GREAT MINDS THINK

Silence

2006-06-01T22:27:00.000+01:00

Apologies for the long silence. It has been very busy recently. The address www.wansaiful.com will be directed to a different page as soon as we decide when to start campaigning. This blog will remain but the address will change to provolution.wordpress.com. In fact, it may better if provolution.wordpress.com is used from now onwards to access the blog.

Keep up the momentum

2006-05-06T20:40:00.000+01:00

What an excellent election outcome for the Conservatives! A significant increase in the number of councillors nationwide. More councils are now under Conservative control. And Labour was kicked down to third place in terms of their share of votes!!!

Calling up 200+ candidates on Wednesday was worth it after all!!!

The outcome is proof that David Cameron’s message is getting through to people on the ground. The message sent out from head office was positive and forward-looking. No negative campaigning. No smearing. It was, simply, good.

What made it better was the emphasis on local associations running their own show in their own areas. The only big issue put forward from central office was the environment - all councils have responsibility for clean and green environment. But local associations have the freedom to decide what issues they want to campaign on. They know their areas better. They should be trusted to run their own campaign as they see fit. This resulted in activists in Trafford campaigining on very different issue from those in South Bedfordshire or Chorley. While Labour was mired in problems they created themselves, and while the LibDems were (and still is) struggling to decide why they exist at all, Conservatives' activists were motivated and their campaigns were well-targetted. Luton’s local council election is next year. We are now still in the process of selecting candidates, and my selection panel is this Friday. I have put my name forward as a potential candidate and will attend the selection panel on Friday.

Luton Borough Council has 48 councillors. Currently, we have 21 Liberal Democrat, 20 Labour, 3 independents, and 4 Conservative councillors. The LibDems control the Council Executives (i.e.: the cabinet), but the Conservatives have relatively strong say due to the council not being under the LibDems’ overall control. The aim next year is to significantly increase the number of seats, and we are targeting quite a few wards. We cannot be complacent. The task ahead is huge, especially in multicultural boroughs like Luton. Let us hope the momentum created in this election will remain until next year.

What an exciting day!

2006-05-02T23:05:00.000+01:00

My first day at the Conservatives Research Department today. An extremely good day! Officially, I am on the DTI team. But the work (even on the first day) is very varied. I can’t go into the details for confidentiality reasons, but suffice to say that my longer term responsibility is to assist with policy on social enterprise. But I also had a look into nuclear policy and the party’s stand on Hamas. On top of that, I helped coordinate the intelligence gathering process for the local elections, and did some work that may be useful in tomorrow’s Prime Minister’s Question. If there is time, which I don’t think there will be, I may go out campaigning tomorrow.

Why Conservatives?

2006-04-30T20:12:00.000+01:00

I had a (very) long telephone conversation last night about why Conservatives, and not Labour. My decision is based on the answer to one question: "Which party is best for Britain?" If you compare this, this and this, I think it is obvious that smaller state, greater trust and freedom to the people (to look after local services, the environment, the local community, etc) lower taxation, and stronger economy will bring the most benefits to everyone living in this country. I was repeatedly asked why not the LibDems? They were the one who went all out to oppose the Iraq invasion. My answer to this question is, I do not support a party based on just one decision they may have made. To argue that everyone must go with the LibDems just because of their policy on Iraq is extremely short-sighted. And then there was the compulsory question "Isn't Labour more friendly to the Muslims?". To that question, my answer is that being friendly to Muslims is not necessarily being friendly to Islam, nor does it imply that they are doing the right thing. Muslims and Islam are two different entities. Do not confuse the two terms for Muslims are not necessarily Islamic (should I give an example of how a Muslim can use Islam as a veil for devious behaviour?).

No to New Casino in Luton

2006-04-25T00:35:00.000+01:00

I have been following news on how Luton Borough Council plans to redevelop the former Vauxhall site (Napier’s Park). I was alarmed to learn that the Council is considering opening a large casino there. I am most disappointed to learn that the Liberal Democrat Council Executives have already submitted an application to the Department of Culture, Media and Sports back in March 2006. A new large casino will only create more social problems to Luton, Dunstable and nearby areas. More casinos will obviously lead to more gambling, which in turn will increase the risk of addiction to gambling. Should this proposal proceed, there will almost definitely be other associated problems like broken families, debt-related depression, and many more. There are already two casinos in Luton, in addition to several betting shops. Surely these are enough. We do not need a new large casino. The Liberal Democrat councillors tried to justify the new large casino by saying that it will create job opportunities for Luton. They played down the risks of crime and anti-social behaviour. I attended the Council Executive meeting yesterday. When asked what research they have done to investigate the potential social impacts, Cllr Franks (Council Leader) said that social implications of the project will only be considered when they receive a proper casino license application. Surely they should have conducted a proper study before submitting any application to central government! And I simply do not understand why they limit the potential impacts to just crime and anti-social behaviour. Do they not realize that gambling-related problems are more varied than that? The Council must withdraw the application immediately. I am now organizing a petition to that effect, to support one that was lodged by Salvation Army and the Methodist Church. If you are from Luton / Dunstable and would like to join my campaign, please drop me an email at ws@wansaiful.com

St George

2006-04-24T15:37:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, Sunday 23 April, was St George's Day.

I went to the St George's Day Festival in Luton, which was a rather small do, with shows mainly for children. We should have had a bigger celebration to commemorate the life of this great man.

Excerpt from April 2006 Emel Magazine:

"St George was born in Cappadocia, in modern day Turkey to an army soldier and a mother from Lydda, now known as Lod in Palestine. After his father's death, George's mother took her infant son back to her home town of Lydda where he grew up to serve as an officer in the Roman army, like his father before him. When ordered by a pagan ruler, the Emperor Diocletian, to pay tribute to Roman gods, he refused and faced prolonged periods of torture - in some stories as long as seven years, ending with a gruesome death: sliced in half and beheaded...

... George's death occurred around the fourth century AD, some 300 years before the last prophet of Islam completed the Message of God to His creation with the Qur'an. Thus as a true follower of monotheism Muslims regard him as dying in a state of submission to the One Creator. Or in Arabic - of dying in a state of Islam"

Don't get over-excited.

2006-04-20T21:37:00.000+01:00

I said in my previous post that recent events taught me two valuable lessons, viz.:

1. before you decide whom to trust, think carefully.

2. if you want to be evil, put on a religious mask. It is the best disguise ever. The entry generated many comments, some of which are rather irresponsible. Quite a few people are a bit over-excited. I am now deleting that entry and all associated comments. Move on lah…

On trust

2006-04-10T01:04:00.000+01:00

David Cameron spoke about the importance of trust in the recent Conservative Spring Forum. A good friend of mine also spoke about trust when I last saw him. I am contemplating a post about my experience with the "trust" issue. I have an interesting experience with "trust" but I am not sure if I should post it. Give me another one or two nights.

Conservative Spring Forum

2006-04-08T22:48:00.000+01:00

Just got back from the Spring Forum in Manchester. Just one line for now: "The fire of hope is burning bright once again"

Muslims can be evil too.

2006-04-02T16:59:00.000+01:00

I had a very interesting discussion earlier today. Someone called me to ask why I organise events / circles / usrah that focus almost totally on “Western” ideas. The phrase used was “konsep Barat yang terlampau” (extreme Western concepts?). Why do I not bring in Islamic concept. I have two problems with this statement. First, what is “extreme Western concepts”?. Secondly, since when do we separate things into Islamic and Western? Is this not the basis of secularism? Labelling one chapter of knowledge as Islamic, while the other as “Western”? Then it dawned onto me that the guy was actually talking about the references I use. I prefer to use texts produced by the likes of the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute. Rather than quoting Hayek and Smith, he preferred if I quote from some Arabic names. What an idiotic argument!!! I refuse to divide knowledge into Islamic and Western. I refuse to be secular. If Arabic words are taken to be more Islamic than “Western” ones, it would be extremely easy to fool us Muslims. If I quote from an Arab name like Ibn Waraq, would he believe me more? And, Arab / Malay names, qualifications in Islamic studies or knowledge of Islam are not necessarily indications of piety / taqwa. Some Muslims, under the guise of their previous education in Islamic studies, are far more evil than the crooks and thieves out there. At least when thieves steal, they do not use religious arguments to justfify the theft. But some Muslims shamelessly use their knowledge of Islam to justify their evil deeds.

Spring Forum

2006-03-31T17:48:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-03-26T00:22:00.000Z

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...

2006-03-20T17:19:00.000Z

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.

2006-03-11T02:46:00.000Z

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

2006-03-10T19:38:00.002Z

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.

Shock. Shock. Horror. Horror.

2006-02-26T18:56:00.000Z

My job at Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit (CPSU) is becoming very exciting. Initially there was a lot of reading to do. It was not easy trying to learn about the whole Commonwealth and its agencies in a very short time. And over the last two weeks, things became even more exciting. I have met with top officials from the Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth Secretariat, International Business Leaders Forum, Institute of Business Ethics, World Bank, Commonwealth Business Council etc. And that is not to mention people from some major companies like British American Tobacco, Shell, Barclays, etc. Work-wise, all are going extremely well. On the other hand, last week I was asked a question I have been expecting for quite a while. The question was, what is PAS’ stance if its member joins a British political party that is not based on Islamic principles. And, as expected, a clause was quoted from PAS’ constitution as thus: “Seseorang ahli PAS boleh berhenti atau diberhentikan daripada menjadi ahli apabila memohon atau mengisytiharkan diri keluar daripada PAS, dipecat atau menyertai mana-mana parti politik lain” Hmmm…. I say these are expected because for years, we all have been trained to believe in central command and control (under the pretext of al-wala' and 'amal jama'i) to an extent that it is unthinkable for anyone to do things that have not been prescribed centrally. The notion that individuals have an inherent right to choose is alien to many who grew up in the more "traditional" system of Islamic movement education. But I think I am going to let those who ask, continue asking. I do not yet have the time to write about this "not-based-on-Islamic-principles" issue. (Although I do intend to write something on this topic in the future). The things that are really buzzing in my mind are: 1. if someone has decided that he will stay outside Malaysia for an extended period, why should he stay as a member of PAS? 2. is it appropriate to create a community of PAS members in the UK? Is this not another case of self-segregation which is slowly destroying plural Britain? 3. what can be done to address the issue of Malaysians living in the UK but remaining ignorant of British realities? The "not-based-on-Islamic-principles" argument can only be expected and is a symptom of utter ignorance. I am also keen to see how far these people will go in trying to get me expelled from PAS. Go for it, guys!!! I wonder what colour they will turn into if they know that from 1 May 2006, I will start at the Conservative Research Department (shock! horror!) working on trade and industry policies (gasp!). Don’t forget to breathe, chaps, otherwise you will turn even greener. Apologies for the wikipedia link. I know wikipedia is not that reliable. But it is a reasonable place to start.

Disappointing

2006-02-19T20:02:00.000Z

The second picture in this report is disappointing. It shows political immaturity. Some actions may be politically popular. But they are not necessarily right.

I love fish

2006-02-12T01:01:00.000Z

The trout. The whole trout. Nothing but the trout. So help me cod. .

Freedom?

2006-02-07T12:38:00.000Z

Looking at what has been happening over the last few days, I must say that I am very disappointed because some Muslims (over)reacted right on cue. Yes, the publication of those pictures of the prophet was wrong and must be condemned. But the (over)reaction of some Muslims must be condemned too. We Muslims in the West must appreciate that we live in a society that does not (yet) subscribe to our code of moral conduct. We must not impose our values to those who are not even Muslims. I condemn the depiction of the prophet as a terrorist because I believe it is an abuse of freedom. Freedom must not be knowingly used to offend others. But I will not say that they have no right to publish such pictures, for indeed they do. The papers have the right to publish the pictures, just a much as Muslims have the right to protest. But the newspapers should not have published the pictures because they know it will spark a huge row, just like Muslims should not have behaved the way they did because it will make matters worse. People have the right to sin, but does that mean they should sin? No. They should not. And the way Anjem Choudry behaved in last night's Newsnight was even more disgraceful. But Tariq Ramadhan's comments are excellent. I agree that what we need continous intra-community dialogue in Muslim communities. Islam, and Muslim organizations, must be seen as a broad church (or should I say a broad mosque?) encapsulating diverse schools of thought. If one Muslim cannot tolerate the opinion of another Muslim, what hope do we have that opinions of non-Muslims can be appreciated?

Of offensive cartoons

2006-02-02T23:26:00.000Z

For the first time in my life, I applaud the Hizb at-Tahrir rep on Newsnight tonight. He was eloquent, and his points were direct and truthful. But who the heck is that Munira what-ever-her-surname-was? Rubbish. As for the editor who insists on printing offensive pictures under the pretext of freedom of speech, I wonder what they would say if someone prints a picture of a dog shagging his mother (wait until his mother is dead to avoid libel action), also under the pretext of freedom of speech? Apologies for my outburst. But freedom brings with it responsibilities. These blatant abuse of freedom by some idiotic editors will only make it more difficult for the concept of individual liberty to be accepted in the Muslim world.

Tariq Ramadhan in LSE

2006-02-02T23:09:00.000Z

Last week Tariq Ramadhan gave a talk to the City Circle on the need for a “feminist movement” in the Muslim community but I was then in Granada. But last Monday, at last I managed to attend a talk by him at the LSE. The talk was entitled Muslim Democrats in the West and Democratisation in the Muslim World: prospects for engagement. I came out from the talk with these thoughts: - Democracy has six main principles: 1) rule of law; 2) equal citizenship; 3) universal suffrage; 4) accountability; 5) separation of power; and 6) distinction between public life and private life. - It is not possible to compare “models” of democracy between nations. The above six principles are perhaps universal, but the way they are implemented may differ. So, one nation cannot be directly compared to the other. - The concept of maqasid al-shariah (purpose of shariah) was formulated hundreds of years ago. Perhaps it is time for the concept to be looked at again? And Prof Ramadhan stated that he believes more should be added to the existing list of five purposes. - Compared to many other Muslim majority countries, many elements of the maqasid al-shariah are better achieved in the West. Several examples were given. - According to Abu Hanifah, a Dar al-Islam is one in which a Muslim feels safe to worship and practise Islam. If we were to use Abu Hanifah’s view, then would you say Britain is a Dar al-Islam, or Egypt? - Many Muslims are obsessed with the Middle East and ignore domestic issues. Many seems to feel that Palestine is the root cause of Muslim problems – if the Palestine issue is resolved, then all predicaments facing Muslims will be resolved too. - Prof Ramadhan believes that Palestine is not the cause of problems. Rather, it is the symptom, the outcome, of other unresolved issues. - Muslims cannot continue to blame the West for their predicaments. The Muslims themselves are part of the problem. The West is doing something to resolve the Middle East problem. But what are the Arab countries doing? What are being done by other Muslim countries? - Muslims in the West must stop seeing themselves, or asking to be treated as, ethnic minorities. We should see ourselves as equal citizens, no more and no less. Any attempts at self-segregation (eg: faith schools!!!) must be avoided. Throughout his lecture, Prof Ramadhan kept referring to a set of “Western values” and a different set of “Islamic values”. He seems to suggest that somewhere in the middle the two value systems overlap, and he calls that the “common universal values”. I have a slight problem with this notion. What happen to “And We did not send you (Muhammad) other than as rahmah to the whole universe”?

Granada and Cordoba

2006-01-29T01:29:00.000Z

I just arrived back from a short break in Granada and Cordoba. The first thing I have to say is, unless you are absolutely confident how to drive on the other side of the road, DON’T drive in Spain! It is very confusing and extremely awkward. ***** It is very interesting to see the differences between Muslim and Christian architecture in Granada. Muslim architecture seems to place more emphasis on the internal design while Christian architecture emphasizes the external. Alhambra, the showcase of Muslim architecture in Granada, is extremely beautiful in the inside. The external walls of Alhambra are pretty plain. It was obvious that the walls around the Alhambra were built mainly for defence purposes. Even the walls of buildings inside Alhambra are pretty plain too. But as you step inside any of the Muslim-built buildings inside Alhambra, you will realise how detailed and intricate the architecture is. Everything seems to have a meaning. The ceiling design in some rooms in Palacio Nazari depicts the layers of the heaven. Water is used in Generalife and throughout Alhambra to produce a sense of calm and added space. Things are arranged in a way to illustrate the oneness of the Creator. The walls have detailed engravings of poems or verses of the Quran. Windows are placed strategically to ensure rooms are well-lit. And many more. But buildings built by Christians after the reconquista are very different. The Palacios de Carlos V was magnificent externally but the inside was not even completed fully by Carlos V. There was a building in Jardines de Partal (I can’t remember the name of the building) which was also empty apart from the ceilings that has PLVS OVLTRE engraved on the wood panellings. Outside Alhambra, the Catedral is impressive from the outside - the statues, etc were magnificient. But inside it was just a bare collection of chapels. The chapels are well-decorated but the Catedral itself was disappointing and dark. The central area of the Catedral was literally empty if not for the massive organ. I noticed similar differences in Cordoba too. The Mezquita’s external is very simple. Just plain wall with some engravings. But the inside was exquisite. The arches, the pillars, the mihrab and many more were simply beautiful. But walk next door to Alcazar de los Reyes Cristianos and you will notice the difference again. The inside of the whole of Alcazar was nowhere near the beauty of the Mezquita. Were it not for the Moorish decorations and Muslim inspired garden, I think it would be a boring building. ***** When the Muslim ruler first built Mezquita in Cordoba, they did so for a very good purpose. They needed a proper centre for their civilization. Once the Mezquita (and Cordoba) was relatively complete, successive rulers felt the need to build new cities. Hence the birth of Madinah Al-Zahraa to the west of Cordoba and Madinah Al-Zahiraa (exact location still unknown). These latter two townships were built mainly because successive rulers felt the need to leave a legacy by building a new township. In real sense, there was no need for either one because Cordoba was doing just fine. Interestingly, only Cordoba (and Mezquita) survived until today. Madinah Al-Zahiraa was completely ruined such that any remnants are yet to be found. Only ruins of Madinah Al-Zahraa can be found now. But Mezquita, despite now having become a church, still stands in its majesty. Concrete evidence (literally) that things built or done for superficial purposes will not stand the test of time, but those that were done for a purpose will last. ***** Flamenco is not that interesting. I went to see a show in what was apparently the second best place to see Flamenco in Granada (it was in Sacromonte). It started at 9.00 pm and finished at around 11.00 pm. Two women took turns to dance, a fat man played the guitar, and an even fatter man yowled in Spanish. For 20 euros, it was a waste of money. ***** Whoever it was that planted so many orange trees around Granada, I would suggest they get the sweeter variety. What they have now are very sour. Believe me. I tried one. ***** All in all, I think the trip was very good. Both Granada and Cordoba are beautiful cities and well-worth a visit. The public transport was excellent. Food was good too and Albaicin was littered with halal restaurants. People are generally very helpful, despite me not knowing Spanish. I would recommend both cities to anyone.

Race and Religion II

2006-01-28T16:30:00.000Z

Apologies for the long silence. Been very busy lately and was away for a week. I want to reply to Failasuf's comments on my last post. 1) Chinese dominance of trade and business - and their racist selectivity in conducting business Response: I have no problems with people of any particular race being economically successful. Good businessmen deserve to prosper regardless of their race or religion. By ensuring their businesses are successful, they contribute to the economic wellbeing of the country by creating jobs and economic growth. But with regards to the "racist selectivity", I think it is unfair to label just the Chinese as racist. Why do people of other ethnicity refuse to go to shops run by those of a different race? Here in the UK, it never occured to me to not go to any particular shop because the owner is of this or that race. If anything, both the shopkeepers and the consumers in Malaysia are selective and both have to change. Blaming anyone is not the way forward. 2) The outflow of wealth from Muslim hands to non-muslim hands (due to meritocracy and equal distribution of opportunity and wealth to all citizens) Response: Again, I do not see any problems with this statement. If the sellers are all non-Muslims, then obviously the Muslims will have to spend money there. If this were to be avoided, then the Muslims must become successful economically. But then again, are we not all Malaysians? If so, what's the fuss? When wealth move from one person to another, we should start thinking that it is still flowing between Malaysians (if you want to ignore globalization). We have to one day stop thinking in "Muslim vs non-Muslim" or "Malay vs others" dichotomy. 3) Influx of secular materialistic influences from chinese/non-muslim controlled businesses such as ASTRO. Response: Well, once again, if anyone disagrees or dislikes what is happening, they should offer an alternative for free individuals to choose from. Unfortunately some of us are well-known for our ability to complain but have always failed to organise our efforts. We must learn to put up, or shut up. *** With regards to the morality issue, I hope every one of us can openly and honestly debate how Muslims and non-Muslims can live together without having to resort to the ethnicity divide. Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians, not for those of any particular race. And most importantly, Muslims cannot continue to refer to the texts written hundreds of years ago for the nitty gritty issues in our daily life. On the major principles of religion, yes. But not on the technical issues that may not exist in the past. The scholars of the past lived in a different environment and no one is free from environmental influence. We need new thinking in our fiqh mu'amalah.

Race and religion

2006-01-09T12:00:00.000Z

A group of friends came over yesterday and we had a good two hour discussion on race and religion in Malaysia. Issues covered were numerous. We reflected on how ethnicity heavily influenced Malaysian politics, how the ethnocentric pull dominates policies proposed by almost any Malaysian political parties, and the influence of ethnicity in PAS. A signifincant amount of time was spent on debating whether the rise of ulama' in PAS did actually transformed PAS into a religious-based party. History tells us that Dato Asri was dethroned by the ulama' camp because the ulama' disagreed with Dato Asri's nationalistic stance. But did the ulama' actually remove narrow-minded racism (ie: the struggle to represent just the Malays at the expense of the non-Malays) from PAS? We did not reach a solid conclusion but we agreed that, many times, ethnicity played a bigger role than religion even within PAS. I took the opportunity to ask if we can ever imagine PAS proposing to abolish bumiputera policy. As expected, nobody thinks PAS will ever make such a move. But on the other hand, everybody agreed that policies in favour of one race is unfair. The solution is meritocracy. Nobody doubted the need for meritocracy, but the question was how to get to that aim? We suggested that perhaps we do not need to abolish bumiputera-ism just yet. That would be political suicide. Meritocracy is the ideal, but we need to get there in stages. What we really need first is to ensure all Malaysians receive the help they need regardless of race. Thus, we need to develop a policy to help the non-Malays to complement the bumiputera policy. This additonal policy will enable everybody who needs help be helped regardless of the colour of their skin. Once both policies work in full swing, society will move towards equality, and at that stage, the bumiputera policy and its counterpart will naturally become obsolete.

Shahrir Samad in London

2005-12-30T15:29:00.000Z

Dato Shahrir Abdul Samad is a must-know name to observers of Malaysian politics. As Chair of BN Backbenchers’ Club and the Malaysian Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, it seems like he is always at ease to speak up his mind. I must say that among the many MPs, this is one BN MP who is a bit different from others. He once described his latest mission as “Dalam fasa ini, saya ingin menyumbangkan pengalaman saya untuk memulihkan kembali martabat ahli-ahli Parlimen biasa melalui kedudukan saya sebagai Pengurusi, Kelab Ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BNBBC) dan Pengurusi, Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (Public Accounts Committee atau PAC), berserta juga untuk membantu mengembalikan keutuhan Parlimen sebagai institusi penggubal undang-undang yang luhur.” Shahrir’s is a great agenda. He seems to talk my language of wanting to strengthen the parliament and of wanting MPs to speak up for their constituents without fear or favour. Coming from a BN MP, some of his ideas about parliamentary reforms are very exciting indeed. Knowing Malaysia and its parliament, and the huge challenges Shahrir will face, I was eager to hear his progress report. Shahrir’s talk in London on 18 December 2005 was an opportunity not to be missed. According to Shahrir:

1. He was in London to meet his counterparts in the British PAC. I think this must be Edward Leigh MP, the Conservative Chairman of British PAC. Shahrir wants to improve the effectiveness of his PAC and he wants to see if he can learn from the British PAC.

2. Malaysian voters elect MPs to parliament. MPs subsequently appoint the government. Thus, the institution with real mandate from the people is the parliament, not the government. There is a widespread misconception in Malaysia that our elections are to elect ‘the government’.

3. Since the parliament holds the real mandate from the people, the government needs to come back to parliament to be made accountable and to get their programmes approved.

4. It is not possible to totally split the parliament from the government. After all, the government itself is formed by people who are themselves parliamentarians and at the same time represent their parties. But it is possible to make the parliament more independent. (NB: Shahrir stressed the difference between total independence – which is not possible - with more independent – which is what he is working for. I concur with this view.)

5. Malaysian Parliament now is not independent enough. Even the Parliament’s budget is lumped together with that of the Prime Minister’s Dept.

6. Shahrir believes it is right for him, a BN MP, to be chairman of PAC. In Britain, the PAC’s chairman is usually from the opposition because it is possible for that one day he will become British Prime Minister. In Malaysia, it is more likely for him (Shahrir) to be the Prime Minister than the Leader of the Opposition. According to Shahrir, the Malaysian Leader of the Opposition has, and I quote, “no chance of becoming Prime Minister”.

7. Asked if it is in the interest of Malaysian democracy for the Opposition to be strengthened, Shahrir gave an ambiguous answer. To him, the fact that BN holds more than 90% of the seats is good and healthy for Malaysian democracy. It is only now that BN MPs are brave enough to speak up. It is only with such huge majority that BN MPs are comfortable to call the government to account.

8. If BN’s majority is reduced Shahrir said that, I quote, “we may become more tyrannical”. So, we must ensure BN’s majority, I quote, “gets bigger”. In short, as a reformer, he wants the parliament to be stronger. He wants the government to accountable to parliament. He wants MPs to really represent the people and ensure governmental transparency and accountability. For these reformist agenda, Shahrir must be applauded. But I also have one big concern about the philosophy idolized by Shahrir. It seems that he believes a good government can only be produced if one party holds a massive majority over the opposition. A strengthened opposition is not in the interest of Malaysia. A smaller BN majority will possibly result in a “tyrannical” government. A reduction of BN majority will produce a secretive government. According to Shahrir's logic, his reform to strengthen parliament is best achieved by ensuring BN wins even more seats. If we were to extrapolate, Shahrir’s most ideal situation is one in which there is no opposition MP and one party controls all the seats. The last time I checked, people who hold similar views to Shahrir - that it is best for one party to control all seats and that a strong opposition is not beneficial to the country - are leaders of the communist party in China.

Campaigning

2005-12-18T22:34:00.000Z

I went canvassing for the Conservatives yesterday. This was a new experience for me. Walking in the extreme cold knocking on doors and asking people if they have any local issues they want us to campaign for. Plus the compulsory "who did you vote for in the last election, and will you vote Conservatives this time?". The response was generally very positive. The local issues are pretty much the same. Transport, social cohesion and effective spending of tax-payers money. We will be out campaigning again on Tuesday. This time, we will try to catch the people who use the train to go to work. It will a 7am start at my local train station. Urgh...

Mr Governor

2005-12-14T01:02:00.000Z

Today I received official confirmation that I have been appointed as LEA Governor for a local school. Great. Some proper involvement in the local community from now onwards. Yours sincerely, The Governor.

An exciting chapter begins

2005-12-06T16:25:00.000Z

As expected, David Cameron is now the new leader of the Conservatives. He won by an overwhelming majority of more than 2:1. This victory gives him the mandate to implement the changes he has been calling for. The party needs a revamped image. No more of the arrogant, extreme right-wing image. We must be seen as the party of the future that belongs to all. A forward-looking, youthful and invigorated party. A party that is hungry for success and hungry to prove that we can fill that success by managing the country better. A party that will free the people from their dependency on the welfare state. A party that will lessen the size of the state, and a party that will enhance the importance, and the role, of society and individuals within the society. The first step towards achieving that image-change started yesterday. It started when George Osborne successfully portrayed Gordon Brown as a figure from the past who has been blocking the reforms the country needs. The better we can paint Labour as a party of the past, the more likely it will be that the public will see us as a government (eagerly) in waiting. And now Conservatives at all levels must respond to Cameron's call for change. At the local level, Associations must encourage the younger generation to take part in politics. The first step towards generating interest and commitment from the younger generation is by inviting them to join the party. But that invitation must be done with vigor, with enthusiasm and with passion. In my local association, we are taking part in a nationwide membership campaign. So, enough talking for now. I need to get ready to attend a meeting to discuss the membership drive. This will be exciting. Oh, by the way. Abidin, you need a hair-cut. I saw the top of your head in the middle of the crowd on the steps of the Royal Academy. You are turning into an un-blond Boris Johnson.

What's with the pseudonym?

2005-12-03T11:59:00.000Z

Browsing through the newsletters that arrived in the post this morning, I found a very interesting article. The author puts his name as something other than what I know him as. But it is a bit difficult to disguise yourself when your photo is published too, isn't it? The article is also available online. Check it out on page 12 here. ---------- Addendum: 9.30pm, Saturday 3 December 2005. Well, the link referred to above only worked until 9.20pm Saturday 3 Dec. Why? Because at 9.10pm the author called me, kindly asking me to delete the entry. Nevertheless, I shall retain the entry but remove the link. This shall be a (published) record of a totalitarian censorship. Where is the liberty in this world? You owe me dinner this time. :-)

Cameron for Prime Minister

2005-11-27T09:48:00.000Z

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

2005-11-24T15:23:00.000Z

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

2005-11-13T12:50:00.000Z

This sounds good. I have booked a ticket. .

Spot on, Sayuti!

2005-11-08T23:11:00.000Z

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

2005-11-05T16:13:00.000Z

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

2005-11-03T20:46:00.000Z

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.

Muslims must integrate

2005-10-31T23:13:00.000Z

The chairman of London's City Circle recently made the statement below, which I think is excellent: "The idea that Muslims need to rally under a Muslim banner on all issues has had its day. The idea that there needs to be a ‘Muslim’ viewpoint or a ‘Muslim’ response to every issue under the sun is simply nonsensical. If Muslims are concerned with foreign policy they should go join Amnesty International, if they have an issue with civil liberties they should go join Liberty. These are professional organisations, amongst many other mainstream bodies, that understand how the law works. Muslims should join mainstream bodies as fellow citizens, not just as Muslims." See the full text here.

Let's karaoke

2005-10-28T02:53:00.000+01:00

Hilarious

Opus Dei

2005-10-27T21:27:00.000+01:00

There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 about Opes Dei. Apparently Ruth Kelly is a member too. I have been reading a bit about this group and I think there are many things we can learn from it. If you want to listen to the programme, go to this site and search for a link in the "Listen Again" section. Look for the "Club Class" programme on Thursday 27 Oct at 20.00 p.m.

Comical Musa

2005-10-27T15:00:00.000+01:00

I read about Musa Hassan's statement on bangmat's. Apprently Musa said this: "We have laws in our country and everything we do is in accordance with the law. We don’t just go out there and detain anyone without any evidence or intelligence" Comical Ali, step aside. We have found a Malaysian replacement for your spot.

A busy week...

2005-10-27T13:44:00.000+01:00

This week is extremely busy. On Sunday I gave a short talk in London at an event organised by the Islamic Youth Force, the youth wing of Khilafat Majlis – the second biggest Bangladeshi Islamic movement. Nothing major… just some reflections on working as a da’i. On Monday I was at the Institute of Business Ethics seminar. Excellent discussion themed around “Islam and Business: Global Conflict and Cooperation”. The presentation was by David Logan of Corporate Citizenship Company. In the audience were some very senior executives from major multinationals and organizations. The event was done under Chatham House rule and therefore I will not disclose who said what. But suffice to say that the discussion was amazing! These senior executives were discussing about how best to operate in Muslim countries where there exist some very un-Islamic rules like preventing women from working, limiting women’s access to education, favouritism and cronyism, etc etc. When the customs and practises in a country do not go in line with corporate values, what should the company do? Should they comply with local customs, or should they play an active role and bring change? I came out from the seminar thinking “The attitudes of many capitalists have changed. Many have moved from mere colonialist mindset to a more ethical and socially responsible paradigm. But have the Muslims’ perception towards capitalists changed in anyway? Do we still view them as the enemy, or should we accept them as allies to bring change for the better?” Then on Wednesday, yesterday, I was at the National Liberal Club for a masterclass organised by MHC International. It was on CSR and the media. This too was an excellent event, with speakers like Roger Cowe, Michael Hastings, Adel Darwish and Jenny Dawkins, Ed Milner and Tobias Webb.

Many issues about the social responsibility of the media were raised:

Was it right for the media to hound Kate Moss when we all know that surely the fashion agencies have things to answer for too?
Is it ok for the BBC to put to slow death genres like serious documentary and drama when the license fee payers may benefit greatly from them?
How do journalists, especially the freelance ones, balance the need to ‘sell’ their stories with the need to report responsibly?
What are the latest CSR trends when it comes to the media?

But one thing for sure, I came out from the masterclass convinced that I was right to not read Daily Mail and to not rely on Sky News. This afternoon will be a trip to Nottingham for an evening programme with David Grayson.

Disastrous

2005-10-18T21:50:00.000+01:00

The outcome of the Tory leadership contest’s first ballot is disastrous. The only candidate who can bring the party back into power has been eliminated by Tory MPs. Now that Ken Clarke is out, we are left with David Davies, David Cameron and Liam Fox for the second round. I can see only two possible reasons why the MPs decided to not vote for Ken Clarke. One possibility is that the MPs are totally disconnected from the real world. Ken Clarke is by far the most popular candidate among the British public (see the BBC video on this link too). I suspect the majority of the MPs did not even consult their local associations before voting. They definitely need to more frequently get away from the Westminster village. There is a bigger world out there, you know. The other possibility is that the MPs have conceded defeat in the next general election and they feel that it is not worth even a try. Eliminating Ken Clarke is akin to supporting Brown for Prime Minister in 2008. Unless Clarke agrees to take up a very senior post under the new leader, New Labour can laugh all the way to the next general election. I must say that I am disappointed with the outcome. I am so disappointed to an extent that I feel like doing something about it. As a first step, I will accept the invitation from my local association’s vice-chairman to help out at the associations’ office. See where it goes from there… In any case, it looks more likely now that David Cameron will win. Good luck to him.

Malaysian managers and CSR

2005-10-11T23:49:00.000+01:00

If anyone is interested to get a bit more info on Malaysian managers' attitude towards corporate social responsibility, try this link.

Conservative leadership contest II

2005-10-11T17:44:00.000+01:00

Bravo, Sir Malcolm.

Business' role in society

2005-10-10T23:00:00.000+01:00

I met Robert Davies, CEO of the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), towards the end of July this year. Visibly tired from what must have been a long day, his face gleamed with enthusiasm when I asked him to tell me about the Tsunami Taskforce he is sending to India, Sri Lanka and Thailand in end August 2005. IBLF is an international educational charity founded by HRH The Prince of Wales. Originally established in 1990, its aim is to encourage businesses to become socially responsible particularly in new and emerging market economies. As an active network of businesses, its list of members and supporters is impressive. Among its members are global industry leaders like Accenture, the management and technology consulting firm; GlaxoSmithKline, the world leader in pharmaceutical industry; Vodafone, the world largest mobile telecommunication company; and Toyota Motor Corporation, the third largest auto-manufacturer in the world. As members of IBLF, all these companies made a commitment to continuously improve their business practice by enhancing dialogue with stakeholders and by making corporate social responsibility a strategic part of their worldwide operations. IBLF works by directing the attention of companies to what they can do to build social progress, and by facilitating cross-sector partnerships between businesses, the public and NGOs. In response to the disaster of the tsunami, IBLF immediately engaged with its corporate members to assess and identify how to react. IBLF's members initially committed over USD$40 million in aid for the region, as well as provided support for various relief efforts including provision of clean water, food distribution and medical assistance. Later, the IBLF published a management action brief outlining what businesses and their managers can do in the longer-term. The brief describes a three-phase framework of rescue, relief and recovery for responding to disasters. The brief argues that in the recovery phase, the question of sustaining long-term livelihoods will overtake many other needs and businesses have an important role to play. The local coastal economies will not be revived if business leaders do not take proactive actions, engage with relevant parties and work together to augment the recovery and rehabilitation of local communities. This is where the IBLF Tsunami Taskforce comes into action. Consisting of managers from various business interests, the taskforce will visit some of the areas struck by the tsunami. The good thing about this taskforce is, it will consist of business executives with different expertise, thus enabling them to look at the situation from a variety of perspectives. Their aim is to produce a report targeted at board-level audience to explain what roles businesses can play to ensure sustainable social and economic redevelopment of the region. India, Sri Lanka and Thailand are fortunate because they are receiving the attention of such an international coalition of businesses. But I wonder what is happening to the victims of the tsunami in Malaysia. Yes, they may now have accommodation. Their children may be able to go to school. Some may have even gone back to the sea as fishermen. Perhaps life is returning back to normal. But is it really possible for their lives to be normal again after such disaster? Has any of the Malaysian businesses stepped in to exercise their corporate social responsibility?

Multiculturalism

2005-10-07T20:48:00.000+01:00

See what multiculturalism does to a country? See here too. Trevor Philips' statement was discussed in BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze last Wednesday (5 Oct 05). It was a very lively discussion. I was on my way to the mosque for tarawikh when I tuned in to Radio 4, and I ended up sitting in the car, in the mosque parking space ,all the way until 8.45pm. One of the panelists asked, "what is wrong with assimilation if it means we all change towards a similar identity - I change and adapt to your culture, and you change and adapt to my culture. If we both change and assimilate each others' culture, what is wrong with that?". This is a very interesting question to explore further. Perhaps on another take...

Conservative leadership contest

2005-10-07T15:34:00.000+01:00

I greatly enjoy watching the leadership contest in the Conservative Party. To me, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Liam Fox simply do not have the charisma or the popularity to become the next leader of the party. David Davis is too right wing for me. He once said "We should learn lessons from abroad, for example from the United States where pride in the nation’s values is much more prevalent among minorities than here. Questions about citizenship qualifications, about what is taught of British history, and about the emphasis on learning English need to be asked and answered. Above all, though, we must speak openly of what we expect of those who settle here – and of ourselves". The line "those who settle here" indicates to me how he sees some people as the landlord, while others are just tenants, or should I say, immigrants, who are not equal to the landlords. I do not think Davies will lead the party to victory. David Cameron is slightly different. I see him as a potential leader. He has the charisma and the potential to become a Prime Minister, but he needs to wait. This is not yet the right time for him. He needs to gain more experience in dealing with, and then uniting, a divided party. If he waits, his time will come. But Ken Clarke must be the one to go for. This political "beast" can take on both Blair and Brown at the same time. His political wit was clear in the conference speech. He did not spend too much time attacking Blair, but he was showing to the world that he can easily take Brown head on. After all, it is Brown who will lead Labour into the next election. If the Tories want to win the next election, then they should elect Ken Clarke now. But if they have already accepted defeat in 2008, and would rather focus on 2012, then they should elect David Cameron. They will then need to pray, and pray hard, that the party can remain united for another 8 years behind a young leader who is still learning. In any case, the Tories should listen again and again, and again and again, to what Michael Howard said. (I think Abidin will disagree with me on Ken Clarke.)

Serupa tapi tak sama.

2005-10-06T23:56:00.000+01:00

One guy claims he is on a godly mission. The other lunatic says the same too. Both are freely using weapons and killing civilians, while invoking God as justification. Can someone please tell me what are the difference between them?

Join the band...

2005-10-03T12:07:00.000+01:00

It seems that this test is getting popular. So, here it goes.... Summary: I am a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an Economic Conservative (61% permissive) I am best described as a Centrist. I exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. Seems allright. But I would personally put myself a bit higher on the capitalist scale.

You are a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (61% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist

Akil Hayy's headgear

2005-09-30T15:08:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-30T14:51:00.000+01:00

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!

2005-09-27T22:37:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-27T16:06:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-26T23:13:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-22T18:50:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-22T18:19:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-21T10:56:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-20T23:21:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-13T12:01:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-09T18:04:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-08T19:35:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-07T14:57:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-05T14:46:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-05T12:36:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-05T11:14:00.000+01:00

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

2005-09-01T12:59:00.000+01:00

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.....

Offline

2005-08-26T12:06:00.000+01:00

My laptop was attacked by a vicious virus last week. Everything on my hard disc was completely deleted. Even the operating system went kaput. What's worse, all the work I did in the last four weeks for my thesis vanished too (monthly backup is clearly insufficient). I took it to three different PC clinics and every one gave me the same answer - all data is lost and the only way out is to re-format the hard disc and reinstall everything. Depressing week. To cheer myself up, I did a little retail therapy. And a new notebook will arrive next week. Some therapy!!! I now have a spare Toshiba Satellite Z25, which has just benefitted from a £150 repair and still have two years extended warranty. I dislike using my desktop - I find the keyboard cumbersome. So, I will not be posting anything serious until the new machine arrives.

On Bangsa Malaysia

2005-08-16T12:00:00.000+01:00

Usually I would avoid a "copy and paste" of articles on this page. But the speech below, given by Dato Seri Lim Keng Yaik attracted my attention so much that I thought it would be unfair for me to just quote a few paragraphs. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I agree wholeheartedly (yet) with the speech. But any serious observer should refer to the full text before forming his / her mind. See full text below: Keynote Address by Dato’ Seri Dr.Lim Keng Yaik President Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia At the Anak Malaysia Convention Held at Grand Ballroom, Grand Seasons Hotel, Kuala Lumpur On 13th August 2005 Introduction I am grateful for being invited to speak at this Anak Malaysia Convention jointly organised by Gerakan Youth, Sedar Institute and Friedrich Naumann Stiftung. I congratulate the organisers for a job well done. My warmest regards to all distinguished guests, speakers, participants and members of Parti Gerakan. Ladies and gentlemen, this convention is timely because there is a serious need to rethink and review our nation-building project. It is only through a sincere and open review that we are able to identify and measure its success and failure, issues and challenges in order to help us achieve the desired national unity. National unity should not be interpreted as a communitarian ideology. The discourse of national unity entrapped within the sole purpose of breeding homogeneity or conformity does not reflect a clear understanding of the social landscape of our modern society. In turn, I urge you to consider our proposition of looking at national unity using a pair of multicultural and multiracial lenses. Consequently, the dynamics that help to foster national unity are essentially diverse and different. But within this diversity, we can find a true synergy and strength which is far stronger than homogeneity. Our nation-building project is supposed to create such positive outcome of national unity. However, a sense of national unity cannot be fostered through mere rhetoric or symbolism. Singing patriotic songs is good but singing them as an act of ritual is useless and meaningless. A sense of commitment to the nation and to the society must come intrinsically from within one’s heart and soul. This is what I called a sense of belonging and a sense of shared common identity to the country and to the society. Gerakan’s Proposition of Bangsa Malaysia Today, we would like to make you a proposition to consider coming together to foster a sense of belonging and a sense of shared common identity. At Gerakan, we call this proposition the creation of a truly ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. For this proposition to become a reality, we believe that our youths or our ‘Anak-anak Malaysia’ play a key role. Our younger generation should be taught to appreciate and respect the country’s rich cultural diversity and that it is essential for them to work together to face multifarious challenges of global scale. These diverse cultural values are our wealth and not a liability. The foundation of a society should be built from its diverse cultural values in order to shape its shared common destiny and identity. Moreover, I truly believe that for Malaysia and its people to come together as a nation, we need to learn to understand, accept and celebrate our pluralistic nature. Pluralism, I believe is an essentialist element of a Bangsa Malaysia. We should not deny our shared cultural heritage. Over the years, each and every community in Malaysia has absorbed and assimilated elements from other communities into their language, art, music, lifestyle, food and others. Is Bangsa Malaysia a reality or myth? The answer lies in the decision you make today. A nation-building project is never an easy one. Many countries took centuries to build a nation and a society. A great number of these societies were broken down and torn apart by unscrupulous conflicts masked by racial or religious overtones. Hence, different actors in the society must always be mindful of their action and interaction. We ought to practice self-discipline and to observe respect for our fellow countrymen of other races or faiths. We need to build our society or a truly Malaysian race not by getting overly obsessed with a few racial or religious conflicts but to build on our centuries of inter-ethnic relations, understanding, goodwill and cooperation. Moving forward, I urge you to conduct a critical assessment of our nation-building project. After almost 50 years of independence, do we have a general consensus on the concept of Bangsa Malaysia? Are we ready to embrace this concept? What are the characteristics of a Bangsa Malaysia? These are several pertinent questions to get today’s discussion on the ball. The Making of a Truly Bangsa Malaysia In my own assessment, there are several challenges and obstacles to our nation-building project and the creation of a Bangsa Malaysia. First, the project is faced with a ‘historical burden’ which must be removed. It stemmed from a politically motivated view of interpreting our historical past. For example, the dominant historical narration of our struggles for national independence and the formulation of the social contract between the main races often take a very narrow communal slant. An often repeated reminder to the Chinese and Indian community in this country is that the government did them a great favour by granting them citizenship to stay in this country. Hence, they should be grateful and beholden to the state. The making of statehood cannot be based on a static interpretation of history. How can we ask these communities to sacrifice and devote their energy, resources and time to help in nation-building if they are often demoralised by such statement? An objective narration and documentation of history is a dynamic process. Our society has gone through together horrid time of the cruelty of colonialism, imperialism and other challenges. We have survived and thrived as a society. Perhaps, it is timely that the future narration of history can reflect more on our join struggles and collaborations. We cannot achieve much as a society and as a nation – with a first-world ambition – if we continue to deprive our younger generation of a true reflection of history. Second, I find that our sense of ethnicity or religiosity is stronger than our sense of nationhood and citizenship. I am worried that this way we are promoting and expanding our existing racial and religious silos. Most of the policy debates, social discussions or societal dialogues are exclusively race or religious centric. There are not many Malaysian centric dialogues or discussions. I can only generalise that the idea of a shared common destiny and a shared common identity has not sink into the mainstream thinking yet. We still put race and religion first, and society and nation second. Thus far, our national unity efforts are polemical, ritualistic and artificial at best. Henceforth, I would be interested to listen to suggestions from our speakers on how to reverse the current mindset. Third, we need a political paradigm shift. Our model of power sharing is not premised on a zero-sum game. I would like to urge all politicians and aspiring politicians to look inside-out instead of outside-in. We have to be externally focused and forward looking. Remember, narrow communal assertion, slogan and chest-beating will only create more racist reactions. We need to re-examine the relevance and impact of populist race-centric political approach. We need to find if this approach is detrimental to our nation-building project and national unity agenda. Fourth, I would like to warn Malaysians of a culture of exclusivity which is breeding in our society. This culture is trying to create exclusive groups within our society. What this culture is saying is if you are not one of us, you should mind your own business. Inevitably, this culture is limiting inter-civilisation dialogue and discussion. Another trajectory from this culture is the establishment of extremist groups which promote dangerous ideology and belief. The government has taken serious actions against any form of extremism and all kinds of extremist bantering. Fortunately, Barisan Nasional leaders are mindful that we need to protect our pluralistic nature. The most challenging task is identifying a set of shared common values which all Malaysians can embrace and adopt as a collective value system. Perhaps, this forum could make an attempt to identify some of these shared common values and norms. Harmonise Bangsa Malaysia with the New National Agenda Nearly 50 years since independence, evidently our nation is searching for a new agenda. Over the past few weeks, our political scene is buzzing with a new proposal to adopt and implement a “New National Agenda”. In the era of globalisation characterises by constant change, we need a new agenda or a development strategy to ensure that we are keeping up with these changes. In this regard, our nation-building project should be harmonised with this new national agenda. To construct an inclusive and conclusive national agenda, promoters of this agenda should understand the current realities faced by the nation. The agenda must be able to withstand rigorous public scrutiny. The essential elements in the agenda must be able to address current challenges faced by the society. The agenda must also be broad enough to accommodate the aspirations of all Malaysians, and not just any particular community alone. We cannot resurrect something old and outdated from the past and call it ‘new’. This act is similar to pouring old sour wine into a new bottle. If we are not willing to embark upon a paradigm shift, this new national agenda will be an effort in futility. Conclusion Gerakan is not pioneering a new movement or creating a new community of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. We believe that intrinsically, deep down the heart of all Malaysians, they cannot find any explicit reason to reject this proposition. A journey of a thousand miles must start with a first grand step. It is time that we examine how far we have travelled and the direction we are taking after almost 50 years of independence. Finally, I hope you will this convention meaningful and worthwhile. Thank you.

On seeking paradise

2005-08-13T11:35:00.000+01:00

Finished Desperately Seeking Paradise yesterday. Excellent book. I have a few comments to make but will leave that for later. I find the book so engaging such that I have ordered five copies to be sent to several top brass in PAS. They may think I have been influenced by those they label as "Islam Liberal" (btw, this "labeling" needs to stop). But the book contains so much we can learn from, I think it is worth taking the chance. Attended the City Circle yesterday - a panel discussion on how to empower the Muslim communities. I am a bit disappointed with the way it was handled. Since it was a panel discussion, the discussion was not really focused and no one actually presented a way forward on how to empower the Muslims. But I am impressed by the rep of Hizb at-Tahrir and was even more impressed by the panel's ability to unanimously defend HT's right to exist as an organization. This was despite Ehsan Masood's, as chairperson, attempts to make cheap snipes at HT. Will now start reading Freakonomics. I can only afford some light reading now. The courgettes, carrots, aubergines and chilies in my back garden need some extra attention, I may be pressed for time. The grass needs cutting too.

Books, books, books

2005-08-03T11:36:00.000+01:00

In the last four weeks, I have bought several books: 1. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (DiMaggio & Powell) 2. The Other Malaysia (Farish Noor) 3. Islam Embedded (Farish Noor) 4. Setting the people free: the story of democracy (John Dunn) 5. Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner) 6. The wealth of nations (Adam Smith) 7. Desperately seeking paradise (Ziauddin Sardar) (I blame the last one totally on Abidin as I bought it purely because I read about it on his blog. Let's see if it was a good purchase) I have finished reading Farish Noor's The Other Malaysia. This is an excellent collection of articles and it helped me understand Farish's thinking. I disagree with his almost total devotion to free-will and rational choice (libertarianism) but at least I can understand why. On the whole, I don't think he has the authority to speak about Islam just like I do not have the authority to speak about car manufacturing. The fact that both he and I are Muslims, and the fact that he and I both drive cars do not make either of us an expert in Islam or on cars. But his articles and thoughts on various issues deserve attention and should not be brushed aside. I have also finished John Dunn's Story of Democracy. The text is not easy to understand due to its literary style. The book traces the origin of democracy from the time of Pericles and Thucydides and relates democracy to modern time. It concludes with a discussion on "Why Democracy?". Unless you really want to read an academically oriented critique of democracy, this book is perhaps is perhaps not for you. If I knew better, I wouldn't have bought this book. I am now half-way through Sardar's Desperately Seeking Paradise. What an interesting journey for a man! Another few days and I will be ready to comment. I have a feeling that Islam Embedded and The Wealth of Nations will have to stay on the shelf and collect dust for a few months before I get to read them properly. .

On doctors working abroad

2005-08-02T21:47:00.000+01:00

(warning: another long entry) I started my university life by studying medicine. After three years, I realized that I did not want to be a doctor but my sponsor disagreed. They insisted that I complete the medical course even though I repeatedly told them that I would probably not survive doing something I did not enjoy. After four years in medical school, I (perhaps luckily) failed in one of my exams and, to my delight, this then allowed me the opportunity to change course. I moved from medicine to management, gladly paying my own way and even arranged with my former sponsors to re-pay the money they gave me while I was doing medicine. Now that everything is in place, and arrangements have been made with my former sponsor, I am greatly enjoying what I do. But I pity my Malaysian colleagues in medical schools, especially those who are still studying or have graduated from medical schools in the UK. Medicine itself is not an easy subject. It takes at least five long years to complete, which is much longer than most other courses. You have to understand complete textbooks, many which are hundreds pages thick. You have to learn an array of Latin words especially for anatomy (why can’t they use normal English words when naming muscles and bones?). And the expectation on them is high, especially when they graduate. Just take a look at the letters and articles recently published in Malaysian media about Malaysian medical graduates working abroad. They are accused of being greedy, unpatriotic, selfish and ungrateful, to say the least. I am lucky again in that sense. Having not continued with medicine, and after sorting out the finances with my former sponsor, I am not tied to any of these predicaments. Since I paid for my own studies right up to postgraduate level, I am free to do what I want without people calling me ungrateful or greedy. Ethicality of professional training Many of the doctors I know, who are working in the UK and / or Ireland, give relatively similar reasons on why they want to continue their stay in the UK. Contrary to popular belief, money is not the prime motivator among the doctors I know personally. Yes, money is relatively good over here, but most would say they are here because the better post-qualification training. Training is the primary factor. The crux of their argument, usually, is that it is better for a doctor to return home as a consultant rather than just as a junior doctor. Thus, if they are being trained in the UK without the need for Malaysian taxpayers to pay for their training, surely they must be doing all Malaysians a huge favour. While I can sympathise with that argument, I must question the ethicality of the reasoning. Being trained in the UK, paid by British taxpayers, raises serious issues of ethicality. The amount of taxes paid by these doctors while they work in this country almost never equate to the amount of money used for their post-qualification training. Thus, they are effectively using local taxpayers’ money. Is it ethical for Malaysians to use local taxpayers’ money with the aim of using their expertise in a different country (e.g. Malaysia)? The Malaysian doctors working in the UK should realise that they are actually contributing to some of the problems faced by British health services. For most junior to mid-level doctors here, they have to renew their training contract from time to time. Many contracts have to be renewed in August every year. Just last week, the British Medical Association reported that many young doctors are being left without jobs due to the stiffest competition for training places faced by the NHS in years. It was reported that more than 200 applications were received for every training position, with some posts attracting more than 1000 applications. The presence of junior and mid-level doctors, like the Malaysians, who (as they claim) are not planning to stay in Britain permanently are without doubt contributing to this problem. Those Malaysians who have taken up training posts are crowding the system and are preventing doctors who actually want to permanently remain in Britain from taking their rightful training places. Is it ethical for Malaysian doctors (though perhaps not that many) to take up the spaces and the money meant for training doctors who are supposed to remain permanently here? Human resources projection Another issue that these doctors need to consider is Malaysia’s own human resources projection. (In writing this, I am going to assume that the Malaysian Ministry of Health has made a long-term projection on how many medical personnels are needed and this projection is the basis for sending students abroad) Responsible governments would not use the public coffer to sponsor just anyone to go study abroad. I hope the Malaysian government, in sending students abroad, do so based on careful planning and projection. For example, if they send 100 students to do medicine in 2005, this should be done on the projection that at least 90 (assuming 10% drop-out) would return home in 2010 as junior doctors. I want to reiterate my intentional use of the term ‘junior doctors’. When I signed my contract many years ago, it clearly stated that upon graduation, I have to return home to serve for at least 10 years. This must mean they expected me to come back within five years as a junior doctor, not as a specialist. If they want me to come back as a specialist, surely the contract would state that I should come back with an MRCP or FRCS after, say, ten years, not just five. And here is the problem with the doctors’ argument that they want to gain from the ethically questionable ‘free’ training abroad. Who gave them the authority to neglect the country’s need for junior doctors who can be sent to rural areas to be (what Ida Bakar called) ‘workhorses’? How come these once-sponsored students suddenly become too superior to work in rural areas? I would say that once we sign the sponsorship contract, we are morally and legally duty-bound to return to Malaysia to be junior doctors. Yes, becoming specialists may be ideal, but the contract says that you are supposed to serve as junior doctors in Malaysia first. And you signed that contract. Since when does a sponsored student get the moral high-ground to demand and insist that they would only do what they want, without due regard to the commitment they made when signing the contract? I have even heard some say that the government should not sue Malaysian doctors working abroad for repayment. Rather, the government should ‘entice’ them with better pay and better career prospects. This is a sham! To give a simple analogy, if you borrow money from the bank, you have to repay it under the terms agreed in the original loan agreement. The borrower can never say “Now that I have taken the funds, I will repay it whenever I want. The bank must not sue me but it should give me preferential treatment instead”. The receiver of funds cannot dictate such terms, let alone claim the moral high-ground or claim the right to preferential treatment when they fail to observe the terms. Worse still, some of the students who originally said that they are here to exploit the free training have continuously and repeatedly failed in their professional examinations. How many times does one need to fail before admitting that perhaps it would be better to return to Malaysia? Surely there must be a limit for otherwise the contract may never be properly fulfilled. Thus, the argument that they want to stay to be trained does not hold water. Firstly the ethicality of their stay is definitely questionable as they are abusing the British taxpayers’ funds. Secondly, these doctors are legally and morally bound to serve as junior doctors after graduating. They do not have the rights nor the authority to claim otherwise as most responsible governments would sponsor students based on specific projections of the country’s human resources needs. By staying abroad to be trained as specialists, they neglect their obligations to fulfil the terms of their contracts to return as soon as they graduate. Way out Of course there is a way out. The most obvious one is for them to re-pay the money they have received as per the terms of their initial contract. Better still, the graduates can negotiate with their sponsors and sign another agreement to allow them to stay and work / train. Some have done just that. They signed a new agreement with their sponsors, and postponed the date by which they have to return to serve Malaysia. These are the ones who must be admired as they know their responsibilities, and have opted to make formal arrangements to pursue their career and ambition. It is the ones who blatantly breached their contracts that cause irk. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the best way forward is for the government to scrap funding by scholarships altogether. There is absolutely no reason to give free money to anyone, especially if that give-away is racist in nature. A better way forward is to make all funding as loans, rather than scholarships. Repayment can be either by paying back the full cash amount in instalments, or by serving for a fixed period of time. In either case, the agreement must be a loan agreement, not scholarship. The loans must be offered to all Malaysian citizens regardless of race or religion, and the agreement must be enforced in full, without fear or favour. The difference between what I am suggesting and the current system is in the implementation. Firstly, the current scholarship system clearly expects students to serve, not re-pay. If they breach this understanding, they would have to repay only a percentage of the funds. This is ridiculous. Why should those who breach their contract, and refuse to serve, be rewarded with a bulky discount? They should be made to pay the full amount. Secondly, since it is a loan, it is available to anyone regardless of race. The current system clearly favours the Malays. Why should the Malays continue to be favoured when good doctors can come from any race or religion? The current scholarship system is unfair and racially biased. The benefit from this loan system is that everybody becomes obliged to repay by one method or another. If they refuse to pay or to serve, then they must -not ‘could’, but ‘must’- be taken to court, just like any other loans. Yet, they are also not obliged to serve if they do not want to since they can re-pay the money in full if they prefer. This would create choice, and the Malaysian health system itself would naturally be forced to improve if they want to attract the new doctors. If they choose to re-pay the funds, then the same funds can be used to sponsor another student. The Malaysian taxpayers can rest assured that their money is not lost or given away freely. And the doctors can choose where they want to work so long they pay back every sen they have borrowed. By providing loans rather than scholarships, Malaysians of all races stand to benefit. And most importantly, if the terms are observed, Malaysians who graduated from abroad will not be under the moral pressure to work in places they do not want to (e.g. in Malaysia). Government’s responsibility One thing that must be stated is the government has a lot to do. They must enforce contracts properly, without fear or favour. Looking at the current situation, it wouldn’t be excessive if we were to say that the government does not take doctors who are in breach of their contracts to court because mainly they are Malays. This needs to change. Those who defaulted and breached their contracts are guilty of a criminal offence, regardless of their race or religion. As a Malay Muslim, I am ashamed of this unjustifiable favouritism to an extent that even criminal offences are looked at negligently. Unless the doctors have made an alternative arrangement post-graduation, they must face the music if they choose to breach a legal contract. By making all fundings as loans rather than scholarships, it should be clearer and more obvious to everyone that they need to repay the fundings, or face the consequences. There will be no more dilly-dally. The government must also address the problem of doctors resigning from the public sector to work privately. Lengthening the period of compulsory service is one thing that must be considered. If they want to do something more radical, then perhaps they can consider nationalizing the whole medical service (I personally do not favour total nationalization but it should not be discarded without due consideration). One thing the government needs to do immediately is to clarify their expectations to those who are still studying abroad. Does the government want them to return as specialists, or as junior doctors? Some of those working here now assume that it would be better for the country for them to return as specialists. Hence their stay post-graduation. If this is what the government wants, then students should be asked to sign another contract outlining how long they can defer their service to the country and what exactly their professional targets are. But if the government wants them to come back as junior doctors, then this should be clearly explained so that they no longer have the mistaken understanding on what is expected from them. I know that the government is also currently sending senior doctors for further training abroad. This is good and must be continued. But I want to suggest that if these senior doctors receive salaries while training abroad, then their Malaysian salary must be freezed. I do not see why they should be paid twice, one for the job they are doing abroad, and another for a job they are not doing in Malaysia. After all, the foreign salaries are generally much higher than the Malaysian ones. I want to end by emphasizing that we certainly need to change the Malaysian health provision system. (In fact, I want the whole government to be changed!). But that does not mean those who have received public funds can ignore their legal and moral obligations. Imagine what would happen if sponsored students from all fields do what is being done by the doctors and refuse to return home by using the same arguments the doctors are giving. Law graduates do not want to return until they become senior barristers; lecturers do not want to return until they are professors; management graduates do not return until they are CEOs; etc. If the non-medics were to copy the attitudes and the excuses given by the so-called crème de la crème, Malaysia’s human resources planning would be in deep trouble.

Enhancing governance, empowering citizens.

2005-07-23T13:49:00.000+01:00

Ethnolinguistic fractionalization has a negative impact on governance. Political scientists argue that in an ethnically diverse society, officials have a tendency to restrict political freedom and protect “their own” by redistributing national wealth to their own group. Thus ethnically diverse countries tend to be more corrupt. An abundance of natural resources in a country is also associated with weak governance. Governments that are able to extract revenues from natural resources would be less dependent on their citizenry for tax revenues. Independence from tax revenues would give governments an upper hand since the citizens have 'reduced' capability to demand accountability and transparency – the citizens do not have a strong bargaining power since the government do not depend on them for revenues / resources. (See Al-Marhubi (2004) for a brief discussion) Evidence? Compare the so-called Western countries – who are less ethnically diverse and have less natural resources – with the so-called Third World, in which many Muslim countries belong to. The Third World is more ethnically diverse and has an abundance of natural resources. The evidence is obvious. Most (not all) governments in the West are more transparent, more accountable and they take their citizens more seriously. The same cannot be said about Muslim countries, Malaysia included. Does that mean we should be working towards the reduction of ethnolinguistic differences by creating one nation with one identity (ie: the end of multiculturalism)? And a higher tax regime? The former would reduce the sense of belonging to a particular 'group', and therefore significantly reducing corrupted cronyism, and the latter would increase citizens’ bargaining power. Should I be saying "Hail Bangsa Malaysia” and "Please come this way, higher-tax regime"?

Legislating religious tolerance

2005-07-21T11:12:00.000+01:00

It is understandable that we may need a law against racial intolerance. We cannot choose our race. But we are free to choose our religion. So why a law against religious intolerance? How are we ever going to define what "incitement of religious hatred" is? Listing the mistakes in other religion? Telling me that I believe in the wrong god? Inviting me to change religion? Religions that cannot stand criticisms and religions that cannot tolerate critical examination does not deserve protection. The law of natural selection would simply wipe out such belief systems sooner or later. Let people debate and choose. Do not curb free speech and freedom of thought. If Muslims want to protect Islam, then it should be done through intellectual discourse, and patience when faced with uninformed criticisms. Not by hiding behind legislations.

Etc

2005-07-17T22:46:00.000+01:00

1. Sir Ted Heath passed away tonight. He died a bachelor. Some say he was too busy with politics and he loved his music more than anything. Abidin, you better start planning your family life now.... 2. I can officially confirm that Twining's 'tea for everyday' tastes better with full cream milk rather than semi-skimmed.

David Davis

2005-07-15T15:06:00.000+01:00

Following the Guardian's review of David Davis, I was so keen to listen to his lecture at the Adam Smith Institute's event yesterday. I got the ticket almost two weeks back. Travelled in the scorching heat. Arrived at 1 Birdcage Walk well in time. But only to be told that the scheduled talk has been cancelled. They are having a reception instead. The reason? They say it was inappropriate to do a political talk just one week after the terrorist attacks in London. Apparently it is more appropriate to indulge in free champagnes. What use is that to me? Bloody terrorists... Wrecked my afternoon. Wasted journey.

Lim Guan Eng

2005-07-13T23:57:00.000+01:00

I must say that I like this article written by Lim Guan Eng. I beg to differ with what was written by this blogger (see his 13 July 2005 post). I do not see Guan Eng's article as an attack on PAS. Rather, it as a voice that must be taken into consideration if PAS wants to improve its electoral performance.

Of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

2005-07-13T19:39:00.000+01:00

A friend sent me an article recently published in harakahdaily. The article was on how the media, the TV in particular, is eroding Islamic values in Malaysia. While the content of the article was the usual, I am intrigued by references to Marx and Engels. I never expected to see this - utilization of Marx & Engel's Manifesto of the Communist Party in an Islamist's writing in Harakah. How refreshing. Marx was today confirmed as BBC Radio 4's Our Time's Greatest Philosopher. Will we soon find in Harakah arguments in support of Adam Smith? This would be even more refreshing.

Those who oppose capitalism

2005-07-11T11:07:00.000+01:00

There are those who oppose capitalism and globalization. At the recent G8 meeting, some of those protesters decided to cause trouble. What I cannot understand is, if they are so against capitalism, what is the alternative?

What now?

2005-07-11T10:31:00.000+01:00

Many of my friends, while condemning the bombings in London last week, were also unhappy with those who were quick to point fingers to the Muslims. To be honest, as soon as I heard about the bombs, my mind immediately turned to Al-Qaeda too. Who else should we suspect? And in the absence of other obvious suspects, why is it wrong if fingers immediately point to Al-Qaeda? It is not rushed. It is logical. Personally, I think Muslims are in a real dilemma when it comes to Al-Qaeda. That group claims to represent Islam. The vast majority of Muslims denounce those who have anything to do with Al-Qaeda. But these people, they feel oppressed. They feel like there are no other way to speak up. They feel that they "have" to do it. Most importantly, their interpretation of the syariah somehow led them to believe that their barbaric acts are allowed, and loved, by Allah. They see the world as good vs bad, and they represent the good side. Herein lies the problem. As long as the syariah is interpreted in such a way that makes them martyrs, they will never stop. As long as the syariah is interpreted in such a way that they perceive themselves as protectors of Islam and Islamic values, they will never stop. So where does that bring us? End the poverty? Make poverty history? Give Paletinians their land? Demolish Israel? Are these going to stop them? I doubt it, for the struggle of good vs evil will never end. As long as they see themselves as the representatives of "good", no matter what is being done, they will never stop. What now? In any case, I think Abdul Bari Atwan was excellent in yesterday's Dateline London on BBC Parliament. He handled questions, and provocations, very well. .

Not in my name

2005-07-07T12:35:00.000+01:00

There were terrorist bomb blasts in central London this morning. Six tube stations and one double decker bus were affected. Two of the tube stations - Edgware Road and Aldgate East - are very near to Muslim areas. Edgware Road is popularly known as the Arab street. While Aldgate East is very near to the East London Mosque and the HQ of MuslimAid. The other explosions happened in central London areas usually packed with people. Whoever did it, they have no right to claim that they are doing it under the name of Islam. No Muslims would ever do such atrocities. They must not be allowed to terrorize people's lives and tarnish the good name of millions other peace-loving Muslims. Not in my name!!!

More thoughts on PAS' internal reform

2005-07-02T22:13:00.000+01:00

This is an interesting article which relates well to my previous entry. Although it was published in 2003, I only found it today.

His Royal Highness

2005-07-02T15:51:00.000+01:00

RPK made some scathing attack on the Negri Sembilan royal family. But he did not attack everyone in the family as he seems to have good words for one of the potential heir to the state throne towards the end of his second part. I wonder what Abidin would say about these allegations. Whatever he says though, I supposed I should get to know him better because I may have to call him Tuanku one day!!! Btw, there seems to be a trend of having English nicknames in the family - Tunku Bill, Tunku Charlie, etc. But I am sure "Tunku Charles" is a nice guy.... If I get close enough to this Tunku Charles, maybe one day he will give me a "Darjah Paduka Tunku Charles". How about that? Signing off, -Dato Paduka W-

Another article

2005-06-24T15:22:00.000+01:00

Just another article I found while surfing.

Is it possible to be both an Islamic movement and a political party at the same time?

2005-06-16T22:11:00.000+01:00

(Early warning..... this is a long one) I still remember the days in late 1980s when I was still in Sekolah Alam Shah, Kuala Lumpur. As a teenager eager to learn more about Islam, I became acquainted the tabligh group. I once went to this huge gathering in Dengkil and I have also helped with the building of the tabligh mosque in Seri Petaling. I can’t remember how many times I have stood up to give the talk about the “six points of tabligh” but I still remember how I trembled on the very first time I stood up to speak. But, despite the regular “going out for three days” and the frequent visits to Masjid India, I felt that there was something missing in the tabligh movement. I explored Al-Arqam too, but, I must admit, the serban put me off a bit. Not the serban itself as I did like wearing serban when I was at Alam Shah, but it was the thickness of the ones worn by Arqam followers that put me off. Yes. I know. It was a petty excuse. But I was only 16 at that time. And then, one day when I was in Form 4, I bought my first copy of Harakah from a stand in Puduraya… The journey into PAS started on that very day. Why PAS? Reading books by the likes of Hassan Al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Fathi Yakan, and supplemented by the regular copies of Harakah, I began to realise that the ultimate aim of any Muslim should be to see the re-establishment of the Islamic State. In the context of Malaysia, no other group can lead the effort to re-establish Islam as deen (way of life) and daulah (state) but PAS. And I first became more seriously involved in PAS in the early 1990s, for two very simple reasons. Firstly is my belief that as a Muslim, the establishment of Islamic syari’ah must be my ultimate ambition. While in Makkah, Muhammad (s.a.w) worked to strengthen his companion’s aqidah (conviction), and this culminated with the hijrah (migration) to Madinah, in which the Islamic state was established. All the work in Makkah was a precursor to the setting up of an Islamic state. Thus, by implication, for any Muslim, whatever they do, it must act as a precursor to the establishment of the Islamic state. Islamic state and Islamic khilafah must remain the ultimate dream of any Muslim. Secondly, I believe that the effort to set up the Islamic state and khilafah cannot be done alone. The only way to do it is to work in a team (jama’ah). Since the work to re-establish the Islamic state is obligatory, I found that Islam gave guidance to its followers as to what type of group can be called the Harakah Islamiyyah – the Islamic movement – i.e. the group that Muslims must sign up to if they are serious about the Islamic state agenda. There are certain criteria to qualify as an Islamic movement. Having looked at the likes of ABIM, JIM, Tabligh and Al-Arqam, I discovered that in Malaysia only PAS fulfils these criteria. The others are simply Islamic groups, not an Islamic movement. The logic was (and still is) simple. If you are serious about wanting to work for Islam, then your ultimate aim must be the re-establishment of the Islamic way if life via the Islamic state. This was what the Prophet (s.a.w) showed us. And if you want to do that in Malaysia, it is a religious obligation to be part of PAS, since it is the only Islamic movement in Malaysia. Period. PAS: then and now I then started becoming more active from 1993 onwards. Since then, I have been exposed more and more to PAS and a bit of its internal working. I came to know several of its top leaders and I personally saw how they are truly committed to the struggle of PAS. PAS to me is very simple. It is an Islamic movement using democracy as a tool to achieve the ultimate aim – the Islamic state. But, as time passes by, I find it more and more difficult to answer the question “What is PAS?”. Especially lately, it is not as easy as before to answer the question “Is PAS an Islamic movement or a political party?” And, increasingly it is also becoming rather apparent that in its current state, ‘PAS the political party’ is not exactly similar to ‘PAS the Islamic movement’ I initially joined. My main concern is, is it really possible for PAS to balance the demands of being a political party with the demands of being an Islamic movement? Or is there a risk that in striving to become a mainstream party accepted by the majority, the Islamic movement elements will eventually become subservient to the political nature of PAS? Repackaging PAS? A political party’s task is simple and straightforward. They need to win votes. Success or failure of a political party is measured by the number of seats that it can win. And the best position to garner the maximum number of votes is in the centre. The British Labour party did a successful repositioning in the mid 1990s when they shifted from the left towards the centre. Whether Labour is a centre left or a centre right is debatable but they are no longer the left wing party of yester-years. By repositioning and continuously reinforcing itself in the centre ground, Labour has won three consecutive general elections. The British Conservatives, a traditionally centre right party, on the other hand, is still struggling to define itself. In its current leadership debate, one camp appeals to the right of the party, while the other camp steers more to the left. Some say that recent events have forced the Conservatives further to the right than ever. Despite the continuing internal debates, the Conservatives too accepts that repositioning is necessary if they were to become government. As a political party, PAS needs to learn from the experience of both Labour and Conservatives. PAS does not need a ‘re-packaging’ for ‘re-packaging’ merely means the same material with new wrapping paper. The call for PAS to ‘re-package’ itself is a call for disaster. If PAS continue to ‘re-package’ its messages – i.e. push forward the same message albeit in a different way or by different faces - then the electorates will clearly see that PAS, in whatever shape or form, will still represent the same ideas they rejected in 2003. If PAS is serious about wresting power from the Barisan Nasional, there needs to be a serious re-thinking of what PAS really is. The party and its message need to be properly defined. A total re-think and re-articulation of PAS’ mission is imperative. Not just ‘re-packaging’. A mere ‘re-packaging’ is a ruinous call. It is faked change. To win elections, what PAS the political party need is real change. It is now clear that PAS cannot win big in elections unless the country is in political turmoil. The 1999 success – if 27 seats out of almost 200 is worthy of being called a success - was not because PAS was strong. It was because Anwar was falsely accused of sodomy, and even that only resulted in 27 seats. Unless several more big sharks in BN were accused of sodomy by their leader again, or a miraculous help comes from Allah, I doubt if PAS would actually ever win the national government if ‘change’ only means the current message being presented by a bunch of younger or friendlier faces clad in three-piece suits – the so-called re-packaging exercise. Change to what? Perhaps the last Muktamar is a testament of how badly PAS members want change. The problem is, although everybody seems to want to change, has anybody asked “change to become what?” What is this new, changed PAS going to look like? What is the ‘changed PAS’ suppose to represent? If ‘change’ simply implies the same politics and ideologies being presented by a different set of people - by those wearing three-piece suits and songkok rather jubah and ketayap - then is that really ‘change’? PAS has to realise that what the Malaysian public has rejected so far is not the jubah and ketayap or who’s who in PAS per se. It is the policies that were being questioned. Without a serious rethink about policies, it is unlikely the public’s perception towards PAS would vary. Unfortunately, despite new faces taking up posts in the last muktamar, PAS is still adamant that there will be no policy change. What I want to know is, for a political party, what is the point of changing anything if the policies rejected by the electorates remain the same? On the Islamic state issue Let us admit one thing. The political reality is, if PAS wants to take over the central government in the 2007 or 2012 election, the need to repeatedly call for an Islamic State must be re-evaluated. Those who are not yet convinced of the beauty of the Islamic state will never give PAS the much needed majority votes if the call for an Islamic state is continuously thumped upon them in its current form. Even the opposition coalition will not be as solid as it could be if the Islamic State issue is not properly resolved. This is no fault of the electorates who rejected PAS. The blame for the dire state of PAS today, and the fear towards the Islamic state, in addition to it being a symptom of a worldwide Islamophobia, should rest on the shoulders of PAS too. One of the mistakes was in publishing the Islamic State document without firstly conducting a careful and detailed study on how the electorates will react. Let me clarify. The publication of such document is perhaps necessary but it should never have been done without a detailed consideration of the public’s reaction and proper preparation to respond to that very reaction. Let us face it. No serious political party would ever publish such a crucial policy document without carefully studying the repercussions. PAS did not take the need for such study seriously, did not tailor the document for the multi-religious Malaysian public, and did not prepare for the repercussion. I went through the document again for the umpteenth time last night and I still cannot see how PAS will ever win the majority votes of the non-Muslims with such document in the background. It was rich in Quranic texts and seriously lacking in policy explanation. The document officially confirms PAS as an exclusive party for the religious Muslims, and put off not only the non-Muslims but also Muslims who take Islam as a private matter and do not see it as deen (way of life) and daulah (state). Lack of clarity And this is why I sympathise with those newly elected to hold higher positions in PAS. The hope pinned on them is colossal, to say the least. PAS members want the party to change and they expressed their exasperation towards past failures to change by electing new faces to hold the top posts. But I remain uncertain as to which direction does the party want to go, and to what extent does the party want to change. There is a lack of clarity in terms of direction and extent of change demanded by the grassroot. There were hardly any comments about the leadership of the incumbent President. Why is it that the members’ frustrations were directed towards the post Deputy President but no one said anything about the President? They both took up the posts at around the same time and they both had about the same amount of time to work on the party. Why is it that the buck stops at the number two post and no higher? Why the focus on changing everyone but the President? I would like to believe that the reason behind the actions is the memberships’ confidence in the leadership of Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi. I suppose the membership has no doubt that he is the one who will enable both Muslims and non-Muslims to give the majority vote to PAS in the elections to come. And surely PAS members has no doubt that if his name is put forward as Prime Minister in waiting, (or Deputy Prime Minister in waiting if Anwar is named as PM), then Malaysians would have no qualms to vote PAS into power. Surely these are the reasons. For sure it not because no one has a solid answer as to what the actual “change” should entail. Between an Islamic movement and a political party. If PAS is serious about changing, then this whole methodology of simultaneously being an Islamic movement and a political party in one go should be re-evaluated. The concept needs an updated interpretation. As it stands, PAS’ interpretation puts being a political party over and above everything else that is expected of an Islamic movement. Yes, an Islamic movement does need to play an active role in politics. An Islamic movement needs to have a big role in shaping the land’s political scene. Any organization that does not take politics as one of it ultimate aims - like many Islam-based NGOs – does not qualify to be an Islamic movement. If politics is left out, then the organization would no longer be syumul (complete), thus disqualifying it from being an Islamic movement. But politics must never be seen as the end all and be all. The way PAS currently work puts many things as subservient to its political agenda. Tarbiyah (education) is being handled by just one of the bureau within the central working committee. The same applies to welfare and outreach (da’wah). Whenever political demands conflict with the demands of other things that an Islamic movement is expected to do, then more than once it is the political imperatives that take priority. Let us take the recent party election as an example. As I stated above, the call for PAS to change was heard loud and clear by everyone. But no one has so far given a proper definition as to what this ‘change’ means. If we were to look at the content of the debates taking place in the muktamar, the so called ‘change’ seems to centre around wanting to make PAS the political party more electable. And, for some reason, the delegates seem to feel that the electability of a party depends more on the who-holds-what-post rather than the vision of each candidate. The changes seem to have been made solely in the hope that these new faces would make PAS electable. There were hardly any discussions on who can strengthen the party’s education, welfare or da’wah. In other words, the consideration was “who can make PAS stronger as a political party”. The question “who can strengthen PAS as an all-encompassing and intellectually robust Islamic movement” was not mentioned so much. There was very limited discussion on what can make PAS-the-Islamic-movement stronger. There is a standardized answer when this type of argument is put forward by PAS’ critiques. I know, because I am one of those who keep giving the standardized answer every time others criticize PAS. That standardized answer is: PAS is an Islamic movement with politics as its main component but PAS never ignores the other elements of Islam. By aiming for political power, and strengthening our political base, we ensure that we can do all else required by Islam. This standardized answer no longer holds water. The fact is, politics has become so overpowering in PAS that many other elements has been unintentionally sidelined. Education and the Islamic movement To take just one example, look at the state of tarbiyah (education) in PAS. Look at the state of schools sponsored by PAS. Look at the education programme being run by PAS at university student level. Look at the education programme being run by PAS at branch levels. They are haphazard, unsystematic and disorganized. Worse still, no one at the higher level seems to be seriously doing anything about it. Everybody is focused on politics. A serious Islamic movement would never allow its education system (tarbiyah) to be in such a disorder. It is education that produces steadfast Islamic workers. It is education that produces sincere politicians who will not budge when tempted with wealth or power. It is education that produces truthful and charismatic leaders of the future. (I am not going to go too deep into this example since many would then come back to me arguing that education can be done in many ways; education must be flexible; education this and education that. I am just going to say that education in PAS is in a sorry state. ) To get a better picture, compare the internal education system and the internal education machinery with the election machinery. When it comes to an election, you will see PAS in full-swing mode. They are efficient and sharp. The central control is swift and the top-leaders’ commitment is insurmountable. The same cannot be said about PAS’ education machinery. Conflicts of fikrah I now want to move on to a slightly more technical example to illustrate how PAS is no longer giving precedence to strengthening its Islamic movement credentials. For an Islamic movement, the issue of fikrah is a matter of utmost importance. It is difficult to find the exact English word for fikrah as it covers so many different aspects of the thought process. But I am going to risk translating fikrah as ‘the way by which one perceives an issue’. Thus, fikrah Islamiyah would mean ‘the way by which one perceives Islam’ and fikrah PAS would mean ‘the way by which one perceives PAS’. For example, if I were to explain what fikrah PAS means to me, I would say “PAS is the one and only Islamic movement in Malaysia which we as Muslims must support”. That is the way I view PAS. I said that the issue of fikrah is of utmost importance for an Islamic movement because it defines the movement in the eyes of its followers. If people see PAS as an Islamic movement, then they will support it despite any weaknesses, and try to work from within to patch up any problems. But if people see PAS purely as a political organization, then they are free to switch camps as and when necessary. If we were to look a bit more into PAS and its new line-up, we will see contradictions. During the last muktamar, several delegates raised the importance of unity and purity of fikrah as a pillar of strength. Several spoke of the dangers of the “anai-anai” – the group of people who are in PAS, but do not subscribe to the fikrah of PAS, and are unwittingly weakening PAS from inside. The main contention against these so called “anai-anai” is that they do not subscribe to the real fikrah of PAS – that PAS is an Islamic movement and doing anything that weakens PAS, from the point of view of religion, is wrong. Despite concerns about the ‘polluted fikrah’ contaminating PAS, and despite calls for the fikrah to be united and purified once again, PAS still elects people from various backgrounds into its top echelon. Several figures now holding important posts in PAS did not come from PAS’ own mould. Some even have a history of working for groups who do not subscribe to PAS’ fikrah. Worse still, there is also one or two who in their student years have worked hard to weaken PAS’ influence among students. Bearing in mind that PAS do not have a set way of scrutinizing candidates’ fikrah, how is it at all possible for a proper Islamic movement to elect people who may not subscribe to the fikrah of PAS into position of significant influence? Even if the top leaders do not have problems with these individuals, do they not see how confusing it is for us on the ground? Surely a proper Islamic movement will see purity and unity of fikrah as more important than anything else. Surely the first step in strengthening any Islamic movement is to firstly be clear about its own fikrah. Yet, these figures are still given high positions in the belief that they can help PAS win elections. Islamic movement or political party? I will not discuss other examples as it will take too long to do so. Suffice to say that increasingly, PAS is becoming more focused on winning elections such that there is a risk of it forgetting that there are those who still see PAS as an Islamic movement first and political party second. Unfortunately, the last muktamar focused almost totally on how to win elections and not how to strengthen the other elements of work resting on the shoulders of an Islamic movement. All the talk about ‘re-packaging’ the party was almost totally aimed at winning elections. Does that mean the delegates want PAS to change into becoming just another political party? Does that mean ‘PAS the political party’ is slowly engulfing ‘PAS the harakah Islamiyah’? As PAS strives to become a mainstream party accepted by the majority, are we going to see the Islamic movement elements become more and more subservient to politics? If PAS continues to push forward its agenda for change without conducting a full internal debate and without encouraging true (and free) intellectual discourse on its future, I fear that the answer is yes. And if PAS decreases itself to being merely another political party, and loses its Islamic movement credentials, it should be forewarned that those of us who has committed our lives to the struggle of an Islamic movement will have no qualms to look for alternatives. End

If only we try thinking differently

2005-05-23T19:02:00.000+01:00

I saw Patch Adams (Robin Williams) on BBC last week. It moved me to do a bit of internet searching about Gesundheit Hopsital project, which is run by the real Patch Adams. Both the film and the project are very interesting. They both highlight the need for us to try thinking differently, and the importance of recognizing that not everything has to be done in the so called "traditional way". The status quo is not sacred. The status quo is not necessarily the best way forward. And those who question the status quo should not automatically be rejected. (I am not saying all medics should do things the Patch Adam way. Just that a different way sometimes works too.)

Home at last

2005-05-14T13:38:00.000+01:00

First to Bath and the straight home. Long but extremely good week!

The journey home

2005-05-13T13:37:00.000+01:00

We took it easy today. There is no rush to get back home too quickly. So, we took the A30 through Bodmin Moor and stopped at Cheddar Gorge which is just south of Bristol. Not that many cheddar factories around there and the one we found was almost closing (we only arrived at around 4.30pm). So, I treated the children to ice cream instead. I opted, surprise surprise, for cream tea again. I think by now even my wife is hooked on it too. Too tired to drive all the way home. So, checked into a hotel in Bristol.

Lizards and Glendurgan

2005-05-12T13:25:00.000+01:00

Left the cabin quite early today. Took the village route from St Ives to The Lizards, passing through Hayle, Leedstown, RNAS Culdrose and Helston. By the time we arrived at Lizards, it was already nearly lunchtime. I was divided between buying a serpentine stone artefact or buying lunch for the family. I only had £30 in my wallet and the nearest cash machine is miles away. Unfortunately for the family, the serpentine stone (£29.50 barometer) won. When you have to choose between a once in lifetime opportunity to purchase such item and a starving family, I am afraid family comes second! Lizard Point was very, very windy. Kynance Cove, which is a mile to the west of Lizard Point is slightly more protected and more beautiful. Both are highly recommended though. The children began begging for food. Before they start telling other tourists that their father had forsaken them for a piece of carved rock, I decided to swiftly take them into the car and drive towards Glendurgan Garden near Falmouth. I gave the children some tea biscuits to keep them quiet. Usually, when I hear the word garden, I would associate it with flowers and landscaping. But Glendurgan is not that kind of garden. It is more like acres of land cultivated with varying trees, shrubs, palms and bamboos. It is different and not what I was expecting, but it is most certainly beautiful too. It was already 9pm when we got back to St Ives.

Penzance and St Michael's Mount

2005-05-11T13:05:00.000+01:00

The initial intention was to go to Trevarno Garden. But since we only left the cabin at 11am, it was already too late. Went straight to Penzance instead. The town was very different from other places I have visited. It is calm and not too busy, but most importantly it has its own “character”. Decided to try Cornish cream tea at one of the tea rooms. I must admit that from then onwards, I am officially a cream tea addict. The Cornish clotted cream is just nice – not too sweet, not too thick. By early afternoon, we headed to St Michael’s Mount. The tide is slowly rising so we had to walk quickly towards the island, before the sea covers the causeway. The place is truly magical. The island itself is rich with history. The garden is very well kept, the castle is beautiful and the exhibits are intriguing. I noticed that in the castle’s library there was a book entitled “Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah” by Burton. This book, which comes in two volumes, is a very old title, perhaps dating back to the late 1800s. By the look of it, the one they have there is probably more than 100 years old. I wanted to make a copy of the first page verso as memorabilia but the officials there wouldn’t let me. By the time we finished wondering around St Michael’s Mount, the sea has fully covered the causeway. So, it was a short boat ride back to mainland.

Land's End

2005-05-10T13:04:00.000+01:00

Arrived at Lands End around noon. Once again, we decided to take the not so straightforward route. We started from the holiday village, firstly to St Ives town centre, then proceeded to St Just via B3306 – the coastal route – before finally arriving at Lands End nicely for lunch. We had our packed lunch by the cliff, only to be interrupted by the seagulls eyeing for our food. After unsuccessfully trying to fend them off, I thought we should move back into the car to finish our food before the seagulls started diving into our food containers. (I noticed that the seagulls were very generous with their “droppings” on my car afterwards. Are they trained to take revenge?) Lands End itself was a very nice place. The surrounding cliffs were very steep but with the clear blue sky, you can see right to the horizon. A few mandatory pics at the popular Lands End signpost. Only now I know that the signpost was put up there by a photography company as a way of attracting customers. Until today it is being managed by the company and you have to pay £9.50 for them to take your picture under the signpost. I opted to not pay them but took a few snaps a few metres away. Then, a stroll around the area – I still feel that the seagulls are keeping a close watch on us! Then back to St Ives - the children have been badgering me wanting to go to the swimming pool at the holiday village. After a short swim, we headed to St Ives harbour to see the sunset. Nice!

From Plymouth to St Ives

2005-05-09T13:02:00.000+01:00

I was planning to go to the Eden Project today but decided to explore Plymouth instead. The Hoe was breathtaking. The Plymouth Dome, situated on The Hoe, has a good exhibition about Plymouth. It tells about the sailors of previous times who started their journey from Plymouth and of how Plymouth was built up again after being blitzed during the world war. I also learnt that the word “Tory” was first given to the group of people (criminals) sent from England to colonize New Zealand in the mid 1600s. Then, another two hour journey to St Ives. Arrived at the holiday village at around 7pm and was too tired to do anything else. Cooked dinner and straight to bed.

Plymouth

2005-05-08T13:00:00.000+01:00

We arrived at Plymouth at around 8pm. The journey from home to Plymouth was nice. Rather than taking the motorway, we opted take the A303 after the M3, driving passed the scenic rural areas of Andover, Salisbury Plain and Ilminster. We stopped at Stonehenge for a few minutes. After Exeter, we decided to drive through the Bodmin Moor. The road was treacherous but the scene was worth it. Just next to the hotel was a Chinese restaurant – New China. Nice food but pricy.

Rileks jap

2005-04-27T16:03:00.000+01:00

When you have nothing better to do, try this.

While sitting at your desk, lift your right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles.

Now, while doing this, draw the number "6" in the air with your right hand. Your foot will change direction and there's nothing you can do about it.

Bigger than...

2005-04-26T23:10:00.000+01:00

This is a simple website but I believe the idea and the spirit behind it is extremely significant.

Training session

2005-04-26T10:00:00.000+01:00

I attended the training session to become a poll clerk yesterday. It was good fun. Most other election staff are much older, perhaps in their mid-50s. But there were two who were probably in their early 20s. It seems fairly straight forward. Greet the voters as they come in. Ask them their name and address. Ask the two official questions: "Are you the person registered in the register of electors for this election as follows (read up their entry in the register)" and "Have you already voted here or elsewhere at this election otherwise than as a proxy for some other person?". If they answer correctly, then they must be given the ballot paper. Stamp it first, then make sure they put it into the correct ballot box. Say thank you and DONE!!! There were also some discussions about how to deal with difficult voters, polling agents and tellers. But nothing too difficult to understand there either. Ensure they behave properly, or otherwise get the Presiding Officer to instruct the police to arrest them. Simple. But one thing for sure is that it will be one very long day. Start at 6.15am and finish at 23.00 pm.

Whom shall I vote?

2005-04-24T02:43:00.000+01:00

Today I received both my polling card and a letter to confirm my appointment as poll clerk on election day. Good. At least that bit is done. But I am still unsure how to vote on 5 May. Initially, I thought about voting Respect. But I know definitely that they will neither form a government nor a strong opposition. Tactically, voting for them will not create much benefit. Then I thought about Lib Dem. But their emphasis on individual's freedom to do things that I disagree with is worrying. I do like their plan to replace council tax with local income tax. And I admire their consistent opposition of the war on Iraq. But I dislike their policy on immigration. I then thought about voting for a party that favour businesses. A party that would allow free market to flourish. But there is not much difference between Labour and Conservatives on this matter. I personally feel that immigration is a serious issue and that Britain do need a limit on immigration. Labour claims that they are already taking actions to fix the immigration problem. Tories are saying that they could do better. If the election is a one-issue thingy, than I am almost certain to vote for the Tories. Still undecided, I took the political compass, Times political compass and WhoShouldYouVoteFor tests. In the political compass test, my scores are: Economic (left/right): 1.63 Social (libertarian/authoritarian): 1.23 In the Times political compass, I scored: Social 26 Economic 36 On Who Should I Vote For, I scored:

Labour -20
	Conservative 19
Liberal Democrat -8
	UK Independence Party 16
Green -24

It seems that I am probably a centrist but with a degree of right-wing authoritarian views and that I should vote Conservative. Let's see if I change my mind within the next two weeks.

Why?

2005-04-14T10:34:00.000+01:00

Several people asked why I choose to write on this blog and why I send articles to Malaysiakini. Why do I not send my writings to publications like Harakah or harakahdaily? In reality, I do send articles to Harakah and Harakahdaily. But they do not publish my writings. It is not that I do not want to contribute ideas to Harakah and the likes. It is them who do not accept my writings for publication. Not a problem for me... And I don't think I should limit myself to just Harakah either.

What is wrong with lobbying?

2005-03-31T13:39:00.000+01:00

Assalamualaikum, On the surface, the letter below, originally published in Harakah, seems a very good letter indeed. But having read it about four times, I see confusion rather than clarity. Let me tell you why: 1. PAS practices democracy in electing its leaders. For democracy to operate properly, the electorates need to know as much as possible about the candidates. And for the candidates to be known to all, they need to be introduced. Their strengths and weaknesses need to be described and discussed at least among the voters. Their vision and capabilities must be understood. But how can these be achieved if lobbying were not allowed? How will the voters get the necessary information to make informed-decisions? 2. In the second paragraph, the author says that "ada juga tersebar surat-surat serupa di internet yang mendedahkan kelemahan individu tertentu". What is wrong with this? If someone were to contest for a public post, then surely their suitability should be discussed in public too. After all, many PAS leaders have been discussing the weaknesses of UMNO leaders all the times. How come it is right to discuss the weaknesses of UMNO personalities but when it come to the weaknesses of PAS' own personalities, oh no.... don't even dare to talk about it!!! If you can do it to those outside PAS, why can you not do it internally? 3. The author went on to say "Akan tetapi biarlah amalan demokrasi ini bertunjangkan Al Quran dan Sunnah". Well, fine. But please do describe to us what does he mean by it? What exactly is democracy based on Al-Quran and Sunnah? If you don't lobby, is that Islamic enough? 4. The author then said: "Biarlah pertandingan itu atas dasar kredibiliti calon tersebut". My reply is: Exactly!!! But how will you know about someone's credibility if lobbying is not allowed? If I were to nominate A for a post, I will need to tell the electorates about A's credibility. How am I supposed to do it if I am not allowed to lobby on his behalf? 5. The author went on to say "Siapa yang terpilih kelak samada mereka ini calon yang kita pilih atau bukan calon yang kita pilih, tanggungjawab kita sebagai ahli hendaklah ditunaikan". Once again, I would say: Exactly!!!. But please do tell me how can I "tunaikan tanggungjawab sebagai ahli" if I have no information about the candidates' abilities, strengths and weaknesses? 6. This is a good statement from the author: "Adalah tidak mustahil sebahagian daripada usaha lobi melobi ini, berkemungkinan sebahagiannya didalangi oleh pihak musuh". I can also say that the effort to prevent members from lobbying COULD (but not necessarily) also originate from the enemies of PAS. If the "enemies" believe that PAS in its current state is weak and divided, then of course they would want us to keep the status quo. Thus, they would not want any lobbying to occur as it may end up with a change for the better. Change scares the enemies. So, they want us to keep things as they are. How? By preventing members from lobbying for new faces who may bring change. 7. The author said "apa salahnya ahli PAS di seluruh negeri mengadakan solat hajat agar setiap cawangan, kawasan, negeri dan peringkat pusat di terajui oleh barisan pimpinan yang bertakwa dan berkaliber". Doa is undoubtedly the most potent weapon for us believers. But doa without action is futile. The real question is, after making the doa, WHAT are the actions that we should take? Should we just nominate and wait for voting day, and then vote without having any knowledge of the candidates? That is like a shop-owner stocking up his shop and then just pray that customers would walk in without even bothering to market his products. By preventing open lobbying, two things would result. Firstly, lobbying would be conducted secretively. This is surely unhealthy. Secondly, voters will only vote for people they know. They cannot judge based on capabilities due to the lack of info. They surely cannot judge new-faces as the new-faces do not yet have any track-record to be judged on. Once again, this too is unhealthy. What is wrong with lobbying? PAS does this all the time. We lobby for positions in government in every election. We lobby to become leaders of the country. Why does lobbying suddenly become wrong when it comes to choosing party leaders? It is indeed very easy to say that lobbying, campaigning, etc are bad. But please do tell me what alternative do we have? How can we ensure that electorates make informed decisions when voting day comes if lobbying and campaigning are not allowed? The key word here is "informed decision". Is there really an alternative to lobbying? If I have the choice, I would say that everyone should go all out, I repeat, "all out", to lobby for votes. PAS is a political party working within a democracy. If proper democracy cannot be practised internally, then what authority do we have to go outside and fight for democracy? The real answer is to create a culture of lobbying with Islamic values and ethics. But please do not run away from the challenge by closing the door to critical examinations of each candidate. As an organization, PAS should allow and encourage candidates to say what they believe in. PAS should encourage open discussions on the suitability of each and every candidate. PAS should create a method to enable members to critically and systematically examine the capabilities of each candidate. PAS must encourage members to listen to all sides. PAS should give every candidate ample time to present and defend their vision. As candidates, they must be willing to be quizzed. The candidates must be willing to proclaim their vision for the party. The candidates must be willing to stand up and say "I believe this is the best way forward". The candidates must be ready to be defend their ideas and to critically appraise the ideas of others. They must be willing to defend their ideas, while at the same time admit if others' ideas are better. Most importantly, as individuals working in an Islamic movement, we should all learn how to agree to disagree healthily. We must learn to accept the decision of the syura (via voting) once the election results are announced. We should be willing to give our wala' to the leaders once they are constitutionally elected. We must put aside all divisions and differences after the election. We must adhere strictly to Allah's command that we obey Allah, Rasul and the leaders amongst us. And we must work together to strengthen the party once the election is over. After all, we have already been shown by the kuffar that healthy lobbying is possible. Kerry and Edwards fought each other healthily to get their party's nomination. Once Kerry received the party's backing, Edwards accepted defeat and subsequently agreed to team up with Kerry. They were rivals when it was time to show rivalry. They teamed up when it was time to team up. From rivals, they become running mates. Are we saying that these two non-muslims practices more Islamic values and ethics than those contesting for positions in PAS? Come on...... Pemilihan pucuk pimpinan PAS: Elakkan budaya melobi Tuesday, March 08 @ 16:09:19 MYT Oleh Rozmal bin Malakan Tahun 2005 adalah merupakan tahun pemilihan pucuk pimpinan PAS peringkat Pusat, Kawasan dan Cawangan.Sudah mula tersebar surat-surat tanpa nama di internet akan usaha-usaha untuk melobi nama seseorang sebagai mereka yang akan berada di barisan pimpinan di semua peringkat. Dan sudah ada juga tersebar surat-surat serupa di internet yang mendedahkan kelemahan individu tertentu. Jika dalam UMNO, politik wang digunakan dalam usaha lobi melobi ini. Tapi dalam PAS, disebabkan budaya politik wang ini bukannya menjadi amalan ahli, mungkin kerana Allah SWT belum uji lagi dengan kekayaan dan harta sepertimana yang dihadapi oleh UMNO, maka politik wang tidak digunakan. Maka pelobi-pelobi yang bernama dan tidak bernama tadi menggunakan amalan politik siapa yang lebih banyak berjasa pada parti, siapa yang lebih akrab dengan Almarhum Presiden dan juga siapa yang lebih mesra dengan Tuan Guru Presiden sedia ada dan pelbagai hujjah lain. Sememangnya amalan demokrasi diamalkan dalam PAS dalam pemilihan parti. Akan tetapi biarlah amalan demokrasi ini bertungjangkan Al Quran dan Sunnah. Calonkanlah apa-apa nama pun yang difikirkan sesuai dengan kebolehan mereka akan tetapi elakkan adanya puak-puak untuk setiap calon itu. Biarlah pertandingan itu atas dasar kredibiliti calon tersebut, bukannya atas dasar ada puak yang melobi sesetengah calon. Yang utama setiap ahli hendaklah berserah dan bermunajjat kepada Allah SWT, agar kita diberikan barisan pimpinan yang mantap yang dapat menerajui PAS ke arah memartabatkan dan mendaulatkan Islam di Malaysia ini. Siapa yang terpilih kelak samada mereka ini calon yang kita pilih atau bukan calon yang kita pilih, tanggungjawab kita sebagai ahli hendaklah ditunaikan. Amalan budaya kerja berjemaah dan bersama dalam misi dan visi barisan pimpinan haruslah dicernakan dalam setiap kawasan dan cawangan. Jika tidak kita akan hanya menjadi bak kata pepatah, "Menang bersorak, Kampung tergadai". Adalah tidak mustahil sebahagian daripada usaha lobi melobi ini, berkemungkinan sebahagiannya didalangi oleh pihak musuh, sepertimana usaha mereka untuk melemahkan Islam dalam strategi "Divide and Conquer". Melemahkan PAS dari dalam adalah apa yang diperkatakan oleh pepatah Inggeris "If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them", yang bermaksud kalau kita tidak boleh tewaskan mereka dari luar, sertai mereka. Sekiranya kita dibudayakan dengan melakukan solat hajat apabila menghadapi sesuatu situasi besar mengapa apa salahnya ahli PAS di seluruh negeri mengadakan solat hajat agar setiap cawangan, kawasan, negeri dan peringkat pusat di terajui oleh barisan pimpinan yang bertakwa dan berkaliber yang disenangi oleh semua ahli dan bukan ahli yang boleh membawa keadilan Islam di Malaysia ini. Wallahu a’lam.

Talk advert

2005-03-24T01:20:00.000Z

A notice I received via email today: On behalf of the Society of Criminology, Professor John Lea will begiving a talk entitled "Terrorism, Crime and the collapse of Civil Liberties" on Tuesday, 12th April from 4.30pm to 6.00pm in LectureTheatre P8 at the Enfield Campus, Middlesex University, London. All are welcome.

To unite or not to unite?

2005-03-23T19:55:00.000Z

Organization A was set up in the 1960s in Singapore. It sells gadget X to market sector Y in Singapore. And it has links with organization B in Thailand. Organization P was set up in the 1990s in Singapore. It sells gadget X to market sector Y in Singapore. And it has links with organization Q in Thailand. Both organizations A and P uses the same marketing strategy. Bearing in mind that the products, customers and marketing strategy have much resemblance, it is mind-boggling that the two still cannot merge. And it is also surprising to see that even though their works are rather similar, and that they both have links with Thailand, they still link with different organizations in Thailand. Why can they not merge and form one big organization? Does the problem lie with organizations A and P, or does the problem lie with organizations B and Q in Thailand? Mind-boggling..... And to think that I have to come out with a potential solution.... hmmmmm.....

sapa nak belanja kopi?

2005-03-22T02:15:00.000Z

This, this and this would make an interesting topic to talk over coffee somewhere in London.... Any takers?