Akil Hayy's headgear

I must correct myself. Akil had just fixed the thing on his head. Now that it has been fixed properly, I can see that he is wearing his head-gear Saudi-style. Earlier it was as if a white table-cloth was accidently put onto his head. Looks much better now. Apologies to Akil.

Moral virus

This article is interesting. Seems like even computer viruses are being used to spread morality. By the way, I am typing this while watching the Konsert Tautan Kasih via PAS Kelantan's webtv. Looks good thus far. Akil Hayy is on now. But what in the world is he wearing??? Looks as if he came along wearing a pink shirt, but then stumbled upon a white poncho, or some sort of plastic rain-coat, and quickly decided to put it on his back. Oh.... no.... he is now taking it off but something got left on his head. I would be most happy to see serban or ketayap (not songkok, please). But what is that??? I am going to call the fashion police...

Malaysia Boleh!

Is "Malay" a race or is it a legal status? As far as I know, you can choose your friends but you cannot choose your race. You are born into a certain race and you can do nothing to change that. The most you can do is to "live" the culture of those in a different race. Even so you would remain in the racial group you were born into. But there is now a motion to "change" race.... How will that work? What if a Malay requests to become a Red Indian? How will that work then?

Labour conference

The Leader's speech at the Labour conference was quite good. I was glued to the TV screen all the way. Well done Alistair Campbell.

More books

I am trying to commit myself to reading at least one book every month. So, for October, I have ordered: Intellectuals and Socialism (Rediscovered Riches) by F Hayek The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman edited by David Boaz I was going to buy Hayek's Road to Serfdom too but for some reason it doesn't qualify under Amazon's free delivery service. So, looks like it will have to wait for now. Several of my friends seem to like giving me books as memento whenever I visit them. I think I should create a wish list just to ensure their gifts don't simply collect dust on my bookshelf. .

Great two weeks

The last two weeks had been excellent. First I had the chance to host three academics who made me work my brain. And then from Saturday to Monday I had the great honour of hosting PAS' President, YB Tuan Guru Dato' Seri Haji Abdul Hadi Awang. Of course I took the opportunity to raise a few issues to him. First was on proportional representation. In the last muktamar, YB Dato' Seri argued that the best system to use in Malaysia is proportional representation. I suggested that perhaps it is best for PAS to lead the way by using PR in our internal election. Second was about the Malay special rights. I presented my arguments why I think the special rights should be abolished and Malaysians be treated as equals. Thirdly was about the rights of non-Muslims to have their own religion taught in schools. How can it be fair for us Muslims to be able to learn Islam in school while those of other religion, be it Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, etc be clumped together into Moral Education? His response in general were very positive. And, there are two things said by YB Dato Seri that I want to share. YB Dato Seri explained how, in order to grow the economy of the states governed by PAS, PAS encouraged the creation of "pasar borong". He believes that the "pasar borong" will encourage open and free competition among vendors, thus benefitting customers by forcing prices down. He also added that state governments under PAS distributed land to the people in order to foster property ownership and increase the people's wealth. He also argued that Muslim countries in general need to create an open market in which they can trade freely. I see elements of free-market economy - open market, competition and private property ownership - being advocated. Excellent. Additionally, when PAS came into power, the guiding principle was to help those who are in need of help based on merits, not race or religion. YB Dato' Seri quoted an example of what PAS did in MAPEN by demanding the government to assist the poor regardless of race. As a result of this proposal, Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia was set up with the aim of alleviating poverty in all races. People of any background will be helped as long as they merit the help. I see elements of meritocracy being advocated (even though the word was not used). Once again, excellent.

From a chancellor to a criminal

You cannot imagine how surprised I was when I first heard about this. I first got to know Lord Watson of Invergowrie, or Mike Watson MSP, when I started working at the Al-Maktoum Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies. Don’t get me wrong. I do not know him personally. But he was Honorary President of the Islamic Research Academy (ISRA) and the first Chancellor of Al-Maktoum Institute (a link to his brief biography is still available on the Institute's website under the biography of the current chancellor). Based on what I heard from my former boss, Lord Watson was very supportive of both ISRA and the Al-Maktoum Institute. I first discovered Lord Watson's role in setting up Al-Maktoum Institute when I wrote a brief account of the Institute's background, some of which is still being used online. It is shameful, and a pity too, that someone once involved in ISRA and the Al-Maktoum Institute ended up in jail after consuming a large amount of alcohol and starting a fire to a hotel. .

Missionary works in an Islamic state

In Malaysia, it is illegal for non-Muslims to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, who try to proselytize risk prosecution. But it is difficult to categorically say that it is illegal for Muslims to convert. There are many cases where Muslims wanted to register their conversion to another religion but were prevented from doing so for various technical reasons. As far as I know, the precedent so far is that you can change religion, but you cannot officially register that conversion with the National Registration Office. Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and this protection is granted by law. To me, this argument is flawed. Firstly, how can you defend the sanctity of Islam by curbing the right of non-Muslims to spread their religion? Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, make it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will styart shouting about human rights etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims. Thirdly, protecting a religion by legislation implies that the religion cannot stand to protect its own sanctity. It is as if we are saying Islam cannot be saved unless there is a law protecting it. Surely Islam can stand well above the test of reasoning. Fourthly, Malaysian constitution states that while Islam is the official religion of the country, those of other religion have full rights to practise their beliefs. What about those religions that encourage their believers to undertake missionary works? By legislating against non-Islamic missionary, we are preventing them from fully practising their religion, which is actually against the constitution. Fifthly, I cannot understand the current law. How is it acceptable that we make it illegal for non-Muslims to do missionary work, but there is nothing in the law about Muslims changing religion so long as they do not seek offical registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down - the protection of Islam is granted by encroaching into other religions and limiting their freedom and liberty. Surely the correct way is by legislating against riddah, which is confined only within Islam, while allowing missionaries to attempt to spread their beliefs. In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while the national government continue to support Islamic da’wah organizations. This is clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country. I have been asking many people about this matter and all they can come out with is the standard argument that the sanctity of Islam must be protected and one way of doing so is by maintaining the ban. That was until I read a few books written by Abul A’la al-Maududi which discuss this issue. There are at least three relevant books by him but the best summary of his opinion is perhaps a quote from his booklet entitled “Human Rights in Islam” (Islamic Foundation, 1976). In the first chapter on “The political framework of Islam” (this chapter is not available in some online versions of the book), Maududi stated: “The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way. Not only may they propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency” (emphasis added). That to me is a very bold statement. As long as the law and common decency norms are respected, non-Muslims have full rights to propagate their religion. Perhaps a law can be drafted in-line with the spirit of the incitement of religious hatred bill proposed in the United Kingdom - it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred. But definitely not to an extent that non-Muslims are banned from propagating their beliefs. As for us Muslims, the way forward is not by curbing non-Muslims’ rights to propagate their religion. But it is by strengthening the aqidah of Muslims through rigorous education. Islam has its own way of preventing riddah. There is a specific clause in the syari’ah that tells us how to deal with riddah. That clause certainly does not include curbing the rights of non-Muslims.

Mawi in Kelantan

The invitation by Tuan Guru Haji Nik Abdul Aziz (TGNA) for Mawi to perform in Kelantan generated a heated debate. I have a few comments to make on this matter: Firstly, I do not see why the invitation has to be declared by TGNA himself. Mawi, and concerts in general, are too petty an issue to be talked about by a highly respected figure like TGNA. The announcement, if announcement by a state figure is really necessary, should have been made by a lower ranking official. Can you imagine Jack McConnell declaring that Steve will be performing in Edinburgh, or Rhodri Morgan declaring that Edith will perform in Cardiff? I guess not. Those at the level of chief ministers should be well above making announcement about concerts. Secondly, TGNA stated that the state government is inviting Mawi “sebagai salah satu usaha menarik golongan muda mendekati Islam” (as an effort to attract youths to Islam). He even lambasted those who dared criticizing him by challenging them to do an alternative event for the youths. The Head of PAS Youth Wing supported TGNA’s move. So did PAS Selangor (which is not at all surprising bearing in mind that they only voiced their support once the Ulama Wing voiced disagreement). What I would like to know is, is the concert part of a much bigger plan of actions, with other activities already done previously and follow-up events planned for the future? Or is the concert a one-off event? The significance of this question is, you cannot expect youths to be attracted to Islam by having a concert once in a blue moon, even if t concert is interwoven with religious items. If you are serious about attracting youths to Islam, then there must be a concerted effort, not just an effort to have a concert!!! Sure, it is good to have this concert as part and parcel of bigger picture. But to expect the youths to commit themselves to Islam after attending just one concert is imprudent. The concert is only justifiable if it is done as part of a bigger strategy. Ad hoc actions will never succeed in bringing youths back to Islam. Thirdly is the issue of who’s who in the party and in the state. TGNA is the Chief Minister of Kelantan. He is also the Pesuruhjaya Negeri. And he is also the Mursyidul Am - the highest post in the party, even above the president. For the same person to hold all these posts brings in a serious conflict of roles. As Chief Minister, he is there to govern the state in accordance with party policies. At state level, it is he himself who preside over meetings to formulate the policies. That means as head of administrative systems both at state and party levels, his power is absolute - he reports to himself. Yes, policies formulated by the state committee are under the supervision of PAS central committee. The central committee can overrule the state committee if necessary. But the central committee itself is subject to the supervision of the Majlis Syura Ulama, chaired by TGNA himself! This goes against every norm of good governance which purports the separation of power between policy-makers and the executives. In a public listed company, the best practise would be to separate the post of Chairman and CEO (for a very brief intro, see the first few paragraphs in this report). And usually neither the chairman nor the CEO would even dream about becoming a head of department or head of an operational unit. In the case of Kelantan, the head of an operational department (i.e.: the state) is also the Director of Department (i.e.: Pesuruhjaya), who is supposed to report to the CEO (i.e.: Party President), but in turn, even the President reports to that same person as the Mursyidul Am (equivalent to Chairman?). The head of unit reports to the head of department, who in turn reports to the president, who in turn reports to the chairman. But the same person holds all posts apart from the presidency. How confusing is that? To illustrate how the confusion is endemic among members too, let me ask some questions. When the head of ulama wing disagreed with TGNA, was he disagreeing with the Chief Minister of Kelantan, or the Pesuruhjaya Negeri, or the Mursyidul Am? As Head of Ulama Wing and an important member of Majlis Syura Ulama, Dato Haron has all the rights to bring Pesuruhjaya Negeri to account. But Dato Haron is also a member of the Majlis Syura Ulama chaired by the Mursyidul Am. So, was Dato Haron criticizing his superior or was he criticizing as a superior? And, when TGNA insisted that the concert will proceed, was he talking as the Mursyidul Am, or was he, as Pesuruhjaya Negeri, being disrespectful towards a superior in the central PAS Dewan Harian? Depending on how the members in general perceive the situation, they will also form a perception about Dato Haron's statement. And, add to that the unnecessary “heat” being added by certain PAS leaders and co, it is us in the general membership that is left confused. Without doubt the usual excuse is, all these squabblings is an evidence of how democracy is well and alive within PAS. Well, then, what about good governance? This is, of course, without even mentioning the outcome of the discussion of Majlis Syura Ulama on this matter. Dato Haron was there in the meeting, while some others who were directly involved in this issue were not. Why the deafening silence by those present? In writing all these, I am aware of two things: 1. When PAS governed Terengganu, the Chief Minister was also Pesuruhjaya Negeri and party President. To me, similar conflict existed. 2. All other states under Barisan Nasional do the same. To me, this is no justification. I strongly suggest our party leaders consider separating party posts with political posts. This would alleviate the conflict of interest in governing states / country and party, and foster stronger mechanism of internal check and balance. It will also, hopefully, help prevent unhealthy internal politicking since there is no guarantee that those who hold party posts would eventually also hold political posts. In making this suggestion, I am also aware that the idea has once been considered by the party. Thus, I am merely asking that the idea be re-considered.

Country vs State

It is interesting to read the debates taking place at Bob, Rajan and Shin, with Menj joining in to add more heat. When Bob asked the question “NEP for whom?” another blogger replied by saying that PAS would probably introduce an “Islamic Economic Policy” if they were to win. This sparked a debate that became more wide-ranging, eventually ending up with a competition of who hates PAS the most. Shin was rather childish in her comments on the topic – constantly using the acronym PIS when referring to PAS. Her comment “we cannot blame the PIS members you see, because had they been able to think, they wouldn’t have been in PIS in the first place” is condescending. Denigrating the syariah, too, is not a way forward. She should realize that there are many people out there who are progressive but still believe in syariah. As a Muslim, it is my democratic right to want the syariah, and if we were to work together, appreciation of others is a must. In any case, the problem in debates like this is the fact that no one is willing to critically look at themselves and ask if it is themselves who are actually the problem. How will it be possible for Keadilan, PAS, DAP and other opposition parties to unite if their members are constantly bickering against each other? As a PAS member, I should be asking myself, what should I do to make PAS more accommodative to others in opposition. I expect those from Keadilan and DAP to do the same. Surely that is much better than a Keadilan member denigrating DAP, a PAS member slandering Keadilan, or a DAP member belittling PAS. How much longer are we going to point fingers at others, forgetting that it is us that may be the problem? I would argue that everybody has to change their attitude if they want to form a strong coalition – and a coalition is a must if we were to defeat BN, itself a coalition of many parties. PAS must change its attitude and realize that it is no longer enough to just initiate a relationship. They must work to maintain and strengthen that relationship too. While working in a coalition, PAS cannot unilaterally produce policy statements if they know others will not agree. Publication of the Islamic State document was a mistake and steps must be taken to mend the damage. DAP should realize that the majority of the Malays still see it as a chauvinistic Chinese party. And, just like PAS should be careful when using the term Islamic when labelling its policies, DAP too should think twice about using the word “socialist”. Despite my commitment to PAS, I also believe DAP has proposed some excellent policies. I have no problems with elements of socialism, Malaysian Malaysia, etc. But the vast majority of Malaysians have a negative impression of these various concepts. Just like PAS, DAP too must tread carefully. Keadilan is a relatively new party that relies almost absolutely on DSAI. Until today it has not been able to categorically state what it stands for. Imagine if DSAI were to die tomorrow. Both PAS and DAP will definitely survive death of a major leader (or leaders) because they both have a strong enough ideological base. But will Keadilan survive? If we were to take things a bit further, imagine if both DSAI and Wan Azizah were to die tomorrow. Can you imagine what would happen to Keadilan? Who will take over the presidency? Unfortunately many still see Keadilan as an “Anwar’s party” rather than a force by itself. We as members must remember that the leaders of our parties have a duty to represent our views. If we continue with the negative views of each other, we cannot blame party leaders if they merely reflect the situation on the groud. After all, each party has a specific audience to entertain and to keep happy. If we in the audience continue to foster negativities, we cannot blame party leaders if efforts to strenghen the BA falter. It is not totally their fault. We have to look at ourselves too. Once the opposition parties, especially Keadilan, are able to properly articulate their main principles, it is important for them to sit down and thrash things out. We cannot expect things to be resolved within one or two years. In the mean time, we as politically conscious citizens should work to reduce the tension, not add to it. We have to ensure we do not create issues that may divide BA further. Not so long ago, there were talks about enhancing federalism in Malaysia. This is one viable option for BA. The states should be allowed to legislate according to the wishes of its own citizens. BA components should then produce one national manifesto plus more specific state manifestos. Prior to that, there must be a comprehensive study on what the people really want. If it can be statistically proven that the majority of people on a particular state do not want syariah, then the state manifesto should clearly state that BA will not force the syariah upon the people. But if support for syariah can be proven, then BA component parties should work together to give the people what they want. At the national level, I don’ think it is prudent to campaign for a national implementation of syariah. I suppose the term Islamic State (Negeri Islam) is the right phrase to use. Not Negara Islam (Islamic Country).

White Band Day 2

Tomorrow, Saturday 10 September 2005, is White Band Day 2. I will start working at my local Oxfam from tomorrow. We all need to do something to make poverty history.

Social democrats

1. It is difficult to write about the actual content of discussions I had with the three academics I hosted. The issues we talked about were varied and wide-ranging. What I would do instead is to write in the usual way, while appreciating that I have benefited greatly by their presence. 2. When the name DAP is mentioned, one is almost always led to think of a chauvinistic Chinese party that has less regard for people of other backgrounds. This shows how effective BN is in creating "faces" for their enemies. If one finds Labour acceptable, why is it so difficult to see DAP in the same light? Both are social democrats. Both are secularists. They may differ in the details but their political struggle are based on the same principles. Are there reasons other than preconceived ideas, and perhaps our own misconception?

Anything but politics

This is a good column. The choice of people interviewed are generally good. I am intrigued by YB Salahuddin's choice of names when answering this question: Q: If someone produces a calender with 12 politicians on it, who would you want to see on it? A: Fidel Castro, Ghandhi, Khomeni, Fadzil Noor, Abdul Hadi Awang and Nasharudin Mat Isa. There are two names I find intriguing. One is Fidel Castro. It is politically unsound for me to state the other name. Intriguing... Another thing, is Abba's music sentimental? Mamma mia!

Multiculturalism vs. pluralism

Discourse on this topic started over breakfast this morning. The summary thus far, multiculturalism and pluralism are different only in theoretical discussions. When it comes to implementation and practise, they are pretty much similar. More to come over supper since dinner will be outside.

Bra war

This bra war is simply ridiculous. The very community that promotes free market is enforcing shameful protectionism when it comes to their own failure to adapt to the competitive globalization. Protectionism is simply "kezaliman" (oppression) against consumers. It prevents consumers from getting the best deals by protecting uncompetitive business institutions. I do not blame Mandelson. He can only negotiate based on decisions taken by EU member countries. I blame countries like France and Germany who have continously failed to ensure their textile industry adapt to the opening of European market. They were given a 10 year notice to do so and still failed. This trade quoatas, forced on to Mandelson by a majority of countries with incompetent textile industry, who in turn has no choice but to enforce it, is just bad.

Religion vs. culture

I am hosting three Malaysian academics this week. One is a professor of anthropology and faculty dean, the other an associate professor in Middle Eastern studies, and another from Islamic studies. I plan to exploit their presence to explore three issues: 1. culture vs. religion as a source of group identity 2. multiculturalism vs. pluralism 3. voluntarism in Malaysia First on group identity. The after dinner discussion last night was a steep learning curve for me, which is not a surprise when you speak to a specialist on the subject!!! My conclusion: 1. The issue of religion / race / culture is really an issue of identity. People hold on to a certain sense of identity. It is how we define ourselves. Muslim; Malay; from Perlis; speaks northern dialect; went to Sekolah XYZ; work as a lecturer; subscribe to certain political ideology; etc; are all how people define themselves. 2. People tend to give more importance to certain elements of their identities. For example, they may say it is more important to wear suit and tie to show “belonging” to a “professional culture” than actually being professional in what they do (e.g.: getting involved in corruption). In this case, they define themselves as belonging to the “professional” group, but define it as how they dress-up rather than in terms of work ethics. 3. It is also possible for people to give the same importance to certain elements of their identities. For example, for some, being a Malay is just equally as important to being a Muslim. This is prevalent in the Malay Archipelago and is especially prominent in Southern Thailand now, when the Malay Muslims are being prosecuted by the Buddhist government. 4. By clinging on to this sense of identity, people who usually differ in so many things can group together under one banner. They can group together to bring benefit to their identity group, or they can group together to fight off threats. From the discussion, it became clear to me why people are willing to go to extremes for reasons that may be incomprehensible to others. For example, it is easy to understand why people of various racial and cultural origins are willing to die under the banner of one unifying religion. Once they group themselves into the religious group, and define their identity as Christians / Muslims / Buddhists / etc, rather than Malay or Persian or Arab or British or American or whatever, they will be willing to do whatever is necessary to protect that “self-identity”. The thesis is, people seek a unifying factor that defines themselves into specific identity groupings. If that identity is threatened, a reaction will result. Different individuals view the world differently and they seek to define themselves according to this worldview. If they feel their racial origin is important, then they will react if their race is belittled. If they define themselves by their profession, they will react if that profession is under threat. It is similar if they define themselves according to religion. One comment made in last night’s discussion was that, as a marker of identity, religion is unique in that it transcends geographical, ethnicity and cultural boundaries. Many people are willing to die for their religion, but not that many are willing to die for their race, language, profession, culture, etc. Only religion can consistently unite people who are otherwise very different. I suppose this is why, in commenting to one of Abidin’s postings, I said that I am not too bothered if the Malay culture, or the Malay race for that matter, is lost. I am not that attached to the Malay culture. I am indifferent when it comes to being a Malay or a Chinese or a Tibetan or a Red Indian or an Afro-Caribbean. Issues of race just do not matter to me. Instead, I prefer to go straight to the very factor that makes Malays proud to be Malays. If we look at the Malay archipelago, stretching from Pattani and Acheh to the Philippines, we Malays are proud of our Islamic history. Acheh, Pattani, Malacca, parts of the Philippines, were all once centres of Islamic learning. It is Islam that makes us who we are, not our race. Our pride to being Malay stems from our primordial instinct that we were once part of the glorious empire of Islam. Thus, does Malay-ness matter? My answer is no. What really counts is our way of life - Islam. Being a Muslim is much more important than being a Malay. Without Islam, no one knows where the Malays would be.

Back online

New laptop arrived today. Will be back online as soon as I can get used to the smaller keyboard and screen. A bit tedious at this early stage.....