Cameron for Prime Minister

The Conservatives leadership contest is coming to a close in less than two weeks. I had the opportunity to listen to both candidates several times in the past few weeks. I even went for dinner with David Davis. In terms of content, policies and presentation, I prefer David Davis. I think he knows what he is talking about, and he successfully presented himself as a sincere politician who wants to fight for the less fortunate. His policy plans are clear and he did not hesitate to comment on controversial issues, even when he knows his comments may be unpopular in some quarters. Davis is the type of politician whom you can describe as “what you see is what you get”. He spins less and he is straightforward. As someone who much prefers straightforward politics unadulterated by spin, I naturally lean towards Davis. I like the fact that he said politics is about “selling what is right to the public”. But unfortunately society has been too much influenced by the media. The most important qualification if you want to lead the country nowadays is your “media-savvy-ness”. It doesn’t matter what changes you are promoting, you just have to present yourself well to the media and they will do the rest. It doesn’t matter if your policies are not clear, you just have to say you want to gauge what the public wants first, and the media seems to like that. Politics is no longer about ensuring what-you-see-is-what-you-get. It is now about politicians ensuring what-the-public-wants-to-see-is-what-they-will-get. It is about spin. And all credits must go to David Cameron in this case. He is excellent in dealing with the media. He put Paxman in his rightful place. He told the public he will not present detailed policies, not because he does not have them yet, but because he wants to find out what the public wants first. (What an excellent campaign material!!! I will only tell you what you want to hear, and because of that I cannot say anything until I have measured what it is that you want). He is young. He is charismatic. He is also aggressive at times, which is very good. In short, he is the type of person who is able to bring the Conservatives to victory in the next election, when I suspect the media will play an even bigger role in influencing the public. Thus, although I personally prefer Davis, only Cameron will bring victory to the party. Cameron must become our next leader.

Desperately Seeking Paradise

Title: Desperately Seeking Paradise: journeys of a sceptical Muslim Author: Ziauddin Sardar Publisher: Granta Books, London Year: 2005 Pages: 354 This excellent book was written by a man with many critics. Those who do not yet know why Sardar attracts criticism will soon find out, as the book provides a glimpse of how he envisions his “Muslim society”. Beginning with his early life in Britain, Sardar goes on to tell what made him what he is – a Muslim who is willing and able to question his own beliefs, not for the sake of questioning per se, but in the hope of coming out with better answers. It tells a story of a man going through journeys, and how each journey is not just physical or geographical, but also a journey of mind and soul. Not every Muslim will be happy to read Sardar. I too had some difficult times accepting some of what he wrote. His scepticism about the suitability of syari’ah in present time will make some people squirm. Others will be upset to hear him say the Prophet would have shaven his beard if razor blades were available to him. But to do so is to lose sight of the bigger picture. A picture about how the journey to paradise is full of ups and downs, may at times be distressing, and not simply be black-or-white. I may not agree with everything he says, but the book is certainly thought-provoking and not at all “preachy”, which makes it an excellent read. Sardar has somewhat successfully outlined his vision in this book. But I believe his vision will meet many obstacles before becoming reality, if at all. And that is me talking as a Muslim reader. .

The end of multiculturalism

This sounds good. I have booked a ticket. .

Spot on, Sayuti!

Mohd Sayuti Omar wrote recently that PAS must not forget "akhbar nyamuk". I have this big urge to add several other things, several more people, and several more entities that some in the current PAS leadership seem to have forgotten about. (Perhaps the right phrase is not "have forgotten about" but should be "chose to ignore"). But something inside me is telling me to hold back a bit longer. Should I? Shouldn't I? Isk..... Bila susah semua orang dipeluk dan didakap. Bila beroleh sedikit kuasa, atau bila mula "rasa macam berkuasa", habis semua ditendang. Is that human nature or is it just politicians?

Multinationals, business and Islam

The Ethics in the Workplace seminar organised by IBE on 24 October 2005 with David Logan was excellent. I have heard a lot about IBE as well as about David Logan, and the seminar confirmed my belief that both are doing some very important work in promoting ethical business practices. Having listened to David and others at the seminar, three things came to my mind. Firstly, I am rather perplexed to hear the suggestion that religion generally is sceptical of business. I have always thought that religion in general advocates the right – or even the necessity – of man to work and to rid himself of hardship and poverty. For example, both Islam and Protestant Work Ethics promote hard work and discourage dependence on help from others. I am sure if we go through the basic tenets of other religions we will find teachings in similar spirit. Secondly, the observation that Islam is very accepting of business is certainly true. The Prophet Muhammad himself was involved in trade and his first wife was also a very successful businesswoman. While many call Adam Smith the father of economics, I would suggest we read texts by Ibn Khaldun, a great Muslim sociologist and economist, who advocated free-market economics 300 years before Smith. If we look at the works of Ibn Khaldun, we will discover that Islam embeds ethics as an integral part of the economic system. In Islam, businesses too must flourish if the nation’s economy were to grow. But at the same time, businesses have to be ethical, for otherwise the managers will face the consequence. And even if they escape “worldly” consequences of unethical business practices, they will definitely not be able to avoid Allah’s judgement in the hereafter. Thus, in Islam, even in the absence of pressure groups or NGOs promoting ethical business practices, businesses must still be socially responsible because God is the ultimate advocate of CSR! In contrast to Smith’s assertion that CSR is an unintentional by-product of self-interested quests, Islam makes no distinction between CSR and profitability. Both are important and neither can be put above the other. And in contrast to Adam Smith, Ibn Khaldun did not just advocate free-market economics. He outlined the basic principles of ethical free-market economics. Thirdly is the issue of imperialism. I believe the constant repetition of issues like emancipation of women is influenced by how we look at imperialism. In the seminar, someone mentioned that capitalists have changed their attitude - capitalists no longer have anything to do with imperialistic agenda. I too believe that physical / political imperialism is not a motivating factor for capitalists nowadays. Nevertheless, when discussing imperialism, many Muslims do not talk just about political / physical occupation. But they worry about ethical imperialism. An imperialism in which an external power – be it a foreign government or a foreign multinational - forces an alien set of values onto the Muslim society. I think the refusal to accept foreign values is not unique to the Muslim world. Let me illustrate by using the example of dress-code. In Islam, women should cover themselves from head to toe, exposing only the face and palms. This is interpreted differently across culture – there are variations between women’s attire in Malaysia and in Iran, for example. If a multinational from the UK opens a branch in Jeddah, should they say that Muslim women should do away with the hijab under the guise of women emancipation? Or should they respect the local culture and encourage women to abide by their religious belief? Just imagine the reverse. Here in the UK, women wear differently from in Saudi Arabia. What would we say if a multinational from Jeddah opens a branch in London and starts telling all female staff regardless of their religion to put on the hijab? If a western company can impose their beliefs onto a society in a different country, how will we react if companies from that country start imposing their values onto the western society? Surely even we in the West will reject ethical imperialism. When going into a society with a totally different set of values, multinationals should respect the cultural differences. Yes, there are some values that are universal like integrity, honesty and social responsibility. But in everything else, universality of values is questionable. The answer lies in ethical relativism, not ethical imperialism. .

Iraq and Malaya

So, Tonbridge has a new headmaster. Well, not so new actually. He started at the beginning of this term. I am typing this while listening to his short first speech at the school. Sounds alright so far. Anyway, there was another good programme on Radio 4 last Tuesday. Intriguingly, it compares the conflict in Iraq with the communist insurgence in Malaya in 1951. The programme argued that there are many similarities between the two situations. Both involved insurgency based on imported ideologies (communism from China and terrorism from Al-Qaeda). Both involved the struggle by the British to enforce democracy. And several more similarities that you will be able to pick up if you listen to the programme. The one that attracted my attention was when Jamie Zubairi, a London-based Malaysian actor, read a letter written by Lord Montgomery to describe the situations in Malaya. Lord Montgomery said that the conflict in Malaya was a conflict between democracy and communism, east and west, and Christianity and evil. Our secondary school history lessons never mentioned anything about the British occupation of Malaysia as "religious". But there you go... There are many more interesting points discussed in the programme. Click here to listen. If the programme has been moved by BBC, just use the "Listen Again" facility to find Long View, aired on Tuesday 1 Nov 2005 at 9.00 am.