On Anwar Ibrahim

I have an interest in Anwar Ibrahim. There are too many unanswered questions when the name Anwar is mentioned. What does he think about his experience in UMNO? Would he suggest anyone to try once more to “clean” UMNO from the inside? Would he now say that his decision to join UMNO in 1982 was wrong? Anwar is now championing the call for a corruption-free Malaysia, but has he ever been involved in corruption? Anwar is now talking about the need to abolish the Internal Security Act, why does he only openly say this after being sacked? Anwar has changed a lot after being sacked, but would he become the “clean” man that he is now if he were not sacked in 1998? Anwar says that he does not need to destroy UMNO for UMNO would destroy itself from within. This “UMNO self-destruction”…. did it start after his sacking, or has it been ongoing prior to that? If the latter, why did he wait until he was sacked before leaving? If the former, does he think his departure is the cause of that self-destruction? Why did it take humiliation, sacking and imprisonment before he changed his mind about UMNO? Anwar now talks about freeing Malaysia from money politics, but has he ever been involved in money politics? Was his ascent to deputy prime minister really clean from money politics? Anwar now talks about the greatness of PAS leaders, did this realization only come about after he was sacked? Why was imprisonment necessary to change him? Was it so difficult to see the wrongs done by UMNO and BN when he was in power? Or was he simply too clouded by power, and only once he no longer has it that he realizes he was on the wrong platform? There are many more questions I wanted to ask him. I have heard so much of him from other people. And many have assured me that he has changed. But I have never heard him giving straight answers. In fact, perhaps the problem is not many have openly and publicly asked him straight, probing questions. My meeting with Anwar last Saturday (29 January 2005), although long enough to allow a friendly chat, was too brief to allow answers to all these questions. Definitely too short to allow me to ask straight questions that can elicit straight answers from him. Let us see if I can get the straight answers from him in future meetings, perhaps in one of these days during his tenure at Oxford University. By the way, The Guardian has a good interview with Jeremy Paxman about straight-talking. Worth a read. But you need to register. Go on.... it's free anyway.

Hail Howard!

At last someone is willing to take a stance about immigration into the United Kingdom! Although the Tories’ immigration plan is not sufficient to make me vote for them, the announcement made by Michael Howard is good. Immigration is a problem in the United Kingdom. Someone must be brave enough to do something about it. So many people come to the UK to seek asylum and the country simply cannot afford to take them all. Most of them are bogus anyway. And most of them chose the UK because of the financial benefits they will receive. If it is not for the benefits, why not go to Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, France, etc? After all, in order to get to the UK, they must go through one of these European countries. If they are really just fleeing prosecution, why not stop at the first safe country the reach? They will no more be prosecuted there. Why all the journey to the UK? Some may say that it is because of the language barriers. But they hardly speak English anyway… Ka-ching! Perhaps it is the benefits!!! There must be a limit to immigration. More importantly, there must be a limit on what the British taxpayers spends on those seeking asylum. If I were Michael Howard, I would say that: 1. anyone wanting to seek asylum in the UK must do so from outside the UK. If claims were made from within the UK, it should be automatically rejected. This should be made into law. It would deter people from coming into the UK illegally. 2. if a person who has been receiving state benefits failed in their claim for asylum, they should be made to pay the benefits back. This would deter unskilled economic migrants. 3. no one should receive state benefits in the first place unless they have been granted asylum. This would deter migrants who come to the UK purely for the benefits. 4. failed asylum seekers should be deported as soon as their application fails. Any benefits should also stop immediately. This would deter bogus applications. The Tories' plans are by no way racist. They are not targetting any particular race. How can it be racist when no race is being targetted? Those who accuse them of racism are the ones playing the race cards. Luckily, I am not Michael Howard. I don't want to be him anyway. His party has no chance of winning the next election.

Ludicrous to the highest degree

DAP’s call for PAS to abandon its Islamic state ambition is not at all surprising. DAP is well known for their opposition to this idea. While I fully appreciate DAP’s logic behind such demand, I cannot prevent myself from laughing at this absurd demand. Does DAP not see that the raison d’etre of PAS is the Islamic state agenda? Setting up an Islamic state is the purpose and motivation behind everything that PAS has been working for. It is ridiculous to expect them to abandon the main purpose of their existence. How you would react if, back in 2003, David Beckham set a precondition that he would only join Real Madrid if they agree to abandon their pursuit to be the top club in European football. Or if Serena Williams demands that Venus abandons her own pursuit to be the world number one if they were to pair up for Wimbledon doubles? Or if the MIC demands that the MCA abandons its effort to help the Chinese if they were to remain in the Barisan Nasional? Ridiculous? Definitely. And that is just what DAP’s demand is. Pure and utter ridiculous. I wonder what DAP would say if PAS were to set a counter pre-requisite – that DAP drops its opposition to the Islamic state if they really want to talk about joining Barisan Alternatif? Now, how would DAP react to that double-dare? Do you now see the ridiculous game that DAP is playing?

Dear Mr Bell

David Bell, the British school chief inspector, caused an uproar when he singled out Muslim schools for failing to promote tolerance and harmony to kids. According to him, these Muslim schools do not properly educate Muslim children about citizenship, thus making the kids unprepared to tolerate diversity. As expected, Muslim leaders went amok and accused Mr Bell of Islamophobia. But surely, as chief inspector of schools, David Bell knows best. There must be elements of truth in what he said, otherwise he would not have said what he said. Wait for it…. The Office of Standards for Education (Ofsted) inspected 50 Muslim schools and found that 18 of them failed to teach students to appreciate diversity and tolerance. The failure rate is 36%. Ofsted also inspected 40 evangelical Christian schools and found that 17 of them failed as well. That is a 42.5% failure rate. The evangelical Christian schools are even worse. Add to that the fact that a vast majority of Muslim parents actually send their children to secular state school as well as Roman Catholic and Church of England schools. Only 3% of Muslim children go to private Muslim schools. Hence, only 36% of the schools that take this 3% are actually failing. The failure rate is miniscule. And try looking at any parts of the UK where BNP candidates got elected as local councillors. Well, I supposed since the BNP is pretty intolerant of diversity, the people who voted them in must have been educated in Muslim schools. Right, Mr Bell? Perhaps even the BNP was set up by a bunch of intolerant thugs who all graduated from Muslim schools too. Now Mr Bell, can you tell me who has been properly educated about tolerance and who hasn’t? And why did you forget to mention the actual statistics produced by your own department? Why were the Muslim schools singled out when the long-established British education system you promote have succesfully produced people like BNP leader Nick Griffin, and the Swastika bearer Prince Harry? Islamophobia?

Two long articles below

I have posted two articles published in Malaysiakini which I think is related to my previous posting: this and this.

Rise of leadership by ulama in PAS (Part 1)

by: Liew Chin Tong, first published in Malaysiakini A recent working paper presented at PAS' recent munaqashah (special convention) by information chief and deputy musyidul 'Am Haron Din caused a stir within the Islamist party. The paper entitled Kepimpinan Ulama Di Era Caraban Baru proposed, among others, that the president and his deputy be automatically made members of the Majlis Syura Ulama (Consultative Council of Religious Scholars). Some are concerned that Haron's proposal is a precursor to amending the party constitution to restrict the presidency and deputy presidency to the ulama. The concept of kepimpinan ulama (leadership by ulama), and the structure of the Majlis Syura Ulama, is central to the identity of post-1982 PAS. However, this has been increasingly questioned internally in the recent years with the influx of highly-educated middle-class members in the aftermath of the sacking of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim. This article traces the lay origin of the now sacred concept, as well as current woes. That the ulama have played an important role in PAS since its inception is without question. Indeed, the party emerged from the ulama section of Umno. Notably, Abdullah Fahim Ibrahim, a former head of the Umno religious department, and Ahmad Badawi - respectively the grandfather and father of Prime Minister and Umno president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi - were among PAS founders. The scholars are important to PAS in part because they enhance its Islamic credentials. But their continued influence on the party can also be attributed to the early post-independence social structure of Malay-Muslim society. The ulama have been a rare minority of educated persons with high social standing but not necessarily co-opted by the state. Many of them lived an 'autonomous' life outside state patronage, and thus could challenge the government through PAS. Yet, despite the long-term influence of the ulama in PAS, the notion of kepimpinan ulama only came into party lexicon in 1982, partly due to external developments. The Iranian revolution in 1979 galvanised Islamic movements all over the world, Malaysia included. Some party members visited Iran and returned with an aspiration for radical change in Malaysia. The old PAS leadership was seen, especially in the eyes of young Islamists who were exposed to the dakwah (missionary) movement of 1970s, as too conciliatory in its approach towards the government. Also, some PAS leaders were alarmed by the ascendance of the Dr Mahathir Mohamad government in July 1981 and its readiness to 'absorb' Islamic values into public administration. Some opined that only an unambiguous differentiation from Umno through articulating Islamic symbols and ideas could save PAS from being undercut by the then new Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the principle of kepimpinan ulama was a direct product of the intra-party conflict between the leadership of Asri Muda and the so-called ‘Young Turks’ from the late 1970s to 1983. Asri's days as leader were numbered after the failed coalition experience with Barisan Nasional ended in November 1977 and the debacles of 1978 national and Kelantan state elections. PAS won only two state seats in the Kelantan state election held in March 1978 and performed badly in the subsequent national election in July 1978 when it won only five parliamentary and 10 state seats. Dissatisfaction turned into open challenge at the muktamar (general assembly) of April 1981. Asri stayed on as president when veteran leader Yusof Rawa decided at the last moment not to challenge his position, but he was isolated as the challengers dislodged all his loyalists in senior party positions. Yusof defeated Asri's close ally and incumbent deputy president Abu Bakar Omar. The two vice-presidents were Young Turks Fadzil Noor and Abdul Hadi Awang. Pressures on Asri increased after the 1982 general election when PAS' fortune was improved only modestly. It won five parliamentary seats, the number it had obtained in 1978 but won 18 state seats compared to 10 in the previous election. Post-election, the Youth wing unprecedentedly held its muktamar earlier and separately where Asri was heavily criticised. Delegates proposed that PAS should adopt the principle of kepimpinan ulama - perhaps having in mind the revolutionary vanguard role of the ayatollahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Matters came to a head at the 1982 muktamar which led to the end of Asri's 30-year relationship with PAS - 17 years at its helm as acting president or president - and the rise of a new ‘Young Turk’ leadership. At the muktamar on Oct 23, delegates humiliated Asri by showing disapproval of his presidential address. Amidst the standard call of Allahu Akbar (God is Great) were noises of marakbar Asri (die, Asri). He skipped the following session and dispatched a letter - read by secretary-general Abu Bakar Omar - announcing his wish to “return the mandate” to the muktamar because of a 'conspiracy' to undermine his leadership. According to Subky Latif, the move was not a notice of resignation, but meant to imply that a vote of confidence in his leadership was needed. The opportunity was, however, seized by Fadzil Noor, who immediately adjourned the muktamar and called for an emergency Central Committee meeting, in which he and the anti-Asri faction firmly held the numbers. The committee accepted Asri's ‘resignation’ and appointed Yusof as acting president. Asri was not satisfied at being removed unceremoniously and went on to campaign against the new leadership. He still had strong influence in the party, with four of the five PAS members of Parliament supporting him. Nik Aziz Nik Mat was left the sole MP when Asri and his associates - nicknamed the ‘Group of 13' - were suspended from PAS membership on Jan 30, 1983, and then resigned on Feb 24. He later established the Parti Hizbul Muslimin Malaysia as a platform to continue his political life. The muktamar in May 1983 confirmed the Young Turks’ leadership - Yusof as president, Fadzil Noor as his deputy, Hadi Awang and Nakhaie Ahmad as elected vice-presidents. The muktamar also affirmed the principle of kepimpinan ulama and embarked on a process of rebuilding the party in a new and more radical image. Ed: see part two below

Rise of leadership by ulama in PAS (Part 2)

by: Liew Chin Tong, first published in Malaysiakini The Majlis Syura Ulama (Consultative Council of Religious Scholars) in PAS was created in 1983 to give substance to newly-adopted policy of kepimpinan ulama (leadership by scholars). Previously, the Dewan Ulama - established in the early years of PAS along with Dewan Pemuda and Dewan Muslimat (women’s wing) as a sub-unit of the party - was the main avenue for the scholars to influence policies. The new body consisted of 15 members. The Central Committee and the Dewan Ulama respectively appoints four of its members to sit in the Majlis Syura. They in turn select the remaining seven members. The council elects from among its members a Musyidul 'Am (spiritual leader) and his deputy. Part of recent proposal by deputy Musyidul 'Am Dr Haron Din is to reduce the representation of Dewan Ulama from four persons to two through the automatic inclusion of the president and deputy president. For some leaders who are frustrated with the conservative and patronising attitude of the Dewan Ulama, this may be an exit strategy. In the reshuffle of the consultative council last August, party president Abdul Hadi Awang, Hassan Shukri, Azizan Abdul Razak and Haron represented the Central Committee. The appointees of the Dewan Ulama were Harun Taib, Ahmad Awang, Dr Mahfuz Mohamad and Mohamad Daud. The remaining seven were Musyidul 'Am Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, Idris Omar, Dr Sanusi Daeng Mariok, Yahya Othman, Ishak Baharom, Abdul Ghani Samsuddin dan Hashim Jasin. The consultative council is entrusted to interpret policies according to the Quran and fundamental tenets of Islam as stipulated by the party constitution: 1) To elaborate, explain and interpret policies and other constitutional provisions, to ascertain their meaning and purpose; 2) To issue directives and rulings to ensure policies and decisions (of the council) are adhered to and implemented, and to ensure that the policies and decisions, as well as the requirements, pertaining to the constitution are adhered to in party activities and administration. It is also given the authority to appoint the members of the disciplinary committee and to screen the background of election candidates. The consultative council and Musyidul’ Am are ranked higher than the Central Committee and the president in the hierarchy but their relationships are far from clear in practice. For instance, when PAS decided to sever all ties with coalition partner Semangat 46 in 1996, it was the Majlis that made the decision on July 13, followed by the endorsement of the Central Committee the next day. On the other hand, Fadzil contemplated bypassing the Majlis when drafting the Islamic State blueprint. The structure of the Majlis and the position of Musyidul 'Am - both inspired by the Egyptian Muslim Brothers (Ikhwan'ul Muslimin) - are common features of many Islamic-inclined parties in the Middle East and Indonesia but alien to Malaysian politics. The party constitutional amendment to facilitate such move was discussed at the 1983 Muktamar (general assembly) but only approved by the Registrar of Societies in 1987. The delay was partly due to the Registrar's uneasiness with the extraordinary powers given to this non-elected institution, including the power to dismiss decisions made by the elected Central Committee. After the approval in 1987, then president Yusoff Rawa held the position of Musyidul 'Am concurrently until his retirement in 1989, succeeded by then head of the Dewan Ulama Nik Abdul Aziz. To this day, the party is faced with problems of interpretation and implementation of the now sacred concept of kepimpinan ulama, which had a rather casual origin as a veiled political challenge against party leader Asri Muda, who was not among the ulama. Subky Latif, a long-time member of PAS central committee and a biographer of Fadzil Noor, wrote: “The resolution (on kepimpinan ulama) caused controversies particularly among non-ulama groups. What were their roles in the party? It is something difficult for the public to comprehend. They could only link it to the Iranian revolution. Ustaz Fadzil himself found it difficult to explain the concept. It was not his idea. (The resolution) was not planned and the leadership had to crack their head to implement the decision of the Muktamar.” The fear that Haron’s proposal would lead to a constitutional amendment that explicitly stated the persons who hold the office of president and deputy president should be from among the ulama is understandable as some seem to think that they have the natural right to lead the party. I am of the opinion that while such a danger does exist, it is very much depends on how the party constitution is interpreted. According to Clause 7 (4) (a), a member of the Majlis Syura Ulama shall: 1. understand the fundamental problems (al-Usul) in syariah and laws; 2. and/or able to refer these questions to Quran, as-Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet), Ijma (consensus of religious opinions) and Qias (analogical deductions) with a clear understanding of their meanings; 3. be a just person who has never committed a major sin nor continue to commit minor sins. It did not explicitly say one has to be from among the ulama. There are at least two distinctive approaches in PAS, in determining who the ulama are. The head of Dewan Ulama Harun Taib contends that the ulama are like the moon among the stars - they are different from and superior to their compatriots preoccupied by mundane affairs. "The ulama have a high status in front of Allah," he declared. Fadzil saw it very differently. He stressed the importance of knowledge and suggested that the ulama should include not only those who have gone through formal Islamic education but also "those who do not go through religious education at the early stage but strive to acquire Islamic knowledge in their later life". I would like to add that the effort to strengthen the institution of ulama within PAS may have been misplaced, especially at this challenging time for party in the aftermath of its poor showing in the 2004 general election. It is now more important for PAS to tap its talents, regardless of education background. PAS' leaders in the early years after its inception were mainly rural ulama who lived an 'autonomous' life outside the reach of state largesse. But massive urbanisation in the 1970s and the rise of the Malay middle class have resulted in an occupationally/educationally diversified 'autonomous' class. Their mass participation in PAS after the humiliating sacking and controversial persecution of the former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim in September 1998 brought PAS in line with the social reality in Malaysia. It is time for the party to heed the call of Mujahid Yusof Rawa, son of former president Yusof Rawa, who urged the party to define the principle of ulama leadership clearly. His proposal is that the party fulfils the requirement of the principle with the existence of Majlis Syura Ulama. There is no need to restrict other top party leadership positions to the ulama. In part this suggestion reflects the internal conflict over party leadership. In addition, it also reflects a dire reality - where the party is facing serious problem of leadership succession if those positions are restricted to the ulama. There are not just enough popular and able ulama to run the party and the state government of Kelantan. Nik Abdul Aziz is 73, and recently suffered a heart attack that put him out of action for about two months. While he has a deputy in the party, the succession to the Kelantan menteri besar’s post is more complicated. Husam Musa, the candidate he favours, is not among the ulama. There is no urgent need to succeed Abdul Hadi, who is only 57. However, all viable candidates for the next deputy president are non-ulama. The current deputy president and party veteran Hassan Shukri, who is probably the party’s most conservative figure, is not in good terms with Hadi. Hassan, 65, certainly does not represent the future of the party. One short-term strategy for Hadi would be to make Haron the deputy president. That failed in 2003. Even it had succeeded, the question of succession would linger as Haron is also 65. Veteran ulama and vice-president Azizan Abdul Razak is not a hopeful choice as national leader, given his rather narrow focus in politics. The next in line are all non-ulama: vice-president and the party's most senior strategist Mustafa Ali, 59, was a teacher before entering politics; another vice president Dr Hasan Ali was formerly the deputy head of Biro Tatanegara; and parliamentary whip Kamarudin Jaffar was a former aide to Anwar. Among the able and well known leaders who are in their 40s, only secretary general Nasharuddin Mat Isa carries the title of ustaz. Others like newly appointed political secretary to Hadi and former member of Parliament Dr Syed Azman Syed Ahmad, Central Committee member Dr Hatta Ramli, Youth Chief Sallehuddin Ayob and Husam Musa are all not among the ulama. Thus, the way forward for PAS is not to reinforce the artificial barriers between the ulama and those who did not go through formal religious education, but to widen their choice to the pool of talent available. LIEW CHIN TONG is a research student at Faculty of Asian Studies, the Australian National University, Canberra.

Who did it?

Somehow one of my article got published in Malaysiakini. Now, how did that happened?

Adam Smith Institute Event

I went to the rountable discussion on identity card at the Adam Smith Institute on 18 Jan. It was interesting, but not what I expected. The audience was clearly biased and there was no real discussion about the pros and cons. Just lost of stuff about the cons. But I suppose you should expect that, knowing the background of the organizer. I think the dinner afterwards with Abidin at Parliament's canteen was more worthwhile than the Adam Smith event. Lots of friendly chit chats about so many different things. Thanks for the dinner and the company. We should do it again. Perhaps lunch at my place soon?

Power to the people.

I received further news about Kota Kuala Muda. The victims of the tsunami have moved out from the temporary shelters. Some have returned to their damaged houses. Those whose houses were completely destroyed have either moved to temporary houses or are staying with relatives. But the fishermen are still unable to go to sea. The earliest they will be able to return to work would be in March. Meanwhile, the victims have hardly received any significant financial assistance. The government, who continuously babbles about doing this and doing that, are in reality delaying financial assistance. They emphasise on building new settlements for the victims. These projects would take years to get completed. Do they not realize that the victims need help now? Apparently the army has stated that, if asked, they can repair and rebuild the houses at only RM 15,000 each. But the government has not said anything about this matter. I want to make a prediction… The tens of million ringgit that have been collected will be put into a centralised fund managed by the government. The government will then start “investigating” how best to help the victims. It will include discussions about which crony contractor is the most worthy of the windfall. This “investigation” will take several months. Then contracts will be given to some cronies to build the new settlements. In the mean time, the tens of million ringgit will be put in a fixed deposit somewhere and the government will reap the rewards from this extra income, at the expense of prolonging the victims’ sufferings. Then, a big sum would go to planners and architects who are asked to prepare plans and drawings of the new settlement. After at least three to four years, the victims will at last get their new houses. The houses will be completely empty and the victims need to fork out more money to buy furniture. And they will have to pay a fixed monthly amount to purchase those houses. The government benefits in several ways. First, they get the interest from the fixed deposit. Second, they get to feed the cronies. Third, they get additional money by forcing the victims to buy the newly built, empty houses. Fourth, and most importantly, for the next three to four years they are seen as doing the utmost to help the victims. They benefit in every sense. And it is despicable. What ought to be done is for the funds to be passed on directly to the victims. For every house that was completely destroyed, the victims should get RM 30,000, the equivalent of one low-cost house. Others should be compensated based on the degree of damage. Just create an approximation of the cost of repair and give the money directly to the victims. The victims should be free to do whatever they want with the money. If they want to move away, then they automatically can afford to pay cash for a low-cost house. If they want to repair the house, they can do it at a fraction of the cost because there would be no cronies to feed, no middle-man, no planner, no architect drawings, etc. Just RM 10,000 would go a very long way for a common villager compared to if it were given to government contractors. These villagers have built and repaired their own houses for years. If they have the money, they can rebuild their houses, and their lives, easily. And, most importantly, they must not be forced out from their land by this disaster. If the government were to build new settlements in a different area, then in reality the victims are being forced out from their own land. I strongly believe that the villagers should get the money directly. They are the victims. They must be given full control of the compensation and the donations. It is them who should decide how and where to spend the funds. Not some individuals in Putrajaya who have things other than the victims’ welfare in their minds. Come on…. The least the government can do is to set up a multi-stakeholder committee to manage the donations. In short, the victims are the ones that should decide how they want to spend the donations collected. Not anybody else. That is why I have been going all out to raise money for them, with the help of Muslim Aid. And the money will go to them directly. £14,000 has been sent earlier this week. Another £30,000 or so last week. And hopefully there will be some more very soon.

Another day passes by

Went to the Natural History Museum. Very interesting. But I was a bit disappointed with the Darwin Centre. I thought it was going to be a whole centre dedicated to Darwin's theory of evolution. I have been long fascinated by the way the earth evolved and the process of evolution itself. But the Darwin Centre was not at all like what I expected. It was just full with pickled animals. Outside the museum stands a column of tree trunk that has turned into stone. The museum claimed that a very long period of mineralization turned the trunk into stone. But I bet you they were wrong. It was not that. You can also see other things that have turned into stone at Mother Shipton's Petrifying Well. Again, the scientists were wrong. How can they claim that petrification was responsible for turning things into stone. Have they never heard about sang kelembai? Anyway, I am no longer able to read abidin.co.uk. I don't know where he lives.

Bukan salah PAS daaa...

I have money in both Ko-Hilal and Kosis. When I was introduced to the two co-operatives, I was told that this was an attempt by PAS to get into the corporate world. Top PAS figures were put at the helm. Hence my trust to these two co-operatives. It was not just me. Several student organizations also put money into these co-operatives. They did so on the basis of trust. Many did not investigate thoroughly the risks involved. Myself included. Trust was the main factor, and the presence of PAS top-guns was the main reason behind that trust. Then, suddenly I was told that both Ko-Hilal and Kosis are in deep trouble. Their investment projects flopped. Investors’ money have been lost. Possibility of getting the money back? Almost zilch. What did I do? Nothing! Why? Because I did not want to rock the boat. Logically if you lose money in any investment project, you would pursue the companies sampai ke lubang cacing. If it had been Barclays or HSBC, I would be writing to all sorts of enforcement agencies to ask for help in recouping my money. But because this was a PAS-linked project, I decided to do nothing. Some student organizations also did nothing even though they lost 5-figure amounts. Then, the clarifications hand-washing started coming in. Ko-Hilal and Kosis are not owned by PAS. Their failures cannot be attributed to PAS. The collapse of Ko-Hilal and Kosis are not PAS’ doings. It is the faults of the co-operatives own management. Investors should not link PAS with these two collapsed co-operatives. I now admit that I lost my money because of my own faults. It has nothing to do with PAS. I was silly for not investigating properly before parting with my money. I was silly for not asking about the risks involved. I was silly to believe in the campaigns by these two co-operatives. In short, I was silly to put my trust in those figure-heads. I now appreciate that the figure-heads were NOT put at the helm of both co-operatives in order to buy trust from PAS members like me (sic). There is a bigger issue behind this debacle. I want PAS to improve and there is a much more significant managerial issue that needs to be addressed. I believe that it truly is not the faults of PAS as an organization. But I shall leave it at that for the time being. Let us see if self-criticism is too unpleasant.

IC mana?

The British public is debating whether or not to have identity cards. I don't see what the fuss is all about. So the government wants to create a database about its citizen. So what? They have a huge amount of info about everyone already anyway. But, in the spirit of not wanting to take anything for granted, I think it is best if I dig a bit more into this to-ID-or-not-to-ID debate. That is why I am attending this on 18 January 2005.

Kohilal oh Kohilal

Kohilal disiasat atas dakwaan penyelewengan pengurusan Arfa’eza A AzizJan 12, 05 3:31pm Koperasi Al-Hilal Bhd atau Kohilal yang mempunyai kaitan dengan parti PAS, sedang disiasat oleh Jabatan Pembangunan Koperasi (JPK) dan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti (SC) atas dakwaan berlakunya penyelewangan pengurusan. Bendahari Kohilal, Mohd Kusrin Rahmad berkata siasatanitu dimulakan selepas aduan ahli-ahli koperasi itu berhubung skim-skim pelaburan berjumlah berjuta-juta ringgit yang diperkenalkan di antara tahun 1996 dan 1999. “Siasatan bermula pada tahun 2001. Apabila saya dilantik menganggotai Lembaga Pengarah yang baru pada bulan Jun 2002, (pegawai penyiasat) meminta untuk melihat beberapa dokumen dan kami memberi kerjasama sepenuhnya, dan menunjukkan kepada mereaka semua dokumen-dokumen tersebut. “Saya difahamkan, kenyataan ahli-ahli lembaga pengarah terdahulu, telah diambil oleh pihak berkuasa, tetapi sehingga hari ini, kami tidak tahu kedudukan siasatan tersebut,” katanya ketika diwawancara di ibu pejabat Kohilal di Kuala Lumpur. Katanya, ahli Lembaga Pengarah sekarang – yang mengambil alih pengurusan selepas Lembaga Pengarah yang dipengerusikan oleh Hassan Shukri meletakkan jawatan – tidak terbabit dalam siasatan itu kerana mereka tidak tahu apa-apa mengenai skim pelaburan tersebut. Hadir sama sewaktu wawancara tersebut ialah dua pengarah Kohilal – Razali Mohd Daud dan Md Shukor Aziz. Kusrin berkata, pihaknya menyedari ramai ahli yang tidak berpuashati dengan pengurusan skim-skim pelaburan tersebut tetapi katanya, tiada apa yang boleh dibuat sehinggalah pihak berkuasa menyiapkan siasatan mereka. “Perkara tersebut dibangkitkan dalam mesyuarat koperasi dan kami tahu ianya dibangkitkan juga dalam pelbagai mesyuarat dan persidangan parti. Kami tahu ramai ahli tidak puas hati, mereka mendakwa berlaku salah pengurusan, dan malah sesetengahnya mendakwa berlaku penyelewengan. Tetapi kita tidak boleh menuding jari pada siapa pun,” tambahnya. Md Shukor mencelah sambil berkata itulah sebabnya mengapa pihak berkuasa diharap dapat menyelesaikan siasatannya secepat mungkin.

“Jika ada keputusan siasatan tersebut, maka kami boleh mengambil tindakan selanjutnya. Sehingga itu, kami tidak boleh berbuat apa-apa, kecuali menunggu,” tambahnya. Wang tidak dipulangkanDitanya sama ada ahli-ahli yang tidak berpuas hati itu, boleh mendapatkan balik pelaburan mereka, Kusrin berkata ianya tidak mungkin kerana wang tersebut telahpun digunakan untuk melancarkan beberapa skim pelaburan yang tidak menguntungkan. Menjelaskan mengenai skim pelaburan yang gagal itu, Md Shukor berkata skim-skim tersebut tidak diuruskan secara langsung oleh pihak koperasi tetapi dikendalikan oleh anak syarikatnya yang kini sudah ditutup, Kohilal Holdings Sdn Bhd (KHSB) di antara tahun 1996 dan 1999. “Skim-skim Pelaburan Islam itu atau mudharabah diperkenalkan oleh KHSB. Oleh kerana anak syarikat tidak dibenarkan mengutip pelaburan dari ahli-ahli koperasi, maka lembaga pengarah telah mengadakan usaha niaga dengan KHSB dan seterusnya mempelawa ahli-ahl melabur melalui Kohilal. “Mereka (ahli lembaga pengarah lama) mengarahkan supaya dana tersebut dipindahkan kepada KHSB untuk mengendalikan pelaburan tersebut,” katanya.

Mengikutnya, ia membabitkan sejumlah RM46.5 juta. Daripada jumlah itu, RM8.9 juta dilaburkan dalam ladang burung unta, RM8.9 juta digunakan untuk membeli saham Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) manakala RM9 juta dan RM16.2 juta lagi masing-masing dilaburkan dalam sektor pertanian di Indonesia dan Perdana Teknologi Venture. “Bakinya dilaburkan dalam 24 anak syarikat KHSB, termasuk Ummah Asset Management yang disiasat oleh SC kerana mengumpul data secara tidak sah daripada ahli-ahli koperasi,” kata Md Shukor. Pada mulanya, kata beliau, koperasi itu mencatatkan kemajuan yang menggalakkan memandangkan dividen 10-15 peratus dibayar kepada ahli setiap tiga bulan, sehinggalah krisis kewangan melanda negara-negara Asean pada tahun 1997. “Selepas itu, para ahli mula bertanya di mana keuntungannya, apa yang telah terjadi kepada pelaburan tersebut....dan dari situlah mula timbulnya masalah. Mereka juga mula mempertikaikan proses membuat keputusan berhubung pelaburan tersebut,” tambahnya. Ditanya sama ada kajian dibuat mengenai daya untung projek-projek pelaburan oleh KHSB itu, Md Shukor berkata, beliau tidak tahu apa-apa mengenainya, tetapi menegaskan beliau tidak menemui apa-apa dokumen mengenainya.

Satu sumber Kohilal mendedahkan bahawa tiada sebarang kajian dibuat kerana KHSB juga diuruskan oleh orang yang sama, yang menganggotai lembaga pengarah Kohilal. “Tiada ‘semak dan imbang’ kerana ia membabitkan orang yang sama. Inilah yang membuat ahli-ahli menjadi marah. Pihak pengurusan tidak mengendahkan langsung etika kerana mahu mendapatkan berjuta-juta ringgit. “Mereka bertindak tanpa memikirkan bahawa sesetengah daripada kami telah mengeluarkan wang simpanan yang dikumpulkan begitu lama, untuk melabur dalam Kohilal. Kini semua wang kami sudah hilang,” katanya. Akui kesilapan Merujuk kapada Laporan Tahunan Kohilal bagi tahun 2003 yang diperolehi oleh malaysiakini, sumber itu berkata, ahli-ahli tahu bahawa pihak pengurusan sekarang tidak terbabit dalam perkara tersebut. Katanya, pihak pengurusan sebelum ini sepatutnya mengaku kesilapan mereka, tetapi mereka sebaliknya meletakkan jawatan dan enggan mengaku kesilapan mereka. “Ini bukanlah jenis pemimpin yang kita perlu hormati,” tambahnya.

Sementara itu, Kusrin, Md Shukor dan Razali melahirkan harapan agar kesemua 19,000 ahli-ahli akan membantu pihak pengurusan sekarang untuk memajukan lagi koperasi tersebut, dan tidak lagi ‘mengungkit perkara-perkara lalu”. “Bantulah kami meningkatkan lagi mutu atau produk kita, dan dalam melaksanakan rancangan-rancangan perniagaan kami. Kami juga sedang mengkaji projek lima tahun untuk mengumpul dana RM50 juta melalui pelbagai aktiviti perniagaan yang telah kami rancangkan, termasuk usahaniga dengan Maktab Kerjasama Malaysia. “Kami memahami kesukaran yang dihadapi oleh ahli-ahli. Kami tahu sesetengah daripada mereka kehilangan wang simpanan, tetapi jika kita lebih memfokuskan kepada masa depan, dan apa yang sudah berlalu, mungkin kita akan mendapat faedah yang lebih besar lagi,” kata mereka.

Ethics in action – part 3/3

Examining the situations using Utilitarian ethics. Let us look at the imaginary situations in Part 1 using utilitarian ethics. In situation 1, the only person that benefits from the lie is the student himself. He is the only person that gets the money resulting from the fraudulent claim. The vast majority of the British public is at loss because they have to subsidize this fraudster. Obviously, if he asks around, he would be able to find people to support his fraudulent doings, especially those who are embroiled in - or have attempted to commit - benefits frauds themselves. After all, birds of a feather flocks together. Still, according to utilitarianism, the action of claiming benefits when he is not entitled to is still morally wrong. In situation 2, the only person to benefit is the student. She gets a cheaper car insurance resulting from his lie. If she takes other passengers in the car and gets into an accident, the insurance may not be valid (due to false information) and everyone would have to suffer the consequences of her lie. The action is therefore morally wrong. Situations 3 and 4 are rather different because this time more than one person is gets the benefits of the lies. So the approach must be slightly different. Before delving further, I want to state that I cannot give a definitive answer because I am examining the situations from a very narrow perspective. There are more issues involved such as the validity of the contract between two parties, the necessity of the event (situation 3) and the necessity of travelling (situation 4). This part of the analysis is handicapped in the sense that it only looks at the act of lying and the bigger picture is ignored. Let us look now at situation 4. The family wants to save money and therefore they chose to deliberately hide the presence of a third child. The room thus become overcrowded by one. If anything were to happen, say if the building caught fire, then perhaps this particular room occupied by the family would not be covered by insurance. Other than that, no real harm is caused. And a family of five benefits from the lie, while only one party (i.e. the hotel) is harmed. And even then, relatively speaking, the “harm” to the hotel is negligible. I cannot give an absolute opinion in this case but I am inclined to say that according to utilitarianism ethics, lying in this instance is morally justifiable provided that the risk of causing a bigger harm (e.g. the children causing massive damage to the property) is manageable. The family must also be able to manage the risk of getting caught by hotel management because if they do get caught, then there is a possibility they will be left without accommodation. This is a greater harm to a greater number of people (i.e. the whole family of five). If the risk is not manageable (e.g. the children are too loud), and they know the risk of getting caught is too big, then the lying is not justifiable as it may bring a greater harm to a greater number of people. In situation 3, if the presence of an additional 100 participants were not detected by the venue management, then the organization saves a huge amount of money. They have done it before. From their previous experience, they managed to “hide” 15 people from being caught. Subsequently, if the arguments used for situation 4 were to be applied, then it would be morally right to proceed provided that the risk of causing a bigger harm (e.g. damage to the property) is manageable. Getting caught is also a risk that needs to be managed. If they do get caught, then the whole event is put at risk. If the organization is unable to manage the risk of getting caught, then the action is wrong because it would bring greater harm to a greater number of people (e.g. all 300 may get evicted). But if the organization is able to nullify the risk of getting caught, then the greater majority would benefit from the lie. Should the event go ahead with 300 participants, and they are not caught, then a greater number of people would benefit. Perhaps in this case utilitarians would say that lying is morally justifiable. But once again, I cannot supply an absolute answer as readers may have different interpretation of the situations. There is one very important proviso when looking at situations 3 and 4. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that it is morally justifiable to lie in these circumstances, then there is a need to be able to manage risks. In situation 4, the family must be able to manage the risk of (1) the children causing damage to the property; and (2) getting caught. In situation 3 the organization must be able to manage the risk of (1) the participants causing damage to the venue; and (2) getting caught. If these provisos can be fulfilled, then, using utilitarian ethics, lying would bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. Thus lying is justifiable. If one were to use utilitarianism to justify lying in situations like these, then the key therefore lies in risk management. Managing one extra child or fifteen extra participants is not the same as managing 100 extra participants. The possibility of getting caught, for example, is much bigger as the number increases. If the same “tool” were to be used to analyse different scenarios, then reaching the wrong decision is inevitable. The organization in situation 3 is facing a different magnitude of risk compared to their previous experience or compared to the family in situation 4. Thus, I would stipulate that in the cases of situations 3 and 4, risk management is just as important as ethics and morality. To simply look at them solely from the angle of previous experience or solely from the perspectives of right vs. wrong is wrong. Assuming that lying is morally justifiable, and you can manage the risk, then it is also morally justifiable to lie for the greater good. However, assuming that lying is morally justifiable, but you cannot manage the risk, then lying becomes morally unjustifiable as you would ultimately cause a greater harm. Having said all the above, I want to once again reiterate that there are more issues at stake. This analysis has been greatly over-simplified to allow examination of one issue only and from the perspective of philosophical ethics only. This issue also needs to be looked at from the religious perspectives since philosophical ethics is incapable of linking all actions to the command of the Supreme Being. End.

Ethics in action – part 2/3

Readers are refered to the first part of this article in order to understand the situations. I received several email replies to my previous posting. One particular email asked if the similarity is that they are all committed by Malaysians. Hmmmm..... a good point to ponder. Perhaps there are more than one point of similarities between the situations. But the similarity that I want to focus on is the fact that all four situations involve two elements – money and lies. I have already touched on the power of money in a previous writing, in which I argued that money makes people change their attitude, and that even religion gets pushed aside when money comes into play. I will just discuss about lying in this piece. But I do not want to discuss lying by using religious arguments and perspectives. That can be better done by others. Instead, let us try to look at lying by using two of the most common philosophical ethics frameworks –Kantianism and utilitarianism. Firstly, let us define a lie. A lie is defined as a fabrication, a deception or a falsification. To lie is to make a false statement to another person or another party with the intention of misleading that person or that party. Kantianism Using that definition, surely lying is always wrong. Full stop. Thou shalt not lie. No need to discuss anything anymore because everyone knows lying is wrong. This universalization of a principle pertaining to good or bad is perhaps the easiest way to describe the posture of a pure Kantian. Immanuel Kant, the great Prussian philosopher, argued that there is a single, general law of morality that governs all other ethical laws. This is what he termed as the “Categorical Imperatives”. Without wanting to get too technical, Kantians believe that there is a universal law of right and wrong. Actions should be judged based on that universal law and what is morally right will always be morally right. What is morally wrong will always be morally wrong. If charity is good, it is always good. If lying is wrong, it is always wrong. Kantians do not look at the consequences of an action. Consequences of an action are not relevant to determining whether an action is morally right or morally wrong. The key is the principle behind those actions. Kantianism would not excuse lying for any purpose. Full stop. Thus, from a Kantian perspective, in all the four imaginary situations described in Part 1, the decisions taken are all morally wrong. In situation 1, the student chose to hide the fact that he is not eligible for public funds. Hiding the truth (or even applying for public funds with full knowledge that he shouldn’t have applied in the first place) is wrong. In situation 2, the student blatantly lied and therefore this is clearly wrong. Situations 3 and 4 are similar to situation 1 in terms of hiding the truth. They are wrong too. NB: Some people may say that this is the position of Islam – lying is not allowed in any circumstances. But the reality is different. The Prophet once said: “He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good”. Ibn Naqib al-Misri, in his Reliance of the Traveller, quoted that Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said “Speaking is a means to achieve an objective… When it is possible to achieve such an aim (i.e. a praiseworthy aim) by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (i.e. if the aim itself it permissible). Subsequently, this topic should be explored further since it is not as straight-forward as it may seem to be. At this point, I want to advice readers to read fully Al-Misri’s texts before clinging on to this thought so as to avoid false understanding. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism sees morality in a different way. When Jeremy Bentham formulated utilitarian ethics, he argued that the morality of an action depends on the value of its consequences. If the consequence of an action brings benefit to a greater number of people, than the action is morally justifiable. But if the consequence harm a greater number of people, then it is morally unacceptable. (NB: The fuller description of Benthamite utilitarianism is more complicated than this but I do not want to get too technical). Utilitarianism is sometimes seen as the antithesis of Kantianism. While Kantians argue that such and such is categorically right or wrong, utilitarians may say “it depends”. In the contexts of lying, utilitarians do not say that lying is always wrong. If lying results in saving lives, lying is morally acceptable. For example, imagine yourself walking in town. Suddenly a man said to you that a madman is trying to kill him. He then runs away. A few minutes later, another man comes to you, with a bloody knife on his hand, and asks if you have seen so and so. In this case, utilitarian ethics would say that it is better to lie since by lying you may save someone’s life. You tell the (presumably) madman that the person he was looking for went a different way. Utilitarianism demands that you manage the situation such that the greatest benefit is brought to greatest number of people. By lying, you may have saved a life, and you did not cause any harm to the (presumably) madman. Thus lying is morally right. (This is a great over-simplification as you still do not know if the second person really is mad, or perhaps the one running away was a rapist who had raped the other person’s daughter). Coming: Ethics in action - part 3

Ethics in action – part 1/3

Can anyone tell me what these situations have in common? Situation 1: A student has the words “No recourse to public funds” stamped on his visa to enter the United Kingdom. He was later told that he is allowed to take up a part-time job for up to 20 hours per week under the student visa. So he does. He then applied for a type of benefit and his application was approved. He knows that the benefitshe applied for falls under the category of “public funds” but, obviously, he did not mention anything about this when making the benefit application. He then looks for justifications for his actions and surely he manages to do so – from those people who are doing the very thing that he does. Situation 2: Another student wants to buy a car. She finds travelling by public transportation tedious and time consuming. If she owns a car, she can travel to where she wants, when she wants. It is also more cost effective. She bought her car insurance through a call-centre. When asked how long she has had a full UK driving license, she answered 6 years. The reality is, she does not have any UK driving license. Her driving license was issued in a different country six years ago. But had she said this when purchasing the insurance, the premium would almost certainly double, or she might even be refused the insurance. So, not wanting to go into the hassle of calling tens of other numbers, she decided to just say that her license is a full, valid UK driving license. Situation 3: An organization wants to organize a very important training event for its members. The location has been chosen. The venue can take up to 200 people. But the organization needs to put 300 people in that training course. To opt for a different venue that can take all 300 would treble the cost. In order to save money, a decision was made to proceed with that venue despite the overcrowding. After all, this has been done before and there was never any problem. Just a couple months back, another event was held at a place that was supposed to take only up to 60 people, but they managed to fit in 75. In that instance, the organization saves money and everyone was happy. What could go wrong this time? What is the difference between over-crowding by fifteen (as was previously the case) and overcrowding by 100 (as will be this time)? The organization chose not to mention about the presence of an extra 100 people when making the booking. When asked, they stated that there were only 200 participants. On the day, they played hide-and seek with the venue manager in order not to get caught. Situation 4: A family wants to go on a trip and they need accommodation. They usually stay at one of the Travelodge when on holiday. And indeed Travelodge is their choice this time. Rooms in a Travelodge can only take up to two adults and two children. But this is a family with three young children. Since Travelodge is the cheapest option, what they did was to book online and say that there are two adults and only two children. Do not mention about the third child. This will save them money and no harm is really done to the hotel itself.

Big longkangs

When I first arrived to London many years ago, I remember saying to a friend: “Tak de longkang ke kat London ni?” (“Is there no sewers in London?”). I have been so used to seeing sewers around me. Sewers in my hometown in Malaysia are so big, a child could drown if he were to fall into one. Even an adult could get seriously hurt. The main danger is the fact that they are open sewer. The sewers are not covered up and some of them look like mini rivers of liquid (and solid) waste. There was one time – years ago - when both back tyres of my brother’s car were stuck in a sewer. I did not realize there was a massive longkang behind me, I reversed right into it. I blame DBKL. They should have put a cover on the sewer. But you hardly see any sewers in London. With nearly 8 million people living in London, surely there must be a massive sewerage system somewhere. And, rightly so, a massive sewerage system it is indeed. But they are underground. Apparently, each tunnel is almost the size of the tunnel for the London Underground. And the underground sewerage system stretches all around London. It has been there since 1865 thanks to Sir Joseph Bazalgette. He was commissioned by the British Parliament in the late 1850s to create an alternative sewerage system to replace River Thames, which was basically a very big open sewer during that time. I hope engineers in my hometown would one day come out with a similar scheme to move the big longkangs underground, or at least to put a cover on them. My brother nearly killed me when he saw what I did to his car.

Ministry of Bourgeoisie

I found out yesterday that Luxembourg has a Ministry that caters for the middle class. The Ministry of the Middle Class, Tourism and Housing is headed by Fernand Boden. Imagine that! A ministry looking after the needs of the bourgeoisie, but none for the proletariat. Marx and Engel would be infuriated if they knew!!!

Laura and Ainum

Ainum Mohd Said resigned as co-chief executive of Laura Ashley effective from 1 February 2005. She will be replaced by Lillian Tan, former CEO of Metrojaya Berhad. Laura Ashley has been struggling for quite some time. Since the early 90s, if I remember correctly. They withdrew from the USA and Europe at a staggering cost. Ainum was heavily criticised by some analysts. They pointed to her lack of significant retailing experience. Thus, it was unsurprising that Laura Ashley did not recover under her leadership. Why is this of interest? Well, Ainum was the former attorney general of Malaysia. She replaced Mokhtar Abdullah in 2001 and was replaced by Gani Patail also in 2001. Malaysians put high hopes on her when she was first appointed as AG. But she resigned unceremoniously less than a year after taking up the post. The reason for her departure as AG remains a mystery. And how a former Malaysian AG who has no significant retailing experience got to become a co-CEO of a problematic British-based retailer is also puzzling.

more news

Some more info about the impact of the tsunami on Kota Kuala Muda 9 deaths 1042 houses damaged 685 houses very badly damaged 80 houses completely destroyed 309 fishing boats badly damaged > 600 motorcycles badly damaged 173 cars damaged 860 school children affected All victims are now placed in a temporary shelter, mostly schools. They will have to move out from the temporary shelters by 16 January 2005. Even though there are 1042 damaged houses, the government is only building 150 temporary replacement houses in the form of rumah panjang. And the compensation that they get, if they get any, is miniscule compared to the costs of rebuilding their lives. The big questions are: 1. where will the other 942 house-owners go to on 16 January 2005? 2. How will the families support the 860 children who need to go to school? If we just look at the housing needs, apparently Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad (SPNB) will build Rumah Mesra Rakyat (whatever that means) for the victims. Victims will have to pay a maximum of RM33,334 to purchase the houses under an interest free loan arrangement. Some houses will be cheaper.

The tsunami fund organised by the NST & co raised a total of Rm24.51 million. That is just one fund and only up to today. There are several other funds too and the collections are on-going. They are bound to raise more money.

The builders can draw from this one fund and immediately they can build more than 700 houses without the need to force the victims to pay any money at all. Money collected by other parties can then be used for other purposes, or to build more houses. This is perhaps too simplistic but at least the rough idea is there. Let us see if what happens is anywhere near this idealised situation.

raising money for political parties

The Tories have announced that they have secured 75% of their general election war-chest. Jonathan Marland, the Tories’ chief fund-raiser, told the Financial Times today that they now had either received or been promised £17 million out of the £25 million that they want to raise. Labour said that they are confident their party coffers will swell by the next election, expected in five months time. The main British political parties generally have a well-devised strategy to raise funds. They know how much need to be raised, and they plan well ahead on how and where to get the money from. I wonder if the same are being done by Malaysian political parties? Perhaps the ruling coalition does not need to think too hard as they have the government’s machinery they can (ab)use. But what about the oppositions? The oppositions need to get their acts together. No longer can they depend on collections from ceramahs. They must plan how to raise sufficient funds and the strategy needs to take into consideration why people or organizations or companies should donate to those parties. For example, the Tories have devised a policy that is more business-friendly (according to them) and they are selling this policy to the City. Marland claimed that the City responded positively and this is one of the reasons he is confident he will raise enough money for the general election. Perhaps the oppositions should start thinking about appointing fund-raisers to work full-time for the parties. I did consider suggesting that the opposition parties’ own treasury should do fundraising. But knowing that party treasurers in most of the opposition parties were not appointed due to their ability to manage party finances, I see no use of making that suggestion.

rats and pigs everywhere

For the past few days I have been going all out to create an alternative but formal channel so that some funds can be sent to Malaysia. It is working well. We are now officially working with Muslim Aid and parts of the funds will be sent to Malaysia, as well as to other parts of the world, via this channel. Several have suggested that we use the official, "government-backed" channels for the funding. My answer is a straight-forward NO. I don't even have to think twice about this. Why? See below for one small insight. The article is just one small glimpse of the corruption and malpractices taking place when the so-called "official" channels are used. If any of you have the opportunity to speak to those on the ground, you will realize that the abuses taking place are much more rampant and widespread than what was described in the article below. This is also why I would rather spend days "creating" an "alternative" channel rather than just using the "official" channels. I do not want my money and the money entrusted to me by others to be abused by these rats. ''Isi borang Umno kalau nak lampin'' Tuesday, January 04 @ 16:31:18 MYT Oleh Mohd Sabri Said SUNGAI PETANI, 4 Jan (Hrkh) - "Isi borang Umno kalau nak lampin", demikian luahan salah seorang mangsa Tsunami apabila menceritakan ketidakadilan yang dilakukan dalam pembahagian barang keperluan kepada mereka baru-baru ini. Pembahagian bahan keperluan di penempatan sementara mangsa Tsunami di Sekolah Rendah Kota Kuala Muda, Kedah didakwa oleh para mangsa tidak profesional kerana berlaku banyak pilih kasih. Ramai mangsa mengadu Puteri dan Pemuda Umno mengambil kesempatan menekan golongan yang dikategorikan pembangkang atau tidak sebulu dengan mereka walaupun daripada golongan Umno sendiri. Bahan keperluan seperti tilam, minuman, roti dan sebagainya sukar diperolehi sebaliknya menjadi 'stok' di bilik gerakan mereka yang disumbangkan oleh orang ramai sebelum ini. Tinjauan Harkahdaily ke penempatan tersebut semalam mendapati ramai mangsa meluahkan perasaan tidak puas hati terhadap pengagihan yang dibuat. Ada yang merasakan, mangsa tsunami bagaikan pemimta sedekah bila inginkan air mineral, tilam untuk anak kecil atau orang tua yang tidur beralaskan tikar. Pemuda dan Puteri Umno acapkali mengatakan bekalan sudah habis bila mangsa cuba memohon bantuan mendapatkan apa-apa keperluan. Malahan, ada juga Puteri dan Pemuda Umno main politik dengan menyuruh sesiapa yang mahukan barang keperluan perlu mengisi borang parti mereka terlebih dahulu. Perkara ini didedahkan oleh Pak Cik Abdullah Haji Ahmad dari Kampung Kepala Jalan. Beliau disuruh mengisi borang Umno jika mahukan lampin pakai buang untuk cucunya. Sekarang ini katanya, bukan masa untuk mengambil kesempatan mengaut sokongan sebaliknya masa untuk membantu atas rasa perikemanusiaan. "Pak Cik hairan fasal apa depa buat macam itu. Nak ambil lampin pakai buang pun mereka cuba main politik, " ceritanya kesal. Selain dari penempatan sementara, keadaan yang sama juga berlaku di Pejabat Penghulu di pekan Kota Kuala Muda. Di mana banyak kotak berisi air mineral dan roti bertimbun di situ tanpa diagihkan kepada semua mangsa dengan sempurna. Menurut salah seorang mangsa yang mahu dikenali sebagai Man berkata, tidak ada gunanya semua bahan keperluan makanan berhimpun di situ sedangkan mangsa berada dalam kelaparan terutamanya kanak-kanak. "Ada kalanya kami terpaksa membeli sendiri makanan dan air kerana pembahagian tidak sempurna. Mujurlah ada wang RM500.00 yang disumbangkan oleh kerajaan baru-baru ini jika tidak di mana kami nak dapatkan duit, " ujarnya yang kehilangan rumah dan harta benda. - mks

Tsunami - whom shall we help?

I received several emails asking about where the funds I collect will be sent. My reply is, currently, it will be sent to Malaysians working in the affected areas. I say Malaysians working in affected areas because the people receiving the donation does not focus solely in Malaysia. They work wherever they are needed if it is possible for them to go there. From the works I have been doing in the United Kingdom thus far, I am fortunate to have contacts with people in the Foreign Office as well as a few who are working in charitable organizations. I am trying to lobby them to allocate funds to Malaysia. I have not received definite positives yet. International aid agencies are focusing their efforts to countries like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The countries with the most number of deaths are receiving the most help, at least in the immediate term. I was saying to myself, if countries other than Malaysia are the ones that need the most help, then surely I should help to raise funds for them (ie: not for Malaysia). Malaysia was not too badly affected. The death tolls were only less than 70. Why give money to a country that was not too badly hit? However, one friend who works in a London-based charitable organization told me that it is wiser for me to focus on Malaysia. He argued that since a country like Malaysia is not receiving so much international help (I am not saying there is none. Just less), Malaysians should group together to do whatever they can to help their own country. If people from countries who were not so badly affected refuse to help their own country, AND at the same time very little international aid is coming into that country because the impact was not too severe, then these so called "less severely affected countries" will be worse off in the long run. Everyone is focusing on the worse affected countries, while those that were not so badly affected will be left to their own aid. At the end, the governments of those countries will have to cover the cost of everything, and ultimately, it is the citizenry who will be affected. Thus, this colleague, who has more than 15 years experience working in relief efforts, refused my offer to help him collect money for the general fund. He bluntly told me "Go help people in your own country first. We already raised £25 million last night for the general fund, none of which will go to your country, but a large chunk will go to Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Who will help your country if you do not do it?" I suppose that makes sense. By focusing my efforts to helping those in my own country, I am not neglecting the fact that others have been worse hit. I am merely ensuring that the miniscule effort I am putting in is targeted to bring benefits to an area "un-noticed" by the international community due to the relatively small number of deaths - Kuala Muda in Kedah. After all, this particular area has not even been mentioned by any British media. They are truly un-noticed. I must also admit that it hurts to make such a decision especially when you see so much suffering in BBC News 24. But I keep reminding myself that just because Kuala Muda is not covered by the British media does not mean people there are not suffering. They were simply forgotten in the midst of such a massive destruction. I am also comforted by the fact that parts of the fund will also be disbursed to places outside Malaysia. The allocations will be decided by the people on the ground. We should let the decisions be made by those who really know the situation. And a decision has been made that some funds should go to Acheh in the form of a temporary hospital with seven doctors. (When I phoned them earlier today, we were discussing the possibilities of getting more doctors there). If they see a need for more works outside Kuala Muda, I am sure they will transfer the funds as and when necessary.