Spring Forum

I am attending the Conservative Spring Forum in Manchester next weekend. There will be discussions on social entrepreneurship and the importance of civil society, two topics which I am very keen about. It should be interesting.

Want to get a headache?

To those readers who, like me, believe that PAS is the one and only harakah Islamiyah in Malaysia, I want to challenge your brain a bit. Fikrah is of utmost importance to us. I suppose this is not just for the pro-PAS student groups. The likelihood is, all groups take the issue of fikrah seriously. After all, fikrah defines the group. I first got involved with PAS because I believe it is the only party that can improve Malaysia. That understanding slowly evolves into the belief that PAS is the one and only harakah Islamiyah in Malaysia. There are certain criteria that need to be fulfilled if you want to call yourself a harakah Islamiyah. No other group but PAS fulfils all. Other groups are jamaah Islamiyah, but not harakah Islamiyah. So, since being in a harakah Islamiyah is a religious obligation, in the Malaysian context, being a member of PAS is also an obligation. That is the belief that I still subscribe. That does not mean I deny the importance of ABIM and JIM. Each of these two has their own important role. I just do not see them as a harakah Islamiyah. But I do wonder if the belief I hold is also the belief held by PAS’ own leadership. For something to be the fikrah of the jamaah, surely the leaders must also subscribe to it. If an issue is still under debate, then what right do we have to say that one opinion is right and the other is wrong? Until the central committee makes a stance, surely the issue is open for discussion. And if the issue is not even discussed at the highest level, under whose authority is it that we make such claim? If my belief is put to all of the PAS central committee members, and the committee members of the Wings in PAS, will they agree with me that PAS is the one and only harakah Islamiyah in Malaysia? On PAS’ website, there are 35 people listed as AJK PAS Pusat. Surely if you want to see the purest form of fikrah, it will be at the highest level. Will people like Tuan Guru Hj Abdul Hadi, Hj Husam Musa, Dr Hassan Ali, Dato’ Kamarudin Jaffar, Dr Mohd Hatta Ramli, Dr Lo’lo Ghazali, Ustaz Mujahid Yusof Rawa, Ir Amiruddin Hamzah, Dr Rosli Yaakop and Dr Zulkifli Ahmad agree that that is the fikrah of PAS? Or will they just say that my fikrah is so stuck in the 1980s? Of course some will say that the texts above are signs of confusion. My question to these people is, who is confused? Me? Or the PAS leaders? Or you?

All men are born free...

Islam frees mankind. Islam unshackles. Islam liberates. But why is it that many Muslims prefer not to use their minds, and rely on the opinions of a select few instead? Why voluntarily dispose the freedom to choose? Why voluntarily discard the right to make decisions? Why chain ourselves with rigid dogma? Rousseau said "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains". Why voluntarily create the chains?

Let the price go up.

Petrol price in Malaysia rose by 30 sen recently. The government says the hike results from a reduction in subsidy and tax reliefs. Malaysians protest. They demand a reduction in petrol price. They want more subsidies. I have a different view. I agree with the reduction in petrol subsidies. And, therefore, I think the price hike is inevitable. The protests are directed at the wrong target. The reduction in subsidy is good. It is a step towards the right direction – viz. allowing the market to determine the correct price. Subsidies distort the market and any actions eliminating market distortion is good. The protests should have been aimed at the stagnant or inadequate increase in household income. There is a serious need to redouble efforts to bring up our household income. It would be better if income rises in proportion to increases in living costs, and all subsidies are reduced. People would be generally better off. Petrol prices would be at the correct level. Petronas would be able to make as much profit as they can. Government would earn more corporate taxes and would be less burdened by subsidy commitments, thus resulting in less need to tax people. And once again, people would be better off. Virtuous cycle!!!

The missing link

When dealing with development, the resources of domestic private sector – their funds, technical skills, core competencies, products and physical assets - are yet to be fully unleashed. The focus is almost always on multinationals. The United Nations’ Global Compact is subscribed mainly by multinationals, and, in June 2005, the UN Global Compact Office declared that it will focus on companies operating transnationally. Other efforts too mainly focus on international businesses including One World Trust’s Global Accountability Framework, Global Reporting Initiatives and International Business Leaders Forum. In most developing countries, the private sector is made up mainly of small businesses. The majority of investments in developing countries are from domestic sources[1]. The domestic private sector too is concerned about the state of education, health system, human rights, good infrastructure, security, national stability and good governance in their own countries. Well-educated and healthy employees working and living in a safe community are necessary for any businesses to operate, let alone to prosper. Nevertheless, very little is done specifically to look at how the domestic private sector can strategically assist in development. Effective dialogues between businesses and civil society rarely take place at grassroot levels although that is the level where most work takes place. There is no long-term, focused effort to ensure private sector and civil society on the ground share a platform to discuss important matters of common concern, especially social development and citizen empowerment. It has been explained above that private sector’s potentials are yet to be fully unleashed. However, since development and social works are traditionally the domains of the civil society, constructive engagement between the two sectors is imperative. In Malaysia, owners of small and medium sized companies cite government officials as the main culprit. Almost everything is politicized. If Company A wants to work with NGO B, Company A must firstly ensure NGO B is not “black-listed” by any government departments. Otherwise, Company A may not get any government contracts anymore. There is another problem that must also be mentioned. Yes, maybe there are officials who abuse their positions. But businesses’ dependence on government contracts is also an issue. As long as the private sector does not become a proper “private” sector, they will always be at the mercy of corrupt officials. It is the businesses who must firstly free themselves. Being entrepreneurial is a good first step. The next step is to break their dependence on the state. Then only the private sector will be free to work with whomever they wish. [1] DFID and the Private Sector: working with the private sector to eliminate poverty. British Department for International Development. December 2005.