the other hand, was the sheriff-like figure with a plain-speaking style, who bulldozed his way through debates and discussions, stuck to his conviction and ignored what others had to say. In that sense, he was quick and effective, not complicated.

Thus, one thing we can safely expect from President Obama is a change of leadership style. Obama is quite clearly a high-complexity individual. Studies in personality psychology have shown that high-complexity individuals encourage a wide range of information from various sources, are more interested in receiving negative feedback and are more likely to incorporate them in the decision making process.

President Obama has repeatedly stressed that he does not want a group of blind-followers as members of his cabinet. What he wants is a 'Team of Rivals' to ensure that every decision is made after thorough discussions, that the merits and demerits are considered for every situation, that there will be no stones left unturned. More significantly perhaps, Obama has decided to keep his BlackBerry to ensure that he gets direct personal feedback from people outside of his administration.

As a Muslim, I don’t expect President Obama to be able to solve all the problems in the world. Nor do I have the audacity to hope that he will revert to the faith of his father and champion the cause of the religion. But I am at least reassured that he is willing to listen and consider a diverse range of propositions. And for him to select Dr. Ingrid Mattson to say a prayer during the inauguration I think is a wonderful gesture.

End the Paranoia

2009-01-12T13:48:00.016+08:00

In his book Fratricide in the Holy Land – A Psychoanalytic View of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Avner Falk, an Israeli psychoanalyst wrote:

"...we Israelis are a paranoid nation because we see ourselves as the victims of this world, with the whole world as our enemies. We live in constant fear of annihilation and as a group have no empathy for the suffering of our antagonists."

Similarly, in an emotional essay; "How Can Children of the Holocaust Do Such Things: A Jewish Plea", written in the aftermath of Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006, Sara Roy, a Jewish scholar on Middle-Eastern Studies at Harvard wrote:

"There are among Israelis real feelings of vulnerability and fear, never resolved but used, intensified. Seeing one's child injured or killed is the most horrible vision -- Israelis are vulnerable, far more than other Jews. Yet, we as a people have become a force of extremism, of chaos and disorder, trying to plough an unruly sea-addicted to death and cruelty, intoxicated, with one ambition: to mock the pauper."

The tenacity and courage of the Jewish people today are often credited to the many trials and tribulations faced by Jewish communities throughout history. Jews were persecuted by the ancient Egyptians, the Romans, Babylonians, early Christians and the Nazi Germans. From the tyranny of the Pharaoh to the lunacy of Hitler, the tremendous suffering endured by the Jews left indelible marks in their history which has now become a permanent feature of their psyche.

Many Jews believe they are victims of hate, not just any kind of hate but hatred that comes naturally from the hearts of many. This anti-Semitism to them, is the reason why the Jews were persecuted throughout history and the very reason why some people still continue to threaten the existence of the state of Israel today.

The Jews are the direct descendants of Abraham. Conscious of this fact, many Jews see themselves as a special group of people. It is by the will of God that Abraham was chosen as His messenger. And if indeed Abraham was chosen because of certain qualities, his descendants by right should also inherit some, if not all of these qualities. God favoured Abraham over the rest of His creations, thus his descendants should also continue to be favoured.

God, to the Jews is a patriarch God. And the patriarch God made a covenant with the Jews that they would be "as uncountable as the stars and through (them) would the nations of the world be blessed." This covenant is part of the Jewish natural existence, which is the unique characteristic that distinguishes them from the rest of mankind. God therefore, is contracted to provide more than equal treatment to the Jews in accordance with their position as the chosen people.

A chosen group of people may well have certain special rights, and they ought to have some special responsibilities too. But do these special rights make the life of a Jewish person more worthy than a life of a gentile (a non-Jewish person)?

In the last six months that Hamas has fired rockets to southern Israel and since the Israeli assault in Gaza began two weeks ago, the total number of Israeli casualties stands at 13. In contrast, the number of Palestinian casualties has risen to more than 850. The Israeli authorities have of course emphasised they are targeting Hamas militants, not civilians; and they had no choice but to attack in response to Hamas’ provocation and the need to ensure the safety of the people of southern Israel.

If indeed the Israelis are only targeting militants, why are they using white phosphorous munitions in densely populated areas? Unless of course, due to my ignorance on weapons technology, these bombs are smart bombs, so smart they injure only militants not civilians. And on their claim that they had absolutely no choice but to attack, did the Israeli authorities ever tried to talk to certain factions in Hamas who in the last few months have indicated their willingness to accept a two-state solution?

One would expect those among the chosen ones, and ones with ample history of sufferings, would conduct their actions in such a way that the innocents are protected and to ensure others do not have to suffer as they had suffered. Instead, they are inflicting suffering upon others as if to ensure others experience what they had experienced.

The Palestinians today most certainly have so much hatred against the Jews in Israel. But from where does all this hate comes from? Is it the case that all Palestinians by nature carry a certain unique DNA that makes them hate all Jews?

When the entire living memory of two generations of Palestinian refugees consists of destitute living conditions and constant scuffles with the Jewish-Israeli army, what other emotions can they have about the Jews other than hate? People don’t hate the Jews because they are Jews, and neither does this hatred comes from envious feelings against the special status of the Jewish people. People hate the Jews because of their unilateral actions and perceived arrogance in dealing with the Palestinians.

This specially chosen group of people should cease with the paranoia that they are perennial victims of the entire history of human civilisation. As much as they have suffered, others have suffered and are suffering too. Since they are now the side with considerable strength and power over the enemy, they should use their position to stop the war and enforce negotiations for peace. Special people should carry out this special responsibility.

War In Gaza: When Grown-Ups Behave Like Children...

2009-01-07T13:22:00.009+08:00

My four year old twins quarrel quite often, mostly on petty issues and when I or my wife intervenes after one of them hits the first blow (with a slap, pinch etc), both would scream the same line of defence "HE/SHE STARTED IT!"

Hearing from both warring sides in the ongoing war in Gaza, one would hear the same childish arguments. The Israelis argue they have to attack Gaza because Hamas had broken the ceasefire agreement by firing rockets to southern Israel. But Hamas says it was the Israeli who first broke the ceasefire by organising military raids inside Gaza. Hamas also says they fired the rockets in response to Israeli’s blockade which has severely affected the transportation of essential goods to Gaza. To that, the Israeli says the blockade was necessary to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and the entry of terrorists into Israeli territory. And Hamas says they have the right to acquire weapons to defend themselves from Israeli military raids. Israel also claims they have the right the expand their military capabilities (with the generous help of the Americans of course) to defend themselves from their hostile Arab neighbours. Military raids, according to Israel are conducted against militant groups and terrorists in Gaza. Hamas says as long as there is Jewish occupation of Palestinian lands, militants have valid reasons to target Israelis. And the Jews argue that Israel is the land of their ancestors hence it belongs to them. The Palestinians obviously disagree and cry out that the land, which is now part of the state of Israel, less than a century ago was their homeland which they were forced to abandon because of the Jewish occupation. To the Jews in Israel, it is not an occupation but merely the return of lands which are rightly theirs as promised by God as proclaimed in the Torah and the Bible. And so it goes, on and on... (read more on the Palestinian case and the Israeli case)

Of course, the points above barely touch the surface of what is in fact a highly complex conflict situation. Nonetheless, one can clearly see that both parties blame the other as the source and instigator of the problem. Hence, neither will concede that it was their fault that the crisis has now fully escalated because both claim they are the victims, and as victims they have the right to defend themselves and retaliate against the enemy by killing them, and killing them all; civilians and combatants, men and women, adult and children.

Do any of these people seriously want peace? As far as I’m concern, all the hotheads in Hamas and the Israeli government should be blamed for this crisis. Time and time again we hear from both sides the argument that they are the victims and they had no choice but to attack. Is that really true?

The real victims are peace-loving civilians from both sides. And the true heroes here are the handful of dedicated and selfless humanitarian workers risking their lives helping the sufferring people.

To the hotheads and violent extremists on both sides, grow up! Kiss and make-up.

Why War?!

2008-12-31T07:48:00.009+08:00

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

"WAR does not decide who's right only who's left"

Bunga Popi

Dari darah, dari nanah yang punah di tanah,
rangka manusia kehilangan nyawa disambar senjata,
hasil manusia gila perang membunuh mesra,
bunga merah berkembang indah minta disembah.

Yang hidup tinggal sisa nyawa,penuh derita,
kering, bongkok, cacat, tempang dan buta,
perang dalam kenangan penuh kengerian,
sekarang dalam kepahitan,
dalam kesepian.

Yang lain kehilangan anak, suami dan kekasih,
hilang pergantungan, hilang pencarian,
hidup kebuluran,
ribuan janda, ribuan kcewa, ribuan sengsara,
jutaan anak-anak yatim hidup meminta-minta.

Manusia gila perang telah membunuh segala mesra!
perang berlangsung mencari untung tanah jajahan!
perang berlangsung membunuh anak dalam buaian!
perang berlangsung menghantar lebur nilai kebudayaan!

Bunga popi bunga mayat perajurit bergelimpangan,
bunga darah merah menyimbah,
penuh kengerian,

kami benci pada perang penuh pembunuhan!
kami rindu pada damai sepanjang zaman!

Usman Awang, 1955

Poppies

From blood, from pus that rots in the soil,
from skeletons that have lost their lives,
snatched by weapons,
the result of war maniacs who kill love,
the red flowers bloom beautifully,
requesting to be adored.

Those who live on are remnants of life,
full of sufferings,
wizened, bent, deformed, maimed and blind,
war in retrospect is full of horrors;
they remember now,
in bitterness,
in solitude.

Others lost children, husbands and sweethearts,
lost their sources of support, their livelihood,
they live in starvation,
thousands widowed,
thousands disappointed,
thousands tormented;
millions of orphans live on, and beg.

The war maniacs have killed all love!
war raged and found profit in colonial lands!
war raged and killed babies in their cradles!
war raged, and destroyed cultural values

Poppies are the flowers of fallen soldiers,
flowers drenched red with blood,
full of horrors,

we hate war,
full of killing!
we cry for a never-ending peace!

Usman Awang, 1955
(English translation by Adibah Amin)

Culture, Respect and Freedom of Expression

2008-12-19T15:37:00.011+08:00

In his farewell visit to Iraq, outgoing United States President George W. Bush had a shoe thrown to him (twice!) during the press conference in Baghdad. In many ways, for someone to be thrown a shoe at, as Professor Akbar Ahmed had pointed out when interviewed by CNN, is the ultimate insult akin to like having your head being stepped on by someone.

Predictably, there were different reactions from different sides to the shoe throwing incident. Many Iraqis and Muslims in the Middle-East saluted the actions of the Iraqi journalist. Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is now not only receiving support from various quarters clamouring for his immediate release, he has also received a new job offer and a marriage proposal! Many Americans, on the other hand are angry about the incident as they believe their president deserves greater respect from the Iraqis having poured in billions of dollars rebuilding their country.

During his presidency, George W. Bush has been condemned, ridiculed and made fun at. Both Jay Leno and David Letterman have said that they will miss President Bush. Why? Because both of them and many other talk-show hosts and comedians have prospered with Bush jokes in the last eight years. To make jokes about Bush was easy, but to joke about Obama will not.

When I was visiting Washington DC last year, I saw a number of anti-war activists with placards with some very nasty caricatures of President Bush on them displaying them directly in front of the White House. That, and the many nasty jokes made about Bush are deemed acceptable in America, actions that are considered part of the society’s freedom of expression. To openly and publicly make fun of government and political leaders is considered normal and acceptable in most Western countries, but here in Malaysia and the Asian region?

As much as I cherish the rights of any individual to express himself, and as much as I am indeed disgusted about some of our local political leaders, I don’t think I would like to see the kind of jokes made about Bush being made about them here. Malaysians or Asians in general are still conservative societies in which respect towards elders is a sacred tradition inspired by cultural and religious values. In many ways, we show respect to our seniors, teachers, superior officers, and society leaders the same way we show respect to our parents. And people here just do not openly argue with their parents.

Even when there are disagreements, children would most likely utilise various subtleties to express their disagreements with the hope that somehow their parents would understand. Children find it hard to give a direct "no" to their parents for the fear of hurting their feelings. As the Malays would often say, 'ibarat menarik rambut dalam tepung... rambut jangan putus, tepung jangan berselerak' ('like pulling a hair from a container full of flour... you have to pull the hair out gently that the hair does not break and flour is not scattered around the place').

On this adab (etiquette) of respecting our elders, is it possible however that people here tend to overdo it? My respected senior colleague Professor Malik Badri certainly thinks so as he often laments on how students here are indeed over-adab-ised, a point that I cannot help but agree since my own students hardly question me in class even when I made factual errors (occasionally) during my lectures. Yes, students should respect their teachers but would it be disrespectful for students to disagree with their teachers?

As a student, I once disagreed publicly with one of my lecturers about attendance to make-up classes. He had said that attendance to make-up classes is compulsory to which I argued a student’s responsibility is to attend classes as arranged in the official schedule. Make-up classes are organised to replace class sessions cancelled by the lecturers in order for them to cover all topics in the syllabus. Hence, lecturers have the obligation to organise make-up classes but they should not force students to attend them. The argument I had was quite tense but I knew my lecturer did not take it personally. After all, it was the same lecturer who a few years later as the head of department lobbied the university’s authority to hire me as a teaching staff at the university.

I have to say though that my experience above was more an exception rather than the norm. The reality is the culture here in Malaysia, and in the whole of Asia in general, has limited tolerance for dissent. I have heard numerous personal stories of students and low-ranking officers being heavily reprimanded and unjustly punished for disagreeing with their teachers and superior officers.

When I first became a staff member at IIUM, it was after two years studying in Finland and half-a-year working for UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Three years of ‘Westernisation’ had ‘corrupted’ me somewhat that I was always eager and ready to argue with anyone regardless of their standings and positions whenever I feel I had something to say. However, I have learned to be much more relenting over the years mainly due to some of the friendly advice given to me by a few concerned colleagues. Was this for the better? Perhaps, because I no longer create any unnecessary tension between myself and others. But I can’t help but feel that by doing so I may have sacrificed some of my core values and principles.

Still, I do not quite understand why people here almost always take criticism personally. My senior colleague Professor Wan Rafaei once told me how astonished he was to see both the supervisor and co-supervisor of his doctoral research (at the University of Wales) arguing so aggressively for more than an hour, but at the end of the meeting both went off happily together for lunch. According to Professor Wan, if there was an argument like that here in Malaysia, both parties will not be on speaking terms for at least a few months!

Perhaps, traditional cultural values and 22 years of Mahathirism had nurtured this culture of submissiveness in Malaysia. But certainly a balanced and moderate perspective between the need to show respect and the need for constructive criticism and disagreements can be achieved. Sheikh Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani has written a beautiful book on 'The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam' (Adab al Ikhtilaf fi al Islam). I remember vividly his argument in the book on how Islam in fact recognises disagreement and scepticism as valid methods of inquiry. Of course, in Muslim communities today, this beautiful tradition is largely forgotten. The political culture in most Muslim countries does not value dissent and tend to see it as a corrupted Western approach that is alien to Islam.

Of course, I am not advocating throwing shoes as a way to express disagreements, or making nasty jokes about our political leaders as often seen in Jay Leno and David Letterman talk shows. What I would like to see is the creation of proper channels and avenues for freedom of expression where people can voice their views (with observance of adab) without fear of negative repercussions.

To speak just for the sake of speaking is indeed foolish, but to not speak when something needs to be said is a sign of lack of wisdom and self-confidence and often lead to weak and faulty decisions and understanding. Allahu’alam.

Early Marriages

2008-12-13T01:04:00.014+08:00

I'm not a therapist, nor am I a counsellor. However, for whatever reasons, in my five years working at the university, I've had on a number of occasions, students who came to me for advice for various personal problems. These are young adults, and as can be expected many of their problems centred around the issues of marriage and romantic relations.

Sheikh Abdallah Adhami, a Muslim preacher in America, was once asked to deliver a talk on marriage in Islam. In preparing for the talk, he asked the organiser what exactly about marriage they want him to talk about. The organiser requested the sheikh to focus on what happens before marriage. To that, Sheikh Adhami said: "that will be a very short talk because in Islam NOTHING happens before marriage."

If 'nothing' here means no social interactions whatsoever between men and women, it certainly is a big challenge for youngsters today to adhere. Of course, in the past the situation was different. Both my grandmothers got married at the age of fourteen while my paternal and maternal grandfathers were eighteen and twenty respectively; both immediately upon completing their education (the former upon graduating from Tanjung Malim Teachers' College, and the latter after passing his Senior Cambridge examination). Needless to say, when my grandparents got married they hardly knew their spouses.

Allah SWT has instilled in the hearts of human beings the ability to experience love. To love and wanting to be loved is part of human nature. Hence, for a person to fall in love with another is something natural and in most instance unavoidable. The only question then is how does one manage and respond to this emotional experience?

Marriage is the natural solution ordained by both religious and cultural traditions. It is not easy however for people today to get married. Here in Malaysia, social-cultural expectations dictate that only those (men especially) who are financially stable can begin contemplating marriage. To be exact, you should have a stable job, a car and at least able to rent a decent house before you can think about getting married. All of these of course are in addition to saving enough money for the dowry, wedding gifts and expenses for a lavish ceremony. To meet all these requirements, a young man would need to work fulltime for at least a few years. That would mean pushing the age of marriage to the late twenties if not later.

Can a young man (or a young woman for that matter) wait that long? Of course, I'm posing this question in the context of the Malay-Muslim society here in Malaysia where conservative religious values are still largely adhered to (to be exact, the strict prohibition on pre-marital sex). Studies in developmental psychology have shown that humans develop romantic feelings and sexual desires from the period of adolescence. And it grows even stronger and remains strong during the entire period of young adulthood. Can we just simply expect young men and women today to suppress these feelings? Suppressing them entirely during high-school, throughout their years studying at universities, and a couple of more years of working life?

To me, the answer is quite simple: encourage early marriages! During my undergraduate studies, I once wrote a term paper on encouraging early marriages. And one of the earliest publication projects I worked on was to translate a book entitled 'Marriage in Islam' from English to Malay in which the propagation of early marriages is the thesis statement of the very first chapter. Of course, the call for early marriages would run directly against social-cultural expectations. One has to decide then which one is more important: marriage as a religious duty to preserve one’s chastity or adherence to social-cultural norms?

Without a doubt, anyone who decides to get married at a young age would face some serious challenges. I have never failed to caution students who have consulted me, about these challenges that they should be mentally prepared for. Certain sacrifices of course need to be made, but rather than making things more difficult, the society can and should facilitate young married couples. At IIUM, back in the 1990’s, married students received additional allowances for living expenses. In fact, family apartments for married students were part of the original design of the university’s main campus in Gombak. Such facilities should be reintroduced and offered by other social institutions.

What we have now is more cultural than religious. When religious values and socio-cultural expectations collide, religion values must and should always prevail.

The Making of Muslim Terrorists

2008-12-02T00:18:00.017+08:00

Denial, is a common reaction among many Muslims to any news of terrorist acts committed by Muslims. At first the reaction will be: "a Muslim could not have done that", then to: "how can a Muslim do such a thing?", and finally the conclusion: "it must be a conspiracy!"

I was in Joensuu, Finland (barely two weeks since my arrival) when 911 occurred. I was first told of the attacks on the World Trade Centre when I came to the masjid on that day for evening prayers. And to be honest, when my Muslim brothers were talking about the attack, most of them were expressing a genuine feeling of jubilation. Yes, in jubilation that America was attacked in its own soil, and to a large extent, proud (not shame) that it was allegedly done by our fellow Muslim brothers.

It is always difficult for me to explain terrorist acts committed by Muslims. On one hand, I feel the need to explain this is not what Islam propagates while on the other, I cannot deny the atrocities committed by my fellow Muslims. Often, my arguments were defensive but ultimately, a point that I would vehemently defend is, blame the Muslims who committed these crimes, don’t blame Islam. Hence, there are in fact only Muslim terrorists, not 'Islamic' terrorists!

I’ve travelled across a few cities in Western Europe and in almost all of them, managed to spend some time at the masjids and talked with members of the local Muslim communities. In all these places, there were always groups of young, angry and high-spirited Muslims who displayed strong animosity towards America and the entire Western–kafir civilisation, and often times, wished and prayed for their total destruction.

From where does all this anger come from? My background in psychology propels me to focus on a more micro perspective, specifically in relation to the social psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance; a psychological discomfort that arises as a result of inconsistencies between one’s self-concept and behavioural actions.

Any Muslim who has experienced a deep sense of religious awakening, would very likely come across some of the well-known ahadith (Prophetic traditions) emphasising on the importance of ukhuwwah (Islamic brotherhood) and unity. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Muslims are like the limbs of a man, where if the eye hurts the whole body feels pain and if the head hurts, the whole body feels pain and suffering." And in another hadith emphasising on the responsibility of a Muslim to another, the Prophet said: "Whoever does not take an interest in the affairs and problems of the Muslims, he is not of them. And whoever's state is such that, each morning and evening, he is not loyal and earnest to Allah, his Apostle, His Book, the Islamic ruler and towards the Muslims as a whole, he is not of them."

Muslims who learn and internalise lessons from these narrations would feel a deep sense of connectedness, an emotional-spiritual bonding with Muslims all over the world across different countries and continents. Such feelings often transcend relations based on citizenship, race and ethnicity. It is with this deep and intense feeling of brotherhood that many Muslims began to develop a strong sense of sympathy toward Muslims inflicted with hardship and struggles. Hence when they hear and read about the sufferings of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, they would ask themselves firstly: "have I done anything to help my Muslim brothers and sisters?", followed by the painful question: "what can/should I do to help them?"

For some, the behavioural reaction would be making some donations to charity funds for the suffering people. But for some others, that would not be enough. They would think that a Muslim should be able to do more than that. And when the hardships experienced by Muslims in these areas are associated with struggles against a non-Muslim enemy, the call for jihad will soon be heard. When this happens, many Muslims would respond positively to the call seeing it as a legitimate way to harmonise their self-concept as a devout Muslim responsible for defending his/her Muslim brothers, and their behavioural reactions from one which was docile and passive to a more active and confrontational approach. Armed with religious justification, these Muslims would thereon rally behind any groups whose ideology resonates with their newly found confrontational attitude. Being confrontational means to do whatever that is necessary to destroy the enemy which include resorting to committing acts of terrorism.

So, coming back to the common reactions among Muslims mentioned in the first paragraph, yes, Muslims are capable of becoming terrorists. In fact, it won’t surprise me if some of the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attack are neither Indians nor Pakistanis. They could very well be Muslims from the UK or any other Western countries, whose minds have been indoctrinated with intense hate and animosity. A book published last year The Islamist by Ed Husain, a British Muslim and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, outlines the author’s journey towards radicalism and explains how such an ideology can and have inspired acts of terrorism.

Conspiracy? The only thought I have along this line stems from the question, 'where these people get their weapons from?' There can’t be that many countries in the world that manufacture weapons. And weapons are also not cheap. Thus, the burning question in my mind, if most of these struggling Muslim communities don’t even have enough to cater for their basic needs, how did they get all these weapons?

Allahu'alam (Allah knows best)

In view of the need for Muslims to strive for the cause of Islam and to protect and defend our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, are there other means to fulfil it other than through violence and terror? Something for all of us to think about...

Ma'as salam.

Psychology, Culture and Indigenisation

2008-11-26T16:43:00.009+08:00

(Below is an excerpt from my article bearing the same title above to be published in the forthcoming publication Psychology from the Islamic Perspective: A Guide to Teaching and Learning, Noraini Mohd Noor (Ed.), IIUM Press)

The primary task of this section is to clarify the differences between culture and religion. That the two concepts are different is a pre-conclusion of this discussion, and a deliberate attempt to confront the conventional assumption that religion is merely a component of culture.

'Culture' has been defined in many different ways in the different areas of social sciences. Some definitions focus on the functions of culture while others focus on the structures, representing respectively the functionalist and structuralist perspectives. The definition provided by Matsumoto and Juang (2004) attempts to integrate both these broad perspectives. Culture here is defined as:

"dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by groups, in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviours, shared by a group but harboured differently by each specific unit within the group, communicated across generations, relatively stable but with the potential to change across time."

Two key components of this definition are the structure of culture as a 'dynamic system of rules', and the function of culture 'to ensure survival'. Although a universally accepted definition of culture remains elusive, these two components are incorporated, in one form or another, in all definitions of culture.

'Religion' similarly does not have a universally acclaimed definition. However, what is arguably the most referred to definition of religion in the social sciences is the definition provided by social anthropologist Clifford Geertz. Geertz (1973) defined religion as:

"a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Geertz’s definition of religion, on one hand, is a positive recognition of the function of religion, but on the other, a subtle attempt to de-sacrelise religion. Religion is described here as a cultural system that may not necessarily have a divine origin whose effect on human behaviour and emotions therefore, are merely matters of human perception.

As a cultural system, religion has to be dynamic. And a dynamic system, essentially, is not static, hence is always incline towards change and continuous revision. This, however, is not in agreement with the views of scholars of religions. From their perspective, religion is a system that clarifies the answers for five quintessential issues: theology, doctrine and rituals, scriptures, cosmology, and eschatology (Smart, 1989; Eliade, 1981). While there are indeed certain provisions for hermeneutic change and revision, these five issues are essentially religious dogmas from which pillars of religion are based upon.

Islam is dynamic as there are indeed avenues for new interpretations of the divine law (shari’ah). The door for ijtihad (revised interpretation) remains open for Islamic religious scholars to explore in view of circumstantial and contemporary challenges (Kamali, 1994). However, this avenue is restricted both in terms of subject areas and individual qualification. The five pillars of Islam for example, are not open for new revisions, nor are the articles of faith and other doctrinal aspects. Furthermore, the majority of opinion amongst the ulama’ (Muslim relgious scholar) would subscribe to the view that only a mujtahid (one with sufficient knowledge) is given the provision to exercise ijtihad. A Muslim who is not knowledgeable about Islam is to seek guidance from the learned, and not to decide on matters of religion based on his/her own rational justification and logical deduction.

Is Islam a cultural system? The Islamic faith is not a philosophy open for individual cultural perspective. Islam is a revealed religion, revealed by Allah SWT to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). The message of Islam is preserved in the form of a book, the Holy Quran, which is divinely protected from all forms of corruption.

The cultural manifestations of Islam however, do exist. The two sources of the shari’ah, the Holy Quran and ahadith (Prophetic tradition); provide the general guide for Islamic conduct and responsibility. How these general guidelines are applied and manifested depends on cultural and individual preferences. For example, Muslim women are obliged to cover their awrah, which allows them to expose only the palm and the face. This is the general guide. How a Muslim woman fulfils this depends on her personal and cultural preferences. A Muslim woman in Malaysia would normally use the Malay traditional baju kurung, while a Muslim woman in Pakistan would normally use the traditional shawal kamis. Both these cultural manifestations are acceptable as long as they adhere to the guidelines in the shari’ah.

The religion of Islam is referred to in the Quran as ad-Din, a concept that explains Islam not only as a belief or cultural system but an all-encompassing entity that provides guidance for a distinct way of life and answers to the very purpose of one’s existence (al-Faruqi, 1982). Such attributes clearly goes beyond and above the realm of culture as explained in Western social sciences. With this Islamic worldview, compared to Western psychology, an Islamic indigenous psychology would naturally operate from a quite different epistemological assumption. As observed by Murken (cited in Khalili et al, 2002), secular Western psychology considers religion as merely one example of a cultural subsystem, i.e. a set of variable in research. In Islamic psychology however, religion (i.e. Islam) is the basis and framework for everything. Islam is not a variable to be evaluated, but the very principle that guides the judgment and understanding of Muslim psychologists both in research and practice. Herein lies the unique characteristic of Islamic indigenous psychology as espoused in much of the work on the Islamization of psychology.

References:

Al Faruqi, I.R. (1982). Al-Tawhid: Its implications for thought and life. Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Eliade, M. (1981). A history of religious ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Kamali, M.H. (1994). Freedom of expression in Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing.

Khalili, S., Murken, S., Reich, K.H., Shah, A.A. & Vahabzadeh, A. (2002). Religion and mental health in cultural perspective: Observations and reflections after the First International Congress on Religion and Mental Health, Tehran, 16-19 April 2001. The International Journal of the Psychology of Religion. 12(4), 217-237.

Matsumoto, D. & Juang, L. (2004). Culture and psychology. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Smart, N. (1989). The world’s religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

British Conspiracy Against Islam

2008-11-19T12:56:00.017+08:00

All this hype on the latest James Bond movie reminds me of a little book I read a few years ago, Confessions of a British Spy and British Enmity against Islam. I first came across this book in 2001 at the masjid in Joensuu, Finland. A fellow postgraduate student from Turkey at the University of Joensuu had placed the book there because he was apparently uncomfortable with the influence of Salafi teachings among members of the congregation.

Confessions was allegedly written based on the memoir of a British secret agent named Hempher who served in various undercover operations in the Middle-East for the British government in the 19th century. The book presents in some detail what was arguably Hempher’s greatest mission: to engineer the destruction of the Ottoman Empire by empowering local rebellious groups. To gain control of the Arab Peninsular, Hempher sought the assistance of a local cleric and community leader Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab from Najd, who went on to spread a puritanical and revivalist version of Islam known today as Wahhabism.

I do not wish to indulge too much on the content of the book (curious readers can access the entire book in PDF format by clicking on the full title of the book in the first paragraph). Sufficient to say its main thesis is, the Wahhabi movement and Salafi teachings are products of a British conspiracy initially designed to hasten the demise of the Ottoman Empire, and to sow a perpetual sense of ‘religious’ rivalry and antagonism among Muslims.

Of course, it would be naive (and stupid) to say that spies and espionage missions do not exist but to say that Wahhabism is a product of British conspiracy to me is more paranoia than reality. The fact is, the authenticity of Confessions has been put in serious doubt by both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers, which by right should render the book to a status of a work of historical fantasy and imagination. Nonetheless, the book remains very popular among Muslims especially among the young, idealistic and those with a political-reformist mentality.

Conspiracy theories are in abundance in the internet. I have to confess that I do occasionally go through them but I do so more out of curiosity and for entertainment. I used to attend a Salafi-Wahhabi study group and I clearly do not see how Salafism can be construed as something other than a genuine approach (among many approaches) to understand and practice Islam. What has given Wahhabism and Salafism a bad name are their alleged followers, those with extreme views and militant tendencies like Usama Bin Laden. Yes, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and in Saudi Arabia Wahhabism and Salafism are dominant, but just because Bin Laden and some of his followers subscribe to these approaches, does that make Wahhabism and Salafism absolutely bad and dangerous?

Extremists exist everywhere, in Wahhabi-Salafi groups as well as among followers of other approaches. A friend of mine once received an 'advise' from a Salafi sister that he should stop wearing trousers because wearing trousers is an imitation of Western-kafir culture. I myself was once 'warned' by someone that if I do not make bai’ah to his sheikh hence joining his tarikah, I will be led astray by the devil and end up in hell fire. These are examples of people with extreme views who genuinely believe that they are in the right while others are wrong. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasised that while most terrorists are indeed extremists, very few extremists are in fact terrorists. There are millions of Muslims in the world who subscribe wholeheartedly to the writings and words of Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab, Nasaruddin Al-Albani and Abdul Aziz Bin Baz. The views of these respectable scholars to many are extreme (refer to the collection of articles at Mas'ud Ahmed Khan's homepage), but very few among their followers went on to become militants and terrorists.

My point is, the Wahhabism-British-conspiracy theory is in fact a myth, likewise the alleged association between Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda with Wahhabi political ideology as well as many other so-called conspiracies against Islam associated with various international organisations (a subject I wish to address in future postings inshaAllah). We can be followers of Wahhabism, Salafism, Sufism, Ikhwanul Muslimin, Jama’ah Tabligh etc. In the end, we are all Muslims, united by the same Tawhidic doctrine amid our differences in some specific aspects of belief and practice. Let’s stop this paranoia with conspiracy theories and the seeds of distrust that it carries.

Allahu'alam.

AUKU and the Generation of the Uncurious

2008-11-14T23:56:00.013+08:00

"Our education system must change. Our children are just not curious enough. They must be curious about the world. They must ask questions." These are the words uttered by Deputy Prime Minister (and in-coming Prime Minister) Najib Abdul Razak in his opening speech yesterday at the Seminar on Creating a Blue Ocean in Education and Training Sectors in Kuala Lumpur.

Back in August this year, I attended a forum organised by the network of academic staff associations to discuss suggestions on amendments to be made to the University and University College Act (more widely known by its Malay acronym AUKU – Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti). AUKU (in its current state today) was enacted in 1975 to disallow university and college students as well as all academicians from being actively involved in political parties. The bill was tabled by the then Minister of Education Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in the aftermath of the Baling Demonstration organised by student and youth organisations and supported by many academicians. Anwar Ibrahim was allegedly the key youth leader who organised the demonstration, and Dr. Syed Husin Ali (then a senior lecturer at the University of Malaya) was one of the academicians who openly supported the event. Both were swiftly detained under the ISA, and both are now respectively the De-Facto Leader and Deputy President of the main opposition party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (National Justice Party).

In the AUKU forum mentioned above, the keynote address was delivered by a former vice-chancellor of a public university here in Malaysia. Reminiscing on the ‘good old-days’ of pre-AUKU, the former VC described the time when academicians were welcomed to express their critical views on political leaders and current issues effecting the country, student unions very active in various social-political activities, and student leaders celebrities in campuses across the country. But to me, the highlight of his presentation was his response to the oft-repeated statement that "AUKU is important to make sure students concentrate on their studies." His swift respond, "close all campuses... have all academic courses conducted online".

Let me add a bit more to the point above. Since public universities nowadays are pressured to become more financially self-sufficient, all lectures should be pre-recorded in an 'infotainment' format, mass copied in DVDs and then sold to students. Thus, at the start of every semester, after registering for a set of courses, student can go to bookshops as well as Tower Records and Speedy video stores to buy the DVD’s and then view them at their own convenience any time anywhere throughout the semester. If they have any inquiries, they can email the academic coordinator of the course, use Yahoo Messenger and other chatting programmes, or even use video conferencing for individual consultation. Students need only come to campus to take their exams. If this is done, not only will universities make money from the sales of these 'academic' DVDs, they will also reduce drastically their operation cost. Students would be happy having been given the freedom to study at their own pace and not troubled by the need to rush from class to class every day. Professors and lecturers can thus devote more time in research and academic activities other than teaching. Surely, this is a win-win situation, or is it?

Coming back to AUKU, if the reason to continue to have it is to prevent students from getting involved in partisan politics, I can agree with that to a certain extent. As my university’s former president once said, "there are no principles in partisan politics." But then, if that is the case, let us be fair and not selective. If students can be charged for misconduct because of their involvement in campaigning for opposition parties, students who act as 'volunteers' in UMNO gatherings should also be charged for the same crime. If the PAS youth movement is not allowed to infiltrate into campuses, Puteri and Putera UMNO should also be barred from recruiting members from among university students. If professors and lecturers are not allowed to become members of PAS, DAP and PKR, they also should not be allowed to become members of UMNO, MCA and MIC.

My personal view, and in respond to the DPM’s statement quoted in the first paragraph, let us abolish AUKU. Give freedom to students and academicians to explore their own sense of idealism without fear of punishment. Of course, if anyone transgresses; immersing oneself in politics while neglecting one’s principle duties as a teacher or a student, the person must be punished. But let’s not punish people for questioning the status quo and exploring differing political ideologies.

I am quite certain if the government decides to abolish AUKU, it will not result in an explosion of public support for opposition parties. When given the freedom to explore and reflect, people will eventually realise that while the current government is not always right, the opposition parties are not immune from mistakes and weaknesses either. The main thing is, students should be allowed to question and encouraged to develop a healthy sense of scepticism about everything they learn.

Three decades of AUKU has produced a culture of passive submission prevalent among university students and academicians. Should we then be surprised that "our children are just not curious enough"?

Bangsa Malaysia

2008-11-10T15:21:00.012+08:00

In the book Introduction to Political Psychology (published by Lawrence Erlbaum in 2004), the authors assert that the best long-term solution to ethnic conflicts is "the development of an overarching common identity among the groups". In the case of Malaysia, this suggestion would call for the creation of a Malaysian Race (Bangsa Malaysia), a call embedded in the Vision 2020 (Wawasan 2020) blueprint announced in 1991 by the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

Malaysia is indeed a country blessed with economic prosperity and decades of peace and harmony. Many other countries who gained independence around the same period (in the aftermath of World War II) have been beset with periods of instability due to ethnic-religious conflicts. In contrast, Malaysia has had only one major racial clash, the tragic event on 13th May 1969. Yet, the situation in Malaysia remains fragile, and to some superficial. Though violent conflicts are very rare, tension is very high, thus the need to ensure that the multiracial society of Malaysia remains solidly united.

How can we use psychology to promote Bangsa Malaysia? My personal view would mirror the ideas expressed by B.F. Skinner in his controversial book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. According to Skinner (1971), to elicit change in a society, the culture of the society should be changed. To him, "designing a culture is like designing an experiment; contingencies are arranged and effects noted. In an experiment we are interested in what happens, in designing a culture with whether it will work." (p.69)

So, the question now is, how can we design a culture here in Malaysia that is geared towards the creation of Bangsa Malaysia? Changes can be made at different spheres and levels in the society through the education system and the mass media. These new initiatives are geared towards one simple objective: to promote greater ‘meaningful’ interaction among people from the various racial groups in Malaysia. This is in accordance with the contact hypothesis, which states that relations among groups can be enhanced by greater interaction, which brings forth greater awareness and understanding, and eventually a greater sense of solidarity.

At schools, students should be encouraged to learn about the cultures, religions and languages of other ethnic groups. Malay students for example, should be strongly encouraged (if not required) to learn Mandarin, Cantonese and Tamil, and learn to appreciate and respect beliefs and customs of the Chinese and Indians. I once argued in a workshop on inter-religious dialogue here in Kuala Lumpur that we should re-introduce the subject Tatanegara (Civic Education) in our national schools. Tatanegara was a short-lived subject taught from the late 1970’s to the early 1980’s as a core course at primary schools. Although the course was no longer taught when I started school in 1984, I have come across some of the textbooks used for the course. In reviving the course, the new syllabus should incorporate information on common values shared by different religions and customs. Values such as justice, honesty and filial piety exist in all religious teachings, and this ought to be emphasized to students of all religions and beliefs.

In the past several years, the government has been running the National Service Programme (Program Latihan Khidmat Negara) to promote greater interaction among teenagers (age seventeen) of different races. Similar programmes (with similar goals but far less logistic requirements) ought to be introduced earlier at the national level involving for example Year Six students (upon completion of their UPSR examination), and Form Three students (after their PMR examination). The programmes should be non-academic but involve meaningful activities such as humanitarian work and environmental projects. By working towards a common goal, students from different racial groups will learn to cooperate together and realize the importance and benefit of national unity and solidarity. Inadvertently, this may also help diminish whatever sense of prejudice they may have against people of different races and religions.

I have sought the opinions of my students this semester on how we can use psychology to create Bangsa Malaysia. Many of their suggestions are similar to what I’ve stated above while they are others who have argued for a more creative use of the media. Among those are proposals for ‘multicultural’ reality TV shows such as Academy Malaysia and Intercultural Explorace. And, in addition, the airing of more bilingual informative and entertainment programmes with multicultural characters and subtle use of cross-cultural messages.

In conclusion, after more than fifty years of independence, multiculturalism in Malaysia should strive towards the true spirit of muhibbah (love and understanding). To be a member of the Malaysian race is not to lose our respective ethnic and religious identities but to attain a genuine feeling of respect of and tolerance for others.

2008 US Election: Understanding Voting Behaviour

2008-11-02T09:36:00.025+08:00

Can Barack Obama still lose the election despite leading in all the polls less than 3 days before election day? Of course he can. Nothing is certain in politics. A lot can still happen between now and Tuesday. As Obama himself pointed out, "it’s gonna get nasty" in these last few days. Already, news of Obama's Kenyan aunt's illegal status in America has just 'conveniently' emerged. And the Republicans, not wanting to appear personal in it's attack, simply commented that "it is a family matter". Nice!

Analysis and predictions on how Obama could still lose the election range from sensational conspiracy theories to some very pertinent and real social psychological phenomena. Of the latter, one that I am most curious about is the Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, an African-American, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for Governor of California. All the polls before the election showed Bradley with significant leads against his White-American Republican rival. Bradley however narrowly lost the election and his defeat was attributed to a large number of White voters who voted against him despite proclaiming their support prior to the election in response to polling questions. Why? Because these White voters feared being labelled as racists if they told pollsters they were not going to vote for Bradley.

The Bradley effect will certainly come into play in this year's US Presidential Election. That is without a doubt. The only question is how significant will it be? Will it be significant enough to give John McCain an unlikely victory? Many political commentaters and Obama supporters think that it won't. The McCain camp agrees while at the same time hoping that it would. We'll just have to wait and see.

Whether Obama or McCain gets elected is not of direct concern to us non-Americans. However, once you consider that the US President is the leader of the world's largest economy and most powerful military, hence arguably the most powerful man on earth, we, citizens of the world should observe the elections with keen interest. There is no doubt that most people outside America want Barack Obama to win. His multicultural background indeed is a major factor, but above all, I believe Obama's plan to reinvigorate international diplomacy in his foreign policy; a refreshing change to the Bush doctrine, that has really endeared him to the international community.

Furthermore, for many non-Americans like myself, the choice is pretty obvious. As W Scott Thompson pointed out, "McCain came in near the bottom of his (Naval) Academy class, Obama the top (Harvard Law School). Sarah Palin had to try five times to get through college (earning a bachelor degree in journalism). Obama ran the Harvard Law Review — you can’t get higher. Why wasn’t the choice obvious?" I can't agree more.

Which brings me to the issue of political sophistication. In 1960, psychologists from the University of Michigan conducted a landmark study on how Americans decide on who and which party they would vote for. The survey's result, published in the book The American Voter, categorised Americans into four groups of levels of conceptualisation. The first two groups; the ideologues and near-idealogues who account for 2.5 percent and 9.5 percent of the American population respectively, are party loyalists who vote for their respective parties partly due to their strong belief in the party's ideology, but arguably more because of blind loyalty. The rest in the population are 'independent voters', who may be persuaded to vote for a particular party or candidate because of "group benefits" (42 percent of the population), "the nature of times" (24 percent), and for no reason whatsoever (22.5 percent, which represents the number of Americans who don't care and not interested about politics, and most likely has never voted in any elections). This study was of course done almost 50 years ago but a recent study published in the book The American Voter Revisited presents some very startling similar results.

What these studies have basically concluded is that the majority of Americans are unsophisticated voters; they don't understand the main issues in the elections and they don't do any research or serious thinking when they cast their votes. A damning revelation considering that the reason why we have direct presidential elections in the first place is to choose the best leader to lead a country. How can the 'best' person be elected if the majority of the population are ignorant on the issues? In reality, the person who is elected is one who has the most number of votes (in America, that would mean the electoral college votes), but when the people who voted them in are considerably ignorant, does the person who receives the highest votes really is the BEST person to lead the country? This is what we call the paradox of democracy.

If the reason not to vote for Obama is his inexperience, that is quite understandable. His lack of executive experience is indeed an issue but the fact that he has managed to run a successful and discipline campaign (he has never used race as an issue) against firstly the Clintons, and now against John McCain, shows what an astute person he is, a quality I believe is more important than mere number of years of experience (and a mounting political baggage that comes with it) in the senate. Even then, I can understand why some people would still vote for McCain because of his greater experience and image as a maverick.

What I don't understand is why many Americans are still supporting McCain's running mate Sarah Palin? The case for Sarah Palin is that she is an average American, a hockey mum, who connects with the American people. Well yes, she is just as ignorant! Her public statements in the last two months have shockingly exposed the vastness of her ignorance, which for a person who could be a heartbeat away from the presidency, is really unbelievable. In that sense, yes, Sarah Palin can relate to the hockey mums and Joe Six-Packs in America. But as Jon Meacham's Newsweek wrote, "do we (Americans) want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks?"

I would argue for the latter for America and all other countries in the world. And for that to happen, voters need to acquire greater political sophistication.

Classics in Psychology

2008-10-29T14:16:00.010+08:00

I have been teaching the course History and Philosophy of Psychology at the university for the last three semesters. Although I can never claim to be an authority on the subject, many of the issues covered are of great interest to my academic inquiry and personal curiosity. Most importantly, having spent many hours reading classical works in psychology; books written by Freud, Jung, James, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, and Frankl, during my undergraduate years, I realised how important it is to read the original works of these luminous figures to have a better grasp of their scholarly ideas and thoughts. Textbooks attempt to compress and summarise thus what we often get are simplistic views that do not do justice to the complexity and sheer enormity of the thoughts of these great thinkers.

Take Freud for example; a man whose colourful background is matched only by his colourful ideas. In an earlier posting, I gave my views on why Freud will always be an important component in any psychology syllabus. That had to be argued because Freud is by far the most vilified figure in critical psychology. It’s fine to argue against his ideas but I certainly find personal attacks against him (drug addict, sex-maniac etc) distasteful. And I’m very sure anyone who has read any of Freud’s original work, though may still disagree with his ideas thereafter, would at least appreciate his detailed and sophisticated arguments.

In teaching History and Philosophy of Psychology, I have asked my students to read the classical works in psychology and compare their impression and understanding upon reading these primary sources with what they have understood about the same issues from their readings of contemporary textbooks. I am happy to note that some of the reviews and analyses produced were quite impressive. Most notably are the more fair and mature analyses from the Islamic perspective. Rather than cliché statements that these ‘Western’ psychologists are secular, atheist, anti-religion etc without ever trying to understand what they meant in the first place, I was very happy to note that some students were able to express intellectual arguments and even concede that some of these ‘Western’ psychological ideas are in fact Islamic.

Islamization of knowledge as propounded by both Al-Attas and al-Faruqi was never about labelling knowledge as Islamic or un-Islamic. It is a meticulous process of understanding and mastering a particular field of study as prerequisite before any attempt to criticise and challenge it. One cannot criticise something that one does not understand. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali was a strong critic of Greek philosophy and he was able to do that with credibility due to his undisputed knowledge of philosophy. That therefore is the standard that we should aspire to achieve.

Different Approaches of Islamization of Knowledge

2008-10-20T21:54:00.007+08:00

(Below is an excerpt from my paper 'Islamization of Knowledge: Current Development and Future Trends' presented in a Seminar on Philosophy of Science in 2001)

To indulge on the issue of the origin and originator of the Islamization concept is to indulge into a meaningless argument which reaches to no end. It is meaningless because it does not serve any great significance. Sufficient to say, the idea, or in this case the movement, was given the limelight it deserves in 1982 with the publication of the book Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, written by Isma’il al Faruqi. This work provoked critical responses from scholars, both Western and Muslims, and has resulted in a series of conferences, research, books, and to a large extent the formation of the first international Islamic university in Malaysia.

Not everyone however, shared al Faruqi’s approach towards Islamization. Agreements varied and this ultimately resulted into several other approaches. Christopher Furlow, from the Department Anthropology, University of Florida, in his article ‘The Islamization of Knowledge: Philosophy, Legitimation, and Politics’, published in the journal Social Epistemology (Vol.10, 3, 1996) has categorized these different approaches into three major groups: modernization, indigenization and nativization. The following are summaries of each approach.

1. Modernization

The advocates of this modernist approach hold that "science is value free, neutral and objective." Any values that surround science are "primarily personal in nature and therefore do not effect the content of science." Knowledge is considered universal. What makes it different or in this case Islamic or un-Islamic is the application. Application in this case covers both intention and action. Two major figures in this approach are physicists Muhammad Abdus Salam and Jamal Mimoumi. Both view modern science as a Graeco-Islamic legacy and state that "natural sciences are as Islamic as nature could be." There is no need then to Islamize science and knowledge. Knowledge should be pursued no matter from where or whom the source is. Knowledge is Islamic or Islamized if and when it is used in the path of Allah and towards the betterment of mankind.

2. Indigenization

The indigenists’ goal is "the production of knowledge relevant to the specific problems of Islamic countries." While they argue that Western philosophy should not be adopted in its totality in an Islamic education system, they are none-the-less unwilling to discard the whole enterprise altogether. The goal then is an integration of Western sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge. For this to be achieved, the Muslim world will have to produce scholars who are endowed with both Western modern disciplines and Islamic revealed knowledge. This is the approach championed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS). And among its major proponents are almarhum Isma'il al Faruqi, Sheikh Waqar Husaini and Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alwani. How this integration is to be achieved is firmly outlined in the 12 steps of the Islamization of Knowledge Work Plan of al Faruqi.

3. Nativization

If the modernists argue science should be approached as it is, and for the indigenists, an integration of Western modern sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge and heritage, the nativists propose the creation of a completely new Islamic science. For them, Islamic science should not be an adaptation of the modernist model of science, rather it is a new and different science that must be built upon the foundations of Islamic epistemology. Two main models of this approach are the Ijmali’s model, led by Ziauddin Sardar, Parvez Manzoor and Munawar Anees, and the model of Seyyed Hoessein Nasr. The Ijmalis' ultimate aim is to apply universal Islamic concepts to contemporary situation "... and (to) address the issues of modern Islamic civilization from within its own worldview." For Hoessein Nasr, the goal of this new Islamic science is "the demonstration of the interrelatedness of all things." And to achieve this, knowledge should be pursued from a Tawhidic perspective whose pre requisites include total rejection of Western philosophy and science.

My Ambition... (Cita-Cita Saya...)

2008-10-16T17:08:00.019+08:00

In reflection of my nostalgic childhood ambition to become a poet (sasterawan), I wish to share the very piece that inspired me then to have that dream. I would like to cling on to that dream and would perhaps one day attempt to revive whatever talents I may have in writing poetry.

=============================================

AKU

Kalau sampai waktuku
'Ku mau tak seorang kan merayu
Tidak juga kau

Tak perlu sedu sedan itu

Aku ini binatang jalang
Dari kumpulannya terbuang

Biar peluru menembus kulitku
Aku tetap meradang menerjang

Luka dan bisa kubawa berlari
Berlari
Hingga hilang pedih peri

Dan aku akan lebih tidak perduli
Aku mau hidup seribu tahun lagi

- Chairil Anwar, Maret 1943 -

=============================================

(English translation)

If my time should come
I’d like no one to entice me
Not even you

No need for those sobs and cries
I am but a wild animal
Cut from its kind
Though bullets should pierce my skin
I shall still strike and march forth

Wounds and poison shall I take aflee
Aflee
‘Til the pain and pang should disappear

And I should care even less
I want to live for another thousand years

- Chairil Anwar, March 1943 -

Why We Still Study Freud...

2008-10-10T16:03:00.007+08:00

One of my dilemmas as a Muslim teacher of psychology is whether I should or should not teach Freudian psychology. As a person, my religion, Islam, is what defines me first-and-foremost. That I am bounded by the standards of professionalism as a teacher, though of paramount importance, to me does not supersede my religious values and obligations. With that in mind, how then can I justify teaching my students that during their pre-school years they all had romantic feelings towards their parents, that when they were infants they all obtained sexual pleasure when breast-fed by their mothers, that young girls are envious of boys for their genitals and young boys envious of girls for having a womb, that religions are nothing but illusions and neurotic compulsions etc. All these, very obviously are NOT Islamic, hence the argument for Islamization of knowledge. Even then, rather than Islamizing Freud, why not discard totally Freud and psychoanalysis from our syllabus?

Well, the reason why we don’t do this is because, although Freud was not right on many issues, he was also not totally wrong. There are two books that I often refer to for an in-depth scholarly critic against Freudian psychology: ‘Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire’ by Hans Eysenck, and ‘Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud’s Theory’ by E. Fuller Torrey. Both, though highly commendable work, contain some very cruelly unfair and negative remarks against Freud and his ideas.

I was an undergraduate student when I first read both books. I was a psychology major but was (maybe am still) suffering from an acute intellectual identity crisis. Reading these two books didn’t help much to resolve the conflict. In fact, it made me feel even more confused and disillusioned to the extent that at one point I even considered quitting psychology and reinvent myself with studies of religions, spirituality, mysticism and philosophy (in addition to my ever burning interest in politics and history).

Now, with almost five years of experience teaching psychology, I like to believe that my level of understanding of psychological theories has grown more sophisticated. In the case of Freud and his psychoanalytic school, having read some of the primary sources in the last few years, I believe I can now understand and appreciate better Freud’s ideas. I can only claim to have read three books authored by Freud himself: ‘Totem & Taboo’, ‘The Future of an Illusion’, and ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’. But even from reading these three books, it was very clear to me that Freud has not always been fairly depicted in contemporary psychology text books.

I certainly believe Freud was quite right to say that the unconscious is the key to understand one’s personality. And his deliberation on the id, ego and superego to me was a fair reflection of man’s constant battles against his own whims and desires. Of course, I won’t go as far to say that it is exactly the same with the Quranic depiction on the nafs (mutmainnah, al-ammarah, al-lawwamah). There are indeed some fundamental differences between them both philosophically and operationally.

One of Freud’s most brilliant assertions was his defence mechanisms. I do not think that there is any doubt that all of us do try to repress (if not forget) painful and embarrassing memories, we do sometimes project our anger not to the person we are angry with but to others weaker and more vulnerable, and we do to sometimes quite strangely embrace the very habit and behaviours that we openly denounce as immoral and unacceptable.

Some things are just so eerily true, which, in the case of Freud’s views on war and aggression, even Albert Einstein was greatly impressed. Below is an excerpt from Freud’s famous letter to Einstein:

Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed.

(Sigmund Freud’s letter to Albert Einstein dated September 1932. Click here to read the entire Einstein-Freud correspondence)

So, where was Freud wrong? The mistakes Freud made are in fact the same mistakes made by many others who came after him; the mistake of overemphasizing and overgeneralizing his claims. Yes, he was wrong to overemphasize on human sexuality, and he was wrong to present his theories as a universal theory despite the very small number of case studies from which he derived almost all his ideas from. But then, didn’t Skinner overemphasize on learning factors (hence largely ignoring biological and genetic factors), Hull on drive-reduction as the basis of all reinforcements, and Maslow on self-actualisation and peak experiences? They were all scholars who promoted their own theories and approaches and all of them believed theirs were without flaws and most superior.

Why then that Freud continues to be the most convenient target of criticism? His ideas I guess were just too explicit and radical. Be-as-that-may, I am quite sure Freud will forever remain an important part of any psychology syllabus.

Virtues of Imprisonment

2008-09-24T08:06:00.011+08:00

When Anwar Ibrahim was imprisoned for six years between 1998 and 2004, he wrote numerous letters and articles for newspapers and magazines both local and abroad. Impressed by the high quality of these publications, one of my professors quipped that perhaps all of us should spent some time in jail. Why? Because nothing nurtures the mind and soul better than being in solitary confinement, accompanied entirely by one’s thoughts and reflections. After all, many past great scholars and world leaders had spent some time in prison. Amongst religious scholars, Imam Abu Hanifa was imprisoned for four years, Ibn Sina for a few months, and Ibn Taymiyyah for seven years; while amongst world leaders examples include Mahatma Gandhi for six years, Muhammad Natsir for five years, Vaclav Havel also for five years and Nelson Mandela for twenty-seven years. While indeed some of them did not survive the ordeal and died in prison, many survived the experience and upon their release demonstrated greater wisdom, resolve and conviction. After all, as the early Muslim jurist Sufyan Al-Thawri had said, "when a man is used to contemplation, he will learn lessons from everything" (quoted in Malik Badri’s Contemplation).

So, if anyone is really sincere about searching for eternal peace (damai abadi), and the thoughts and wisdoms of Al-Ghazali and Al-Shafie, going for a short sabbatical in our ‘international standard’ prison cell could be one of the options. Sheikh Kickdefella has recently experienced it. He and another 'privileged guest' Teresa Kok have now extended invitations for government leaders to sample a taste of that experience.

Indigenous Peoples: Listen to Our Cries (Malaysiakini, 13.9.2008)

2008-09-13T22:55:00.013+08:00

In my last posting, I described an imagined scenario where the orang asli community publicly expresses their long-held grievances against the Malay-majority government. It didn't cross my mind that something real was about to happen. For futher details, go to: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/89657

As reported in the news article above, a group call the Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia) is seeking for not only better respect for their rights, they are also demanding the government to apologise for past injustices against them. The last three paragraphs in the article says it all:

According to findings in the memorandum, the Orang Asal consist of more than 80 ethno-linguistic groups, each with its own culture, language and territory, totalling up to four million or 15 per cent of national population.

“In the context of Malaysia, however, no law or policy was found that mentions the right to self-determination for indigenous peoples, let alone, accord us that right,” said Mark (Mark Bujang, Executive Director of Borneo Resources Institute.

According to him, the Orang Asal have suffered from injustices by previous regimes and governments since the formation of the government of Malaysia.

“Therefore, the government must apologise for all these injustices and prejudices that have happened throughout the history,” he stressed.

Question: The statements above, are they seditious or are they (simply) deliberations based on historical facts?

Regardless, I don't think in this case we can brush them off by telling them to go back to where they came from, can't we?

I am a SQUATTER (Aku Seorang PENUMPANG)

2008-09-09T23:47:00.012+08:00

Ramadan Kareem!

'Orang Cina cuma tumpang di sini sahaja.' (The Chinese are only squatting here).

This was the statement of 'historical fact' (fakta sejarah) uttered by the Bukit Bendera UMNO Division Chief Ahmad Ismail last month. Since then, we've seen some very 'colourful' reactions and counter-reactions by various parties, some of which to defend while arguably many more to condemn.

Historical fact? True, no one denies that. But isn't it equally a historical fact that the majority of us Malays in Malaysia, if we were to trace our ancestral roots a few hundred years back, our ancestors too started off as squatters (penumpang) in this blessed land? If anyone wants further clarification on this, Kuda Ranggi's excellent piece 'Antara Pendatang dan Punumpang' would be most enlightening.

Undoubtedly there are many Malays who think that there is nothing wrong to say such statements. To them, the Chinese community are simply overeacting to a mere statement of historical fact.

To reach to some level of understanding, we, the Malays perhaps should try applying the golden rule of intercultural dialogue. Let's imagine if we were at the receiving end of such statements.

Imagine at some point in the future, when the orang asli (aborigine) community here in Malaysia has developed substantially socio-economically, they mobilise their resources and establish their own political party (say for example the 'United Aborigines National Organisation' or Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Orang-Orang Asli Bersatu). To reclaim their rights as the true natives of this land, leaders from this party exclaim statements such as these:

"Orang Melayu cuma menumpang di sini, ini adalah fakta sejarah... jangan cabar dan persoalkan hak kami masyarakat orang asli... masyarakat orang asli sudah lama bersabar... kembalikan hak kami... jika orang Melayu tidak berpuas hati, mereka boleh pulang ke tempat asal mereka"
("The Malays are just squatting here, this is a historical fact... don't you dare challenge and question the rights of the orang asli community... the orang asli people have been patient long enough... give back our rights... if the Malays are not satisfied, they can go back to where they came from")

Well, maybe to add more colour to this imagined scenario, imagine these statements were made by an orang asli leader during their annual general assembly, shouting on the stage with a loud threatening voice while holding a machete (parang) on one hand. And the event was telecast live on national television.

The Malays, how would we feel in that situation?

Reformasi Revisited

2008-08-24T15:36:00.021+08:00

All eyes are focussed on Permatang Pauh. In less than 48 hours, the people of this small district in Penang will participate in an election process that carries a significance greater than any other previous by-election in this country's history. Never before has there been a more genuine talk of change of government. Some welcome the change, while some others are worried.

I've just stumbled across something I wrote ten years ago. What I wrote was within the context of the political scenario at the time but the situation today is certainly not that different. Although I may no longer speak and write with the same sense of idealism (and syntax errors), my thoughts and views in general remains constant.

==================================================

What does reformation aims for…

The Islamic term for reformation is Islah, which literally means change towards the better. This is the overall general principle. The ultimate aim is to create a society par excellence based upon the concept of Pax Islamica (al Faruqi, 1992).

A true Islamic society is an ideological society. It is a society which upholds the Islamic ideology transcending race, territory and socio-economic background (Maududi, 1983). In this society, Allah’s will is the primary source of law. Human reasoning and logical thinking are confined only to matters that are not explicitly stated in the Quran and the Sunnah (al-Qaradawi, 1995). Hence, Allah is the ultimate legislator, judge and prosecutor, not some long-serving heads of government, megalomaniac politicians or whomsoever. Therefore, it is incumbent that reformation shall promote the Syariah as the law of the nation.

A Muslim society should be a group of Atqakum, or God-fearing citizens.

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge, and is well acquainted (with all things). (Al-Hujurat[49]:13)

Atqakum is derived from the word taqwa, which is “the fear of Allah which springs from the heart and expresses itself in righteous deeds” (Musleduddin, 1988). Fear in this sense is out of love and reverence for Allah. By acquiring this feeling, one shall protect him or herself from wrongful deeds and ill-will. Such is due to one’s awareness that one is accountable for his or her actions. Simultaneously, one shall remain at all times empathetic of others. When a society is saturated with such individuals, even ‘peace and harmony’ may sound like an understated description. But this is what Islam promotes and promises, hence this is what reformation hopes to achieve.

Unfortunately, what we have now is something to the contrary. Instead of fearing Allah, we fear man-made threats and draconian laws above everything else. Worldly fears are completely unfounded and unacceptable. Reformation is inevitable and only Allah can sanction against it.

Say: “Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? (Al-An’am[6]:164)

Another important agenda is freedom. Islam does not impose any shackles except for those stated in the divine guidance. The Islamic Syariah or concept of life is based upon the law of duties where man is encourage to exercise his human rights thus contributing to the maintenance of a civic society. Islam believes that “all humans are entitled to know the truth…to inquire, to search, to learn and to teach one another…and to provide to the ruler advice as well as correction where needed (al Faruqi & al Faruqi, 1986).

Abu Said reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) said: “The best jihad is that a person speaks the truth before the tyrant ruler” (Abu Dawud) (qtd in Siddique, 1983). It is clear then that Islam does not completely prohibit dissent. Dissenting comments are encouraged but should be forwarded in a polite manner through proper channels. Thus, proper channels should exist, not ceased to exist. Reformation is adamant in providing that.

India’s Mahatma Gandhi once said, “the world is enough for everyone’s need, but it is not enough for everyone’s greed”. Man’s greed is a universal disease effecting almost all societies. Greed has inspired people to corrupt, to fabricate lies, to organise deceit, to destroy the career of a political rival, and many other heinous crimes. Reformation aims to put to an end to all of this once and for all, for these are endeavours that should not be tolerated absolutely. They are against both Islamic and moral ethical values, and results to nothing but destruction, if not in this world in the hereafter.

To stifle the growth of greed, the country’s wealth should be fairly distributed. No preferential decisions favouring family members, cronies or any selected few should be allowed to take place. The country belongs to the people, not to the ruling elites, the royal families or any other groups whatsoever.

Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: That is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination. (Al-Isra’[17]:35)

Reformation should not hope to succeed without first overcoming some major obstacles. To enjoin good is to face extreme struggle. Imam Razi describes it as “the most arduous duty”, while for Ibn Taymiyyah, it is “the test of one’s faith” (qtd in Ansar, 1990). At this age, the emergence of dictators, oppressors and Firaun’s soul-survivors seem to provide the biggest threat. True, they are the most dangerous and cruelest of all people. But still, in a democratic country, the power to rule is vested on the people. Changes can be pursued peacefully through the ballot box. And this is where reformation ought to take place.

Malaysia is a multi-racial country. Somehow, this fact is seen detrimental to reformation. The current ratio of 59% Muslims and 41% non-Muslims seems to add support to this claim (Crystal, 1995). However, since Islam is the official religion and Muslims are the majority, even though the majority is considerably small, Islamization must be allowed to prevail. Reformation is inevitable since it is a direct command from Allah.

O ye who believe! Guard your own souls: If ye follow (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who stray. The goal of you all is to Allah: it is He that will show you the truth of all that ye do. (Al-Maidah[5]:105)

Nonetheless, the Islamic way is to act with wisdom. Thus, changes should take place gradually. The needs and feelings of the non-Muslims should always be taken into consideration. Speedy radical changes will create unrest and provoke unnecessary violence. Therefore, one of the best approaches would be in accordance with fiqh al-awlawiyyat, the understanding of priorities. Coincidentally, the prime advocator of this approach in Malaysia was former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. In his book The Asian Renaissance, Anwar wrote:

"Muslims need to address urgent social and economic issues such as the eradication of poverty and illiteracy, the provision of employment, decent housing and other social amenities. These are preconditions before certain specific Shariah injunctions can be translated into legislation." (p.118)

Only recently, this very same person has led the call for reformation. To support or not to support, that seems to be the question. And that is something only we ourselves can decide. Whether his call is pure and sincere, Allahu'alam, only Allah knows best.

Save UiTM?

2008-08-15T11:55:00.008+08:00

As an alumnus of ITM (Pusat Pendidikan Persediaan/ITM, 1995-97), I am greatly saddened by the irrational response of UiTM students to the mere suggestion by the current Selangor Chief Minister to open-up a meagre 10 percent of its students admission to non-Bumiputera and foreign students. Below are views which echo exactly my thoughts on the issue.

Har Wai Mun: The MB's reasoning for his suggestion is to allow UiTM students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races. If anyone thinks his reason is not correct, the logical counter-point would be along the lines of either ‘the suggestion would not allow students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to other races,' or ‘allowing students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races is not beneficial'. Hopefully, the MB's suggestion will be viewed constructively and is not obscured by communal sentiment. Non-bumis will be an asset to UiTM. Quoting a declaration on various placards on parade at the demonstration, the MB's suggestion might not only ‘Selamatkan UiTM' (Save UiTM), but might propel UiTM to be a world-class university that makes all Malaysians very proud!

Anti Double-Standard: It is unfortunate that the MB of Selangor's view about UiTM made him become a racial and political scapegoat when all he was trying to do was foster greater racial harmony in the country and encourage better quality bumiputeras to go through an open university system. After all, he was only proposing a 10% allocation for non-bumiputeras and foreign students. In fact, allocating a small percentage of places for non-bumiputera students has already been practised by the present BN government in fully residential schools (sekolah berasrama penuh). (may I also add; at the International Islamic University Malaysia where almost 10 percent of its current students are Malaysian non-Muslim students) This has happened even though these schools were originally meant for bumiputera students coming from low-income families. Thus, Khalid Ibrahim's proposal concurs with the present government's line of practice - only that he is trying to extend it into the universities. If UiTM remains die-hard on its decision to keep the university as an all-bumiputera institution of learning, then why does it have a programme of study known as 'UiTM International' and why is it scouting for foreign students from abroad to study there? I know that UiTM has even participated in an international exhibition on higher education in China as late as last year in order to enroll students from China to study at UiTM. What has UiTM to say on this matter? We would like to hear from the vice-chancellor on this question.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/87828

A final note, just to add a quick respond to this spectacular statement made by a student who took part in the demonstration: “Mula-mula diminta kemasukan 10 peratus tetapi lama-kelamaan kadar itu dipertingkatkan. Akhirnya golongan bumiputera lenyap dan tertindas di universiti sendiri.” (Initially they will ask for 10 percent of the students intake, and later the rate will be increased. In the end, the bumiputera will disappear and be oppressed in their own university). I have studied and worked in local universities. Empirical evidence will show that students 'disappear' because of their own truancies and when they are dismissed for either extremely poor academic performance or serious behavioural misconduct. Disappearance because of the emergence of minority students? That I need Fox Mulder to explain!

The West and The Muslim World Post 911

2008-08-11T00:07:00.019+08:00

Last Friday, the university hosted a forum entitled “The US and The Muslim World: Between Cooperation and Confrontation”. The guest speaker was the internationally respected American scholar on Islam, Professor John L. Esposito. Professor Esposito is a no stranger to IIUM having visited the university on many occasions in the 1990’s. However, just like many other international scholars both in the West and the Muslim World, prior to this year's visit he has not set foot on Malaysia since the tumultuous political events of the late 1990’s.

The focus of Professor Esposito’s presentation is the findings from the global attitude survey reported in his latest book ‘Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think?’, and the forthcoming 'The Future of Islam'. The survey covered a total of more than 40 countries with more than 50,000 respondents who were all interviewed one-on-one in their own respective native language. Respondents include both Muslims and non-Muslims who were asked a series of questions about their attitude on Islam and Muslim communities, and the values of the people in the West.

Without going to specifics, my personal view is the result of the survey has confirmed the opinion shared by many of us who have lived in both worlds, that between the people in the West and the Muslim World, there is a great degree of mutual misunderstanding. On one hand we have the people in the West who believe that Islam is a global threat to their freedom and values; while on the other the Muslims who believe that there is a global war and conspiracy against Islam. Both views are in fact illusive and hallucinative.

After the events of 9-11, the intensity of inter-civilisational dialogues between Islam and the West has indeed increased. Many Muslims have never quite understood the strong reactions of the Americans to the events (just like how most Americans have never understood why Muslims are so angry about America's continuous support to Israel). For the Americans, 9-11 was the very first time their country was attacked in its own soil. And this, according to Professor Esposito “created a hysteria on terrorism”, and since President Bush had singled out Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the Americans greatest enemy, Muslims and the religion of Islam became the focus of attention.

Professor Esposito has always maintained a positive view on Islam and an optimistic attitude towards Muslims. Hence, when discussion and debates on Islam and the Muslims began to flourish in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, he took centre-stage and appeared in various media programmes and events to defend those views. In one memorable programme aired on the BBC World Channel, Professor Esposito, in the course of defending Islam went to the extent of almost ridiculing some aspect of Christian values. A fellow Christian panellist had made a cheeky attempt to paint Islam as a religion of violence by saying that Islam does not have anything similar to the Christian teaching of “turn the other cheek”. To that, Professor Esposito nonchalantly suggested that the Muslim panellist hit the Christian man on one side of his face and see how he would react!

While I do agree that negative spins from the Western media have contributed to the prevailing negative attitudes toward Islam and the Muslims, I would like to emphasise that such negativity is also the result of genuine naturalistic observations. Except for those who have travelled extensively to various Muslim countries, or those who befriended closely individual Muslims, the only direct information the people in the West have about Muslims are based on their observations of Muslim immigrant societies in their midst. And if this is the yardstick that they base their judgment and attitudes on Muslims with, the negativity would not be entirely shocking, in fact could be considered almost expected. I do not know for sure the situation in America, but in Western Europe, the lifestyles and progress of Muslim immigrant societies certainly have much to be desired.

In Finland (in fact in all the Scandinavian nations), the people are proud of their welfare system where among others there is free education, free housing and generous allowances for unemployed persons. Unfortunately, instead of taking advantage of the system to improve their educational and social standings, many Muslim immigrants choose to remain unemployed and live with the free allowances given. In Germany and the Netherlands, where Turkish and Morroccan communities are established for three generations, their youth are more often associated with drugs and gangsterism rather than academic and entrepreneurial achievements. These are not exclusively the views of Western media or propaganda, but crucially the findings of various academic studies conducted by both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers.

The way forward is for Muslims to assume centre-stage and speak up for Islam and our respective communities. And we need to learn to do so first-of-all, by using the ideological language of the West (the language of human rights and democracy), and to live up according to those principles and ideals. Calling ourselves Islamic is one thing, but living an Islamic way of life is quite another.

Al-Ghazali: Skepticism and Denial of All Knowledge

2008-08-07T14:10:00.015+08:00

Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali was born in Tus, Persia in 450 H (1058 AD). During his lifetime, he acquired one of the most distinguished positions in the academic world as the Principal of the famed Nizamiyya Madrasah in Baghdad. He was appointed to the position at the age of 34 and was widely revered for his extensive knowledge and eloquent presentations.

At the age of forty, al-Ghazali encountered a crisis; internal in nature and spiritual in essence. He came to feel that the one thing that mattered was avoidance of hell and attainment of paradise. He perceived as if his present way of life was too worldly that he had lost any hope of achieving eternal reward. This severe internal struggle eventually prompted al-Ghazali to take the life of a wandering ascetic, roaming around various landmark destinations across the Muslim world.

One of the most important sources that explain vividly al-Ghazali’s struggle against his own thoughts is the book al-Munqidh min ad-Dalal or 'The Deliverance from Error'. This book outlines in detail al-Ghazali’s refutations on the validity and reliability of all knowledge.

Al-Ghazali contented that for knowledge to be certain, it must always remain free of doubts, illusion and possibilities of error. To him, “knowledge that is not infallible is not certain knowledge.” He evaluated the various branches of knowledge available during his time. From the analysis, al-Ghazali embraced the view that all knowledge are to be denied. His reasons are based on the following two issues: reliance on sense-perception, and reliance on intellectual truths. These two, representing the philosophy of empiricism and rationalism respectively, are the two major schools of thought in discussions on epistemology.

Since al-Ghazali had acclaimed that for knowledge to be certain, it has to be free from doubt, he launched a series of analysis to see whether he could make himself doubt either or both sense-perception and intellectual truths. The outcome extinguished whatever reliance he had on both.

To demonstrate the falsity of sense-perception, al-Ghazali used our sense of sight as an example. Al-Ghazali claimed that sight is the most powerful sense. But yet, when it looks at the shadow of a stick, it sees it standing still, and judges that the shadow has no movement. However, if one were to observe the situation after an hour, one would know that the shadow is moving. It moves gradually and steadily but infinitely in small distances in such a way that it is never in a state of rest. Therefore, what we had observed through our sense of sight is proven to be wrong, thus should not be relied upon.

In another demonstration, this time to falsify intellectual truths, al-Ghazali began asking some profound questions to himself pertaining to his previous reliance on intellectual truths. He finally came to the assumption that perhaps behind all intellectual comprehension, there is another judge who, if he manifests himself, will show the falsity of intellect in passing any judgments. Even if this meta-physical comprehension has not manifested, that does not prove it is impossible.

A clearer explanation can be obtained from al-Ghazali’s narration on the relationship between dreaming and wakefulness. One has to be asleep if one were to dream. Therefore, he is either in an unconscious or sub-conscious state. But yet, the images he had in his dreams are so vivid and graphic that everything seemed to be real. However, when the person wakes up, he immediately knows that everything he had imagined were false, therefore unreal. In other words, we know that our beliefs, once we are awake, automatically nullify whatever beliefs we had while we were dreaming. So, the question now is, wouldn’t it be possible that there could be another higher state, beyond consciousness that can nullify whatever beliefs we have in this conscious state, just as how our beliefs during wakefulness had nullify our beliefs in our dreams? To support his opinion, al-Ghazali quoted a hadith in which the Prophet SAW said, “the people are dreaming, (but) when they die, they become awake.”

The state beyond wakefulness that al-Ghazali proposed, is often referred to as what the Sufis claim as a special ‘state’, mystic union or ecstasy, which occur when they have withdrawn into themselves and are absent from their senses. In his writings, al-Ghazali often claimed that the Sufi path is the only way to seek knowledge. He denounced all other classes of knowledge seekers; the theologians, proponents of batiniyyah, and the philosophers. Al-Ghazali had labeled them as either anti-religious or ultra-religious, whose view on epistemology therefore cannot be accepted.

Al-Ghazali’s viewpoints on this issue are interesting amid somewhat controversial. His conclusion to accept only and only the Sufis as the true seeker of knowledge is even more intriguing once devoured upon entirely. Dare I ask, in our pursuit of knowledge today, have we indeed been on the right path?

(Note: This essay was originally written as a class assignment in November 1999. It was later adapted for publication in a student magazine. The article is reproduced here for the benefit of students of History & Philosophy of Psychology. Jazakumullahu khayr.)

The GREATEST good!

2008-07-31T01:41:00.014+08:00

The movie Spy Game (released in 2001), starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt, revolves around the story of the complex relationship between two CIA agents; one the retiring veteran agent and spy mentor; and the other, his cunning yet relatively naïve protégé. The protégé was in trouble and the mentor, in accordance with the agency’s official policy, cannot and should not offer any help. The rule is simple. When a spy is caught, the government denies your existence. The agent alone takes the fall and the government absolved itself from all responsibilities. After all, what is one life compared to the reputation of the entire nation and the government. It is for the greater good.

The protégé knows this. As one of the scenes in the movie depicts, in one of his earliest missions, he was instructed to abandon an anti-communist political figure at a heavily guarded communist territory. The young agent, though angry and disillusioned, obediently carried out the order. He shouted angrily at his mentor for forcing him to literally leave the person to suffer and die but was nonchalantly told “it was for the greater good”.

In many of the UMNO gatherings that I’ve been to, the same philosophy of ethics was used vis-à-vis Anwar Ibrahim. They would acknowledge that Anwar is a great politician and an intelligent man, but he is more importantly a dangerous figure. He is pro-America and he is too liberal. If he becomes the Prime Minister of Malaysia, he will dismantle the NEP and remove Islam as the official religion of the country. The Malays will lose their special privileges in business, education and all other enterprises. Anwar Ibrahim will then bring in the IMF, the World Bank and the Neo-Cons to take over the country, and the Malays will be abandoned and condemned to life as peasants in villages. Preventing Anwar from becoming the Prime Minister therefore is mandatory, no matter what it takes. It is for the greater good.

What we have now are two high-profile cases, one involving Anwar Ibrahim (former Deputy Prime Minister), and the other involving Najib Abdul Razak (current Deputy Prime Minister). In both cases we have people representing the highest institutions of the nation; the judiciary, the office of the attorney general, the military, health ministry, as well as various professional bodies directly and indirectly involved. Those who are directly involved in the police investigation, medical examinations and legal inquiries would know the truth about who is innocent and who is lying. They must have seen all the evidence and witnessed all the secret conversations. Hence they have the power either to perpetuate or dismantle the conspiracy.

As of today, it seems that Anwar Ibrahim will soon be charged, pronounced guilty and sent to jail for a very long time. Najib Abdul Razak will be absolved from any involvement with the Altantunya case and will continue his march towards the UMNO presidency. It does not matter that the international community and a sizeable majority of the country think that all these are conspiracies. It does not matter that the police and the judiciary in Malaysia will continue to be ridiculed and doubted. It does not matter too that Malaysia is now an international joke taunted with dishonourable titles such as “East Zimbabwe” and “Sodomy-Land”. UMNO and Barisan Nasional must be protected. They are the raison d’être of this nation. UMNO and BN is the greater good.

Now, coming back to the movie Spy Game, despite his direct involvement in various manipulative and devious operations, the retiring agent played by Robert Redford eventually decided to break the rules and disobey protocol to conjure up a rescue mission to save his protégé. In the end, what viewers saw was that even a ruthless spy, who many would have thought does not have a conscience, was willing to jeopardize his professional reputation to do what he himself thought deeply in his heart, was the right thing to do.

Human beings by nature have a conscience, a soul, an inner speech that is good and virtuous. We would be able to know upon reflection and deep contemplation, what is the right thing to do no matter how complex or ambiguous the situation is. The only question is whether we are willing to embark on that search, follow our hearts and do the right thing.

Let us hope and pray that all Malaysians; the monarchs, politicians, members of the judiciary, policemen, military personnel, medical doctors, nurses and all others directly and indirectly involved shall see the light that paves the way for them to realise what is the right thing to do. No more conspiracies, no more manipulation, no more moral gymnastics; follow your heart and do what is right. So please, anyone who has any knowledge of anything related to this issue, come forward and reveal them to us. If that means going against the status quo, risking your personal status and threatening your own comfortable life, so be it! The truth is the GREATEST good.

Free Willed Transformation

2008-07-25T11:43:00.013+08:00

Do we consciously direct our own actions, or is it controlled by other forces? That is the question debates on 'free will vs. determinism' try to answer; an important question in discussions on human nature, a fundamental feature in the philosophy of psychology.

Argument in favour of free will is most apparent in humanistic psychology. Unlike their predecessors – psychoanalysts and behaviourists – humanistic psychologists believe that man is in control of not only his own behavioural actions, but also in acquiring and developing new traits and beliefs. Thus, a person who has certain bad habits and maladaptive traits may consciously try to change them hence improving his behaviour and personal characteristics. An individual therefore, is not entirely at the mercy of his unconscious thoughts and desires. And neither is he powerless against the influence of his environment; social and cultural factors. He can change, regardless, and become a better person.

However, one has to be mindful of the other side of the free will equation. With free will, man indeed can change for the better but he can also change for the worse. In the past ten years, I have seen quite a few such transformations; from the mildest to the most drastic, from the most expected to the most unbelievable. I have seen how some of the most ardent and obsessive supporters of a certain Deputy Prime Minister became his strongest enemies and abusers in a matter of a few months after he was sacked from his position. I have seen how some people who used to praise and revere a certain Islamic philosophy professor from the ‘beacon on top of the hill’ began to condemn and insult his ideas and personality after he was forcibly removed from his founder-director position. And I have seen many young men and women of my generation who recorded among the highest decibel shouting reformasi and other idealistic slogans against the status quo, but upon joining the very institution they used to condemn, became passive and impotent. Alas! Some have even turned from anti-corruption activists to corruption propagators.

These spectacular transformations were all done out of free will. It is they who chose to change. It was not determined. Yes, in Islam we believe that Allah is all-Knowing hence, He knows what is to come of us in the future. That knowledge however is God’s alone. It doesn’t belong to us and should not be of our concern. Our responsibility is to utilise what God has endowed upon us; knowledge, intelligence and free will, and assume the responsibility of God’s vicegerents on earth, to enjoin good and forbid evil.

But unfortunately, when man is faced with moral ambiguities, he may lose his rationality and choose the path of ignominy.