Whenever I'm asked to name the best book I've read, the first book that comes to my mind is Islam and Secularism, the magnum opus of one of Malaysia's finest contemporary scholars, the eminent and most respected Professor Syed Muhammad Naguib Al-Attas. First published in 1978, the book provides the most eloquent explanation on the concept of religion in Islam, an excellent morphological analysis of the Quranic term ad-Din, and a comprehensive outline of the Islamization of knowledge philosophy. Certainly, I am just one out of many who were deeply inspired by this book especially those who like me were reading and studying books on philosophy and social sciences written by scholars in the West. To comprehend and accept those ideas while remaining faithful to our religious standing and belief was not easy. Islam and Secularism gave us the answer, and the confidence and faith to carry on without doubt and fear.
Professor Al-Attas was the Founder-Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC). This 'Beacon on Top of The Hill' was a hugely respected institution attracting students from many parts of the Muslim world. It won't be an understatement to say that most of them came for the sole purpose of studying under this giant intellectual figure. Some even came upon giving up their professional careers. They all share the same burning desire that is to learn at the feet of this most learned scholar, a scholar deemed to be without peers; a scholar who deserves the loftiest of praises and reverence.
I too shared the same dream. ISTAC was the place for intellectuals, and I certainly wanted to be one. By the time I was in my final year of my undergraduate studies at IIUM, I had read all the books (published by ISTAC) plus many other scholarly papers written by Professor Al-Attas. I also became a regular visitor to ISTAC attending almost all his public lectures and talks. Unfortunately, instead of increasing my desire to study at ISTAC, these regular visits left me disenchanted and disillusioned.
What turned me off was the unmistaken air of arrogance emanating from the honourable professor/master and his students/disciples. On one occasion, a young member of the audience posed a mild critical comment on Al-Attas' views on Islamization. He was simply brushed aside with the reply, "tell me, what do you know about Islamization?" On another occasion, after delivering a talk on leadership in Islam, the professor was asked a simple and harmless question: "are leaders born or made?" The answer given was swift and demeaning: "of course they are born... you should read more books". And as these words were said by the master/professor, his disciples/students were laughing and smiling proudly in agreement.
Furthermore, being a student of the social sciences, I wasn't quite amused by the good professor's habitual condemnation of sociology and psychology. "These sociologists... according to them, religions are all rituals!" I've heard this exact statement coming from him quite a number of times. True, they are a number of sociologists who said so, but not all. After all, sociology is not Durkheim and Durkheim was not the only sociologists in history. And in Malaysia, the late Syed Hussein Alatas (as far as know) never said anything as sweeping as that. As for psychology, the eminent professor once exclaimed that other than to treat psychological disorders, psychology is practically useless. In this case, the good professor and his enlightened students probably thought psychology is nothing more than Freud's ambiguous psychoanalytic theory and Skinner's mechanistic behaviourist perspective.
Let there be no doubt that I do believe that Professor Al-Attas is a truly remarkable scholar whose scholarly achievements deserve great respect and acknowledgment. Having said that, I certainly do not see the need to constantly reiterate (especially not in front of him) lofty praises such as "he is a genius..., the most outstanding scholar..., his book (Islam and Secularism) is one the most important books written by a Muslim in the last century..." etc. Professor Al-Attas is a great scholar, but so was his elder brother Professor Syed Hussein Alatas and his 'intellectual-nemesis' Professor Ismail al-Faruqi.
As-far-as the Islamization of knowledge (IOK) is concern, I am truly of the opinion that Al-Attas' perspective is most profound and outstanding. His argument that Islamization begins with the mind vis-à-vis the individual and the emphasis on language and metaphysics was brilliantly explained in Islam and Secularism. But IOK is not exclusively his. Scholars from South Asia would vouch for the work of Sayyid Abu 'Ala Mawdudi as ideas that are more practical and comprehensive and written about much earlier. On the other hand, Muslim students in the United States back in the early 1980’s would fondly recall the IOK masterplan outlined by Ismail al-Faruqi in his book published by IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought). Great minds think alike. Thus, as my former teacher and current Dean of ISTAC, Professor Ibrahim Muhamad Zein once said, these are different perspectives of IOK. Professor Zein predictably was duly rebuked by an Al-Attas' disciple who reaffirmed the argument that there is one and only one true and original concept of IOK, and that belongs to Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas.
All-in-all, throughout my journey as a student, I am firmly guided by the Malay proverb "ikut resmi padi, makin tunduk makin berisi" i.e. the more knowledge one have, the more humble one should be. This is sadly what I fail to see in Professor Al-Attas and his many students/disciples. What I've seen instead is an intellectual arrogance which abhors differences of opinions even those coming from other eminent scholars. While I was genuinely elated to see Professor Al-Attas presenting his talk on 'Reviving the Worldview of Islam' earlier this month (the first time I've seen him lecture in more than five years), I wasn't quite happy to hear that he is still bitter about what happened to ISTAC, and his continuous insistence that others "don’t know (and) don't understand" as if those who do not agree totally with his views are of substandard levels of intelligence. And because of that, although I will always be a fan of his books and lectures, I can never be one of his disciples. Allahu'alam.
Monday 21 December 2009
Friday 11 December 2009
Power Is Intoxicating... Even For A Tok Guru
If one is in need of evidence why no one, absolutely no one should stay in power for too long, no matter how great his/her past achievements were, and no matter how capable and pious the person is; search no further than Malaysia's very own Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat.
When he appointed his son-in-law as the CEO of Kelantan Chief Minister Inc., he was reported to have said, "I appointed him because he is qualified, not because he is my son-in-law". He defended his decision then but now, facing with a mountain of allegations of misconduct against his son-in-law, rather than apologising for his mistakes, Nik Aziz said: "I did not ask him to resign, I just give him the advise. It is up to him. It is not his mistake, neither is mine. It is the State Legal Adviser’s fault". This is of course after what many thought he had done the right thing in asking his son-in-law to resign. Well, apparently he did not. How could the state legal adviser possibly advised him back then when he was so adamant about his decision?
No one in his right mind would want to accuse the saintly Nik Aziz as corrupt or power-crazy. But the man is a mere mortal. He has weaknesses. He has now become so accustomed to and comfortable with his position that he seems incapable to understand things the way others understand them. It seem like it's not that easy anymore for him to agree to a view different from his own, and to see things from an objective point-of-view. To appoint your own son-in-law to the highest position in a state government agency is wrong, period! Yes, he may be capable but was he the only capable person around at that moment? Was no one else, absolutely no one else who could take up the job other than him?
And on the infamous haj sponsorship issue, we find further evidence of how even a pious man like Nik Aziz can be intoxicated by power. He was reported to have said he isn't greedy to accept the sponsorship (RM65k per person package for he and his wife, and his daughter and the infamous son-in-law) but merely wanted to fulfill the wishes of his sponsors. Well, if Nik Aziz is just a religious teacher and not a state chief minister, the sponsorship wouldn't be an issue. But since he is still the chief minister and the sponsor is someone who helms private companies with business dealings with the Kelantan state government, OBVIOUSLY it is a problem. How can anyone not see that?! Nik Aziz's loyalists have argued, people in UMNO have done worst. Of course, but two wrongs do not make a right. If UMNO people do that, they are wrong, and you are wrong too if you do the same.
It is indeed very sad that the illustrious political career and legendary status of Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat will be forever tarnished by these issues. And for this to happen at the tail end (assumingly) of his tenure after almost 20 years as Kelantan Chief Minister, and at the time when support for PAS is gaining momentum in other states in the peninsular is most, most unfortunate.
When he appointed his son-in-law as the CEO of Kelantan Chief Minister Inc., he was reported to have said, "I appointed him because he is qualified, not because he is my son-in-law". He defended his decision then but now, facing with a mountain of allegations of misconduct against his son-in-law, rather than apologising for his mistakes, Nik Aziz said: "I did not ask him to resign, I just give him the advise. It is up to him. It is not his mistake, neither is mine. It is the State Legal Adviser’s fault". This is of course after what many thought he had done the right thing in asking his son-in-law to resign. Well, apparently he did not. How could the state legal adviser possibly advised him back then when he was so adamant about his decision?
No one in his right mind would want to accuse the saintly Nik Aziz as corrupt or power-crazy. But the man is a mere mortal. He has weaknesses. He has now become so accustomed to and comfortable with his position that he seems incapable to understand things the way others understand them. It seem like it's not that easy anymore for him to agree to a view different from his own, and to see things from an objective point-of-view. To appoint your own son-in-law to the highest position in a state government agency is wrong, period! Yes, he may be capable but was he the only capable person around at that moment? Was no one else, absolutely no one else who could take up the job other than him?
And on the infamous haj sponsorship issue, we find further evidence of how even a pious man like Nik Aziz can be intoxicated by power. He was reported to have said he isn't greedy to accept the sponsorship (RM65k per person package for he and his wife, and his daughter and the infamous son-in-law) but merely wanted to fulfill the wishes of his sponsors. Well, if Nik Aziz is just a religious teacher and not a state chief minister, the sponsorship wouldn't be an issue. But since he is still the chief minister and the sponsor is someone who helms private companies with business dealings with the Kelantan state government, OBVIOUSLY it is a problem. How can anyone not see that?! Nik Aziz's loyalists have argued, people in UMNO have done worst. Of course, but two wrongs do not make a right. If UMNO people do that, they are wrong, and you are wrong too if you do the same.
It is indeed very sad that the illustrious political career and legendary status of Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat will be forever tarnished by these issues. And for this to happen at the tail end (assumingly) of his tenure after almost 20 years as Kelantan Chief Minister, and at the time when support for PAS is gaining momentum in other states in the peninsular is most, most unfortunate.
Tuesday 24 November 2009
I Would Have Been A Communist...
At a recently held forum organised by the Socialist Party of Malaysia, one of the guest speaker, Muhammad Sabu of the Pan-Islamic Party of Malaysia (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia-PAS) said had he lived during the time of Karl Marx, he too would have been a communist! Most people would not expect someone from an Islamic party to say something like that expecially when communism is often considered a deviant anti-religious ideology. However for me, I can understand and accept that because I was and very much still a huge admirer of left-wing philosophy.
Growing up in the city (Petaling Jaya), my parents probably deserve lots of credit for not allowing me to think I was from a well-to-do family. In fact, I thought our family must have been quite poor because I very seldom got the chance to wear branded clothes and apparels unlike most of my classmates in school. Only when I went to a boarding school in Muar, Johore for the final two years in secondary school that I fully realised that my family was in fact quite rich and there are indeed many who are much less fortunate.
As I began to put these pieces of realities of life together, I recalled the images I often saw but never reflected upon, of the rich and poor in Petaling Jaya. Before the arrival of the great Khir Toyo, Petaling Jaya (and the entire state of Selangor) was filled with squatter settlements (kawasan rumah setinggan). Nearby my parents old house in SS7 Kelana Jaya, there were two such settlements. The one opposite the Subang Golf Club was most remarkable. Remarkable in the sense on the very same road, there were huge bungalows with an average of half-a-dozen cars parked inside. If there ever was a competition for the best image to illustrate the gap between the rich and poor in Malaysia, photos of this particular road would be a main contender. Here was where one could see the rich with all their opulence and the downtrodden poor living side-by-side.
When I was studying for my bachelor's degree, I started to read more serious writings. And one such works I was curious enough to read was Karl Marx's Das Kapital. Around the same time, I read about the struggles of Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi etc, while dwelling into the works of leftist Muslim thinkers like Syed Husin Alatas and Ali Shariati. I can't say I was truly inspired by what I read but it certainly persuaded me to entertain some revolutionary ideas. My visits to Pakistan and China later on made me realised more about the scope and gravity of income inequality and the brutal effects of capitalism in other societies.
Socialism is clearly the best economic ideology to best confront the growing gap between the rich and poor. But as some critics have said, socialism is a lousy and ineffective system simply because it operates on the naive assumption that man can overcome their own greed and selfish interests. Most socialist regimes in the past failed simply because their respective leaders weren't able to control their own desires. Instead of giving power back to the people, they installed themselves as the new ruling class and oppressed the very people they claimed to have championed.
My brief experience living in Finland however made me realised that human beings can in fact be conditioned to share what they have. The Finnish people, as well as citizens in other Scandinavian countries are very proud of their social welfare system that ensures no one is left too far behind in the economic ladder. Certainly, this is more Islamic than the ruthlessly selfish capitalist system.
On that note, just like Muhammad Sabu, I have no doubt that I too would have been a communist had I lived during Karl Marx's time. Marxism has many flaws, and socialist regimes past and present indeed are mired with numerous problems but it remains today the most potent rival to the evils of capitalism, and strangely perhaps, an important and strategic ally of Islamic movements.
Related article: Neo-Liberalism and the 'War on Terror' Industry, by Farish A.Noor
Growing up in the city (Petaling Jaya), my parents probably deserve lots of credit for not allowing me to think I was from a well-to-do family. In fact, I thought our family must have been quite poor because I very seldom got the chance to wear branded clothes and apparels unlike most of my classmates in school. Only when I went to a boarding school in Muar, Johore for the final two years in secondary school that I fully realised that my family was in fact quite rich and there are indeed many who are much less fortunate.
As I began to put these pieces of realities of life together, I recalled the images I often saw but never reflected upon, of the rich and poor in Petaling Jaya. Before the arrival of the great Khir Toyo, Petaling Jaya (and the entire state of Selangor) was filled with squatter settlements (kawasan rumah setinggan). Nearby my parents old house in SS7 Kelana Jaya, there were two such settlements. The one opposite the Subang Golf Club was most remarkable. Remarkable in the sense on the very same road, there were huge bungalows with an average of half-a-dozen cars parked inside. If there ever was a competition for the best image to illustrate the gap between the rich and poor in Malaysia, photos of this particular road would be a main contender. Here was where one could see the rich with all their opulence and the downtrodden poor living side-by-side.
When I was studying for my bachelor's degree, I started to read more serious writings. And one such works I was curious enough to read was Karl Marx's Das Kapital. Around the same time, I read about the struggles of Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi etc, while dwelling into the works of leftist Muslim thinkers like Syed Husin Alatas and Ali Shariati. I can't say I was truly inspired by what I read but it certainly persuaded me to entertain some revolutionary ideas. My visits to Pakistan and China later on made me realised more about the scope and gravity of income inequality and the brutal effects of capitalism in other societies.
Socialism is clearly the best economic ideology to best confront the growing gap between the rich and poor. But as some critics have said, socialism is a lousy and ineffective system simply because it operates on the naive assumption that man can overcome their own greed and selfish interests. Most socialist regimes in the past failed simply because their respective leaders weren't able to control their own desires. Instead of giving power back to the people, they installed themselves as the new ruling class and oppressed the very people they claimed to have championed.
My brief experience living in Finland however made me realised that human beings can in fact be conditioned to share what they have. The Finnish people, as well as citizens in other Scandinavian countries are very proud of their social welfare system that ensures no one is left too far behind in the economic ladder. Certainly, this is more Islamic than the ruthlessly selfish capitalist system.
On that note, just like Muhammad Sabu, I have no doubt that I too would have been a communist had I lived during Karl Marx's time. Marxism has many flaws, and socialist regimes past and present indeed are mired with numerous problems but it remains today the most potent rival to the evils of capitalism, and strangely perhaps, an important and strategic ally of Islamic movements.
Related article: Neo-Liberalism and the 'War on Terror' Industry, by Farish A.Noor
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Singapore and It's Malay Heritage
A few years ago, I applied to Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore for my doctoral studies. My application was viewed favourably that I was eventually offered to study there with a full scholarship. Although I had to refuse the offer eventually due to personal reasons, the experience I had throughout the process was quite interesting.
When I came for an interview at NTU, the head of the division said the university needs "more Malay-male role models". I was quite touched by her remark. In fact, to be honest I was very surprised. Surprised because one of the myths many Malays in Malaysia believe is, Chinese in Singapore do not care about the Malays and would not want them to develop or improve in any way.
There are quite a number of other myths about Singaporean Malays embraced by many here in Malaysia. A classic one is the belief they are not allowed to fire life bullets when they go for military training in the national service programme. In addition, there is this deep suspicion that no Singaporean Malays, no matter how capable and qualified, are allowed to hold top positions in the military and police. And to top it all, is the Mahathir-esque belief that most Malays in Singapore are oppressed and so depressed that if allowed will migrate in droves to Malaysia to be with their Malay brothers and sisters across the strait.
I've travelled to Singapore a couple of times in the last two years. I've met quite a number of Malay entrepreneurs and professionals. These are highly educated and successful individuals whom I can't imagine would want to migrate to Malaysia even if offered money to do so. Those who went for military training have fired hundreds of life bullets each. And I was duly informed that there are in fact high-ranking Malay military officers in the Singaporean army.
In the years I've been teaching at IIUM, I've also had a number of students from Singapore. These students most often were among the best in every class. Their English immaculate, their Malay refined, and their Arabic splendid. Most of these students yearned to go back to Singapore upon graduation to work and contribute to their society. I don't think I've met anyone among them who expressed desperation to remain in Malaysia for whatever reason.
With all this in mind, the least we can say they must be something good going on for the Malays in Singapore. Oppressed and depressed? I don't think so.
Many negative things were said in reaction to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Singapore in the aftermath of the US presidential election last year that a Malay cannot become the prime minister of the country at any time in the foreseeable future. I, personally however, did not find the statement harsh or offensive. I accepted it from a pragmatic perspective. The head-of-government of any country I believe should always be from the majority group. To have someone from a minority group will create unnecessary tension in the society which may proof detrimental to the stability of the country. For the very same reason, I don't think a Chinese or Indian non-Muslim can ever become the prime minister in Malaysia.
What about President Obama? With all due respect, Barack Obama is a minority only in terms of his skin colour and race, but in all other remaining aspects (religion, mother-tongue, education etc) he shares the same characteristics and background with the majority of the society. If Obama is a Muslim, who's mother tongue is Swahili (and speaks English with an African accent), educated in a madrasah in America, would Americans vote for him as president?
As a Malay from Malaysia, what then are my views about Singapore? I am a normal human being with emotions and feelings, and in addition a keen reader of history. Deep in my heart Singapore will always be Singapura, the lion-city founded in the 14th century by Sang Nila Utama. And just like any other Malay states in the Malay Archipelago, Singapore has a history that spans more than 700 years. For me then to read or hear from anyone as if Singapore's history began with Stamford Raffles in 1819 is rather annoying. And the images of Singapore that I enjoy best are not those of the city's modern skyscrapers or even the durian-like Esplanade but the splendid Masjid Sultan and Istana Kampung Glam nearby.
If there are any Singaporean Chinese (or Malaysian Chinese for that matter) who are reading this, if you are beginning to feel the above paragraph is some sort of revelation that I am in fact a Malay chauvinist, allow me to invite you to imagine a hypothetical scenario.
Imagine the city of Shanghai in China, governed and administered by Western powers today just like it was 150 years ago; imagine IF third and fourth generation Europeans are now the majority in the society, all the streets in the city are named in English, the medium of instruction in schools at all levels is English (Chinese is only an optional language course), as a result hardly anyone in the city speaks proper Mandarin; history of the city in the national school syllabus focuses mainly with events starting from the Opium War and the coming of the British in the early 19th century (with very little emphasis on what happened before that), Sir Charles Elliot is taunted as the founder of Shanghai, a life-size sculptor of him is erected at the heart of the city and buildings and hotels named in honour of him...
Even though you are not a Chinese citizen, but as someone whose ethnic background is Chinese, and in addition have read and appreciated the 2000 years Chinese history of Shanghai, when you visit Shanghai and witness all this, how would you feel?
The emotions I feel at times as a Malay visiting Singapore is a kind of sadness brought about by a sentimental lost. I'm sure many Chinese would feel the same way too in the hypothetical situation mentioned above. Nevertheless, these emotions, though undoubtedly negative, do not necessarily lead to antagonism and hatred. A strong sense of realism will eventually creep in that things of the past are confined to history, and everyone now must look forward to the future in the best interest of all. And harbouring thoughts about instigating revolutionary changes in the society's multi-ethnic composition is definitely not an option worth considering. The Chinese-dominated Singaporean government has provided many opportunities to the Malays. This can never be denied and should never be questioned.
Having said that, I do feel the Singaporean government can do a bit more to appreciate Singapore's Malay heritage. An issue that I feel very strongly about is respect towards the Malay language. I've found most of the Chinese and Indian Singaporeans I've met; especially amongst the youth today have very little command of Malay. Most of the Malay words they know are those that are now part of Singaporean-English (Singlish), which are mostly swear words like bodoh (stupid), gila (crazy), and mati (die).
Now, even if there are political reasons for not wanting to encourage Singaporeans to learn Malay, wouldn't it make sense to do so for pragmatic reasons? Is Malay not the national language of Singapore's next-door neighbours? Wouldn't it be advantageous to have all Singaporeans able to speak, write and read Malay for their own convenience when travelling to and doing business in Malaysia and Indonesia?
I apologise if any of what I've written here offends anyone in any way. My intention is none other than to express my honest views. My apologies if there are any factual mistakes. I stand corrected.
When I came for an interview at NTU, the head of the division said the university needs "more Malay-male role models". I was quite touched by her remark. In fact, to be honest I was very surprised. Surprised because one of the myths many Malays in Malaysia believe is, Chinese in Singapore do not care about the Malays and would not want them to develop or improve in any way.
There are quite a number of other myths about Singaporean Malays embraced by many here in Malaysia. A classic one is the belief they are not allowed to fire life bullets when they go for military training in the national service programme. In addition, there is this deep suspicion that no Singaporean Malays, no matter how capable and qualified, are allowed to hold top positions in the military and police. And to top it all, is the Mahathir-esque belief that most Malays in Singapore are oppressed and so depressed that if allowed will migrate in droves to Malaysia to be with their Malay brothers and sisters across the strait.
I've travelled to Singapore a couple of times in the last two years. I've met quite a number of Malay entrepreneurs and professionals. These are highly educated and successful individuals whom I can't imagine would want to migrate to Malaysia even if offered money to do so. Those who went for military training have fired hundreds of life bullets each. And I was duly informed that there are in fact high-ranking Malay military officers in the Singaporean army.
In the years I've been teaching at IIUM, I've also had a number of students from Singapore. These students most often were among the best in every class. Their English immaculate, their Malay refined, and their Arabic splendid. Most of these students yearned to go back to Singapore upon graduation to work and contribute to their society. I don't think I've met anyone among them who expressed desperation to remain in Malaysia for whatever reason.
With all this in mind, the least we can say they must be something good going on for the Malays in Singapore. Oppressed and depressed? I don't think so.
Many negative things were said in reaction to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Singapore in the aftermath of the US presidential election last year that a Malay cannot become the prime minister of the country at any time in the foreseeable future. I, personally however, did not find the statement harsh or offensive. I accepted it from a pragmatic perspective. The head-of-government of any country I believe should always be from the majority group. To have someone from a minority group will create unnecessary tension in the society which may proof detrimental to the stability of the country. For the very same reason, I don't think a Chinese or Indian non-Muslim can ever become the prime minister in Malaysia.
What about President Obama? With all due respect, Barack Obama is a minority only in terms of his skin colour and race, but in all other remaining aspects (religion, mother-tongue, education etc) he shares the same characteristics and background with the majority of the society. If Obama is a Muslim, who's mother tongue is Swahili (and speaks English with an African accent), educated in a madrasah in America, would Americans vote for him as president?
As a Malay from Malaysia, what then are my views about Singapore? I am a normal human being with emotions and feelings, and in addition a keen reader of history. Deep in my heart Singapore will always be Singapura, the lion-city founded in the 14th century by Sang Nila Utama. And just like any other Malay states in the Malay Archipelago, Singapore has a history that spans more than 700 years. For me then to read or hear from anyone as if Singapore's history began with Stamford Raffles in 1819 is rather annoying. And the images of Singapore that I enjoy best are not those of the city's modern skyscrapers or even the durian-like Esplanade but the splendid Masjid Sultan and Istana Kampung Glam nearby.
If there are any Singaporean Chinese (or Malaysian Chinese for that matter) who are reading this, if you are beginning to feel the above paragraph is some sort of revelation that I am in fact a Malay chauvinist, allow me to invite you to imagine a hypothetical scenario.
Imagine the city of Shanghai in China, governed and administered by Western powers today just like it was 150 years ago; imagine IF third and fourth generation Europeans are now the majority in the society, all the streets in the city are named in English, the medium of instruction in schools at all levels is English (Chinese is only an optional language course), as a result hardly anyone in the city speaks proper Mandarin; history of the city in the national school syllabus focuses mainly with events starting from the Opium War and the coming of the British in the early 19th century (with very little emphasis on what happened before that), Sir Charles Elliot is taunted as the founder of Shanghai, a life-size sculptor of him is erected at the heart of the city and buildings and hotels named in honour of him...
Even though you are not a Chinese citizen, but as someone whose ethnic background is Chinese, and in addition have read and appreciated the 2000 years Chinese history of Shanghai, when you visit Shanghai and witness all this, how would you feel?
The emotions I feel at times as a Malay visiting Singapore is a kind of sadness brought about by a sentimental lost. I'm sure many Chinese would feel the same way too in the hypothetical situation mentioned above. Nevertheless, these emotions, though undoubtedly negative, do not necessarily lead to antagonism and hatred. A strong sense of realism will eventually creep in that things of the past are confined to history, and everyone now must look forward to the future in the best interest of all. And harbouring thoughts about instigating revolutionary changes in the society's multi-ethnic composition is definitely not an option worth considering. The Chinese-dominated Singaporean government has provided many opportunities to the Malays. This can never be denied and should never be questioned.
Having said that, I do feel the Singaporean government can do a bit more to appreciate Singapore's Malay heritage. An issue that I feel very strongly about is respect towards the Malay language. I've found most of the Chinese and Indian Singaporeans I've met; especially amongst the youth today have very little command of Malay. Most of the Malay words they know are those that are now part of Singaporean-English (Singlish), which are mostly swear words like bodoh (stupid), gila (crazy), and mati (die).
Now, even if there are political reasons for not wanting to encourage Singaporeans to learn Malay, wouldn't it make sense to do so for pragmatic reasons? Is Malay not the national language of Singapore's next-door neighbours? Wouldn't it be advantageous to have all Singaporeans able to speak, write and read Malay for their own convenience when travelling to and doing business in Malaysia and Indonesia?
I apologise if any of what I've written here offends anyone in any way. My intention is none other than to express my honest views. My apologies if there are any factual mistakes. I stand corrected.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
1Malaysia, 1World... 1Universe?
"One Nation, One People". This is the catchphrase Malaysia's Prime Minister Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak most often uses to explain his 1Malaysia 'philosophy'.
Hardcore UMNO supporters, and those who have no interest in international politics would probably think this catchy phrase was originally invented by Prime Minister Najib. Well, just google the whole phrase and you'll know the exact same phrase has been used by politicians in the US and the UK, in Singapore and Indonesia, and in various other countries like Denmark, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Liberia, Armenia, Bhutan, Israel, Guyana and most probably, many more.
And if you think the term '1Malaysia' is unique, read about what Ehud Barak did to garner more support from Israel's diverse communities for the country's national election back in the late 1990's. He created an electoral coalition called 'One Israel' to attract voters who traditionally did not vote for and had negative views towards his Labour Party.
Not content with constantly badgering people in Malaysia with his '1Malaysia' slogan, our honourable Prime Minister recently went international to call for a '1World'! Sorry Mr. Prime Minister, Michael Jackson had beaten you to this more than 20 years ago with his song "We Are The World".
All past Prime Ministers of Malaysia and politicians from both sides, past and present, talked about national unity, racial integration, religious harmony, multiculturalism etc. What they disagreed essentially was on how to do it. The real truth is, 1Malaysia is not something new, and as can be deduced from Ehud Barak’s 'One Israel', is not even original. The only thing new is the ingenious way it is written (putting a digit together with a word), and the practice of attaching the term to anything and everything – 1Malaysia Formula One Team, Amanah Saham 1Malaysia, 1Malaysia Earthquake Fund, and 1Malaysia Lantern Festival.
Many local varsities I'm sure are in the race to set-up the Institute of 1Malaysia in addition to various conferences, seminars, exhibitions, campaigns, promotions, opening ceremonies, and whatever else that can be organised in the name of 1Malaysia. All this will be done as if '1Malaysia' is a completely new philosophy that came from our current Prime Minister's brilliant mind that no one else in this world dead or alive had ever thought about before.
Don't get me wrong. As a Malaysian who truly and deeply loves his country, I appreciate any good ideas for the nation no matter from where they come from; the Prime Minister, government ministers, opposition figures, wives of politicians or any Ahmad, Ah Chong or Mutusamy in the street. What I do find appalling is excessive sloganeering with no concrete measures to support the grand ideas mooted, and worse, clear intentional actions done to the contrary.
With President Obama now a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize, Prime Minister Najib may now have an added motivation to continue with his quest for '1World'. And to do even better than Obama and other earthly pretenders, Najib and his spin-doctors should start working on his '1Universe' speech to be delivered at the inaugural 'Intergalactic General Assembly' later in the future.
Related article: '1World, 1Malaysia...different planet'
Hardcore UMNO supporters, and those who have no interest in international politics would probably think this catchy phrase was originally invented by Prime Minister Najib. Well, just google the whole phrase and you'll know the exact same phrase has been used by politicians in the US and the UK, in Singapore and Indonesia, and in various other countries like Denmark, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Liberia, Armenia, Bhutan, Israel, Guyana and most probably, many more.
And if you think the term '1Malaysia' is unique, read about what Ehud Barak did to garner more support from Israel's diverse communities for the country's national election back in the late 1990's. He created an electoral coalition called 'One Israel' to attract voters who traditionally did not vote for and had negative views towards his Labour Party.
Not content with constantly badgering people in Malaysia with his '1Malaysia' slogan, our honourable Prime Minister recently went international to call for a '1World'! Sorry Mr. Prime Minister, Michael Jackson had beaten you to this more than 20 years ago with his song "We Are The World".
All past Prime Ministers of Malaysia and politicians from both sides, past and present, talked about national unity, racial integration, religious harmony, multiculturalism etc. What they disagreed essentially was on how to do it. The real truth is, 1Malaysia is not something new, and as can be deduced from Ehud Barak’s 'One Israel', is not even original. The only thing new is the ingenious way it is written (putting a digit together with a word), and the practice of attaching the term to anything and everything – 1Malaysia Formula One Team, Amanah Saham 1Malaysia, 1Malaysia Earthquake Fund, and 1Malaysia Lantern Festival.
Many local varsities I'm sure are in the race to set-up the Institute of 1Malaysia in addition to various conferences, seminars, exhibitions, campaigns, promotions, opening ceremonies, and whatever else that can be organised in the name of 1Malaysia. All this will be done as if '1Malaysia' is a completely new philosophy that came from our current Prime Minister's brilliant mind that no one else in this world dead or alive had ever thought about before.
Don't get me wrong. As a Malaysian who truly and deeply loves his country, I appreciate any good ideas for the nation no matter from where they come from; the Prime Minister, government ministers, opposition figures, wives of politicians or any Ahmad, Ah Chong or Mutusamy in the street. What I do find appalling is excessive sloganeering with no concrete measures to support the grand ideas mooted, and worse, clear intentional actions done to the contrary.
With President Obama now a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize, Prime Minister Najib may now have an added motivation to continue with his quest for '1World'. And to do even better than Obama and other earthly pretenders, Najib and his spin-doctors should start working on his '1Universe' speech to be delivered at the inaugural 'Intergalactic General Assembly' later in the future.
Related article: '1World, 1Malaysia...different planet'
Tuesday 22 September 2009
Desiring Purity
There were many times many years ago when I prayed to Allah SWT to grant me all the good qualities a man can have and exterminate from me all that is bad. My intention was simple. I wanted to be a man free from all bad habits and characteristics and acquire all that is good as much as what an ordinary man can hope to have. I was hoping though that this purification process would be an easy and instantaneous one, something akin to waking up one morning purified from any sense of arrogance, vanity, greed, envy and all other deadly sins and bad characteristics, and at the same time engulfed by the purest of all noble qualities - sincerity, humility, honesty etc.
It just doesn't work that way, does it? You don't get all these qualities and exterminate all that is bad that easily. You can't even learn how to do this in schools and universities. No amount of religious and moral education can guarantee a personality of such purity. Education may help to a certain extent but ultimately it is one's experiences in life that matters. And often, they involve hard and difficult moments.
For example, how does a person acquire humility and sincerity and eradicate from himself arrogance and vanity. Of course there are many who profess to be humble and sincere but are these really valid pronouncements or merely delusions? On the other hand, how can someone possibly know he is not selfish and arrogant? You may think so about youself but does that mean others must share the same assessment?
When I was making that do'a, I probably thought I wasn't far off from the ideal personality I wanted. I wanted to get married at that time and prayed to Allah SWT to bless me with a companion to enable me to complete the purification process. I honestly thought that was the only missing piece in me and once I get it everything will be smooth and easy.
I know now that I was and still am far off from that ideal. There were times in the past I perceived my own actions as honest expressions of self-confidence, totally ignorant of the fact that others saw them as signs of arrogance. At other times, I saw myself as standing firm to my beliefs and principles when in fact I was stubborn, inconsiderate and insensitive towards the feelings of others.
Purification of one's soul is not, has never been and will never be an easy process - something for us to contemplate on as we seek forgiveness from family members and friends in this blessed month of Shawal. Eid Mubarak!
It just doesn't work that way, does it? You don't get all these qualities and exterminate all that is bad that easily. You can't even learn how to do this in schools and universities. No amount of religious and moral education can guarantee a personality of such purity. Education may help to a certain extent but ultimately it is one's experiences in life that matters. And often, they involve hard and difficult moments.
For example, how does a person acquire humility and sincerity and eradicate from himself arrogance and vanity. Of course there are many who profess to be humble and sincere but are these really valid pronouncements or merely delusions? On the other hand, how can someone possibly know he is not selfish and arrogant? You may think so about youself but does that mean others must share the same assessment?
When I was making that do'a, I probably thought I wasn't far off from the ideal personality I wanted. I wanted to get married at that time and prayed to Allah SWT to bless me with a companion to enable me to complete the purification process. I honestly thought that was the only missing piece in me and once I get it everything will be smooth and easy.
I know now that I was and still am far off from that ideal. There were times in the past I perceived my own actions as honest expressions of self-confidence, totally ignorant of the fact that others saw them as signs of arrogance. At other times, I saw myself as standing firm to my beliefs and principles when in fact I was stubborn, inconsiderate and insensitive towards the feelings of others.
Purification of one's soul is not, has never been and will never be an easy process - something for us to contemplate on as we seek forgiveness from family members and friends in this blessed month of Shawal. Eid Mubarak!
Saturday 12 September 2009
Revitalising Islamization (or Islamicization)
Discussions on Islamization of knowledge (IOK) have been revitalised in the last few months. Both the Kulliyyah of Economics and the Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences have held several forums on the issue since early this year. Yesterday, a session was held at the Kulliyyah of Economics and the presenter for the day was Tan Sri Professor Dr. Mohd Kamal Hassan, a former Rector of the university who has been with IIUM since its inception in 1983.
Much of Kamal Hassan's presentation yesterday focused on issues often discussed in previous IOK talks I've attended over the years. These were namely the historical and philosophical background of the IOK project, the rationale behind IOK and a brief survey of the different IOK perspectives. An interesting and unique point however was made when he addressed an issue that cropped up towards the end of his tenure as Rector of the university: his personal preference for the term 'Islamicization' instead of 'Islamization'.
Several reasons were given and all these were highlighted in his paper which was distributed to members of the audience. The first was in support of the views of the late Professor Muhammad Hamidullah who said the term 'Islamization' is often understood in the context of religious conversion and proselytisation. This therefore may create some misunderstanding among Muslims and instill unnecessary anxieties among non-Muslims.
The strongest reason given is explained in the paragraph below:
"...while "Islamisation" conveys the idea of having to embrace Islamic theology or ontology or axiology or eschatology or epistemology as the case may be, the term "Islamicization" includes the idea that something is "acceptable by Islamic values, norms, standards or criteria", or something is "in harmony with the values and perspectives of Islam", such as the ideas or practices of good governance, excellence, professional competency, integrity, goodness, beauty, efficiency, punctuality, beneficence, best practices, harmless innovations or better ways of doing things, as long as those ideas, practices or institutions - many of which could also be found in non-Muslim personalities, organisations, cultures or countries - that do not conflict with the belief system, the law and ethics of Islam."
For me personally, although I am in agreement with all the points above, I would still prefer to stick with the term 'Islamization'. 'Islamization' is without doubt often understood to refer to religious conversion (especially in the study of history), but I believe can be argued today to have integrated the scope and meaning of "Islamicization" detailed in the above paragraph. On a more lighter note, the word "Islamicization" is quite a mouthful to pronounce. Many have struggled to pronounce it and that cannot be good if indeed we want people to talk and discuss about it more. The struggle to just get the pronunciation correct may put many people off.
Towards the end of his presentation, Kamal Hassan expressed his concern on the future of IOK at the university. IOK, or to be exact "Islamization of Human Knowledge" is IIUM's niche area "enshrined in the university's constitution as an important component of its sacred mission... As such it must remain as the core concern of the university which should never be marginalised or peripheralised."
I'm not sure whether Kamal Hassan was merely expressing a personal view, or was it in reaction to certain current developments at the university or the changing scenario in Malaysian politics. Whichever, I managed to put out a question on how we should respond to the argument that Islamization is a threat to nation-building and national integration in the context of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia. Kamal Hassan's answer dwelled more on a futuristic premise that nation-states will someday become obsolete but he did express his hope that future Malay-Muslim leaders in the country would see themselves as Muslims first, hence put priority on Islamic values and principles while governing the country. That is in fact the whole issue that requires some serious discussion for I know for sure it is an issue that many non-Muslims as well as Muslims liberals in Malaysia are currently questioning.
The talk was definitely a fruitful one. Future sessions are already in the pipeline and I am looking forward to attend them.
Much of Kamal Hassan's presentation yesterday focused on issues often discussed in previous IOK talks I've attended over the years. These were namely the historical and philosophical background of the IOK project, the rationale behind IOK and a brief survey of the different IOK perspectives. An interesting and unique point however was made when he addressed an issue that cropped up towards the end of his tenure as Rector of the university: his personal preference for the term 'Islamicization' instead of 'Islamization'.
Several reasons were given and all these were highlighted in his paper which was distributed to members of the audience. The first was in support of the views of the late Professor Muhammad Hamidullah who said the term 'Islamization' is often understood in the context of religious conversion and proselytisation. This therefore may create some misunderstanding among Muslims and instill unnecessary anxieties among non-Muslims.
The strongest reason given is explained in the paragraph below:
"...while "Islamisation" conveys the idea of having to embrace Islamic theology or ontology or axiology or eschatology or epistemology as the case may be, the term "Islamicization" includes the idea that something is "acceptable by Islamic values, norms, standards or criteria", or something is "in harmony with the values and perspectives of Islam", such as the ideas or practices of good governance, excellence, professional competency, integrity, goodness, beauty, efficiency, punctuality, beneficence, best practices, harmless innovations or better ways of doing things, as long as those ideas, practices or institutions - many of which could also be found in non-Muslim personalities, organisations, cultures or countries - that do not conflict with the belief system, the law and ethics of Islam."
For me personally, although I am in agreement with all the points above, I would still prefer to stick with the term 'Islamization'. 'Islamization' is without doubt often understood to refer to religious conversion (especially in the study of history), but I believe can be argued today to have integrated the scope and meaning of "Islamicization" detailed in the above paragraph. On a more lighter note, the word "Islamicization" is quite a mouthful to pronounce. Many have struggled to pronounce it and that cannot be good if indeed we want people to talk and discuss about it more. The struggle to just get the pronunciation correct may put many people off.
Towards the end of his presentation, Kamal Hassan expressed his concern on the future of IOK at the university. IOK, or to be exact "Islamization of Human Knowledge" is IIUM's niche area "enshrined in the university's constitution as an important component of its sacred mission... As such it must remain as the core concern of the university which should never be marginalised or peripheralised."
I'm not sure whether Kamal Hassan was merely expressing a personal view, or was it in reaction to certain current developments at the university or the changing scenario in Malaysian politics. Whichever, I managed to put out a question on how we should respond to the argument that Islamization is a threat to nation-building and national integration in the context of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia. Kamal Hassan's answer dwelled more on a futuristic premise that nation-states will someday become obsolete but he did express his hope that future Malay-Muslim leaders in the country would see themselves as Muslims first, hence put priority on Islamic values and principles while governing the country. That is in fact the whole issue that requires some serious discussion for I know for sure it is an issue that many non-Muslims as well as Muslims liberals in Malaysia are currently questioning.
The talk was definitely a fruitful one. Future sessions are already in the pipeline and I am looking forward to attend them.
Wednesday 2 September 2009
Independent But Still In Love
British rock legend Rod Stewart was once booked to perform an evening concert in Kuala Lumpur. The planned date was 31 August 1995. Since the date coincided with Malaysia's Independence Day, various sections in the society demanded the event to be cancelled. Many believed to have the concert on such an important occassion is inappropriate and insensitive to the feelings of those who had struggled for the country's independence. After all, Rod Stewart is British, and the British were the oppressive colonizers here.
The concert was eventually cancelled. Being a fan of classic rock music and a bit of a concert-goer at that time, I was extremely disappointed. I remember writing in my log book (I was taking an English language intensive course at the time) about how silly I thought the decision was. My contention was, yes, the concert happened to fall on Merdeka Day, but it was scheduled to be held in the evening, not during the day. All the talk and spirit of patriotism, nationalism etc are normally expressed in the morning. There won't be much anymore by night time so why not let some of us enjoy a good performance from a rock legend?
I must admit my attitude and viewpoints then were bad and immature. Yes, to have a rock concert held on the country's independence day is indeed inappropriate.
Having said that, I still can't accept the rhetoric about Rod Stewart being British and somehow represents the British colonizers and the colonial period. We Malaysians in fact are a strange lot. We talk about oppression under the British and hail our heroes who fought against them but in our day-to-day actions still embrace and adore their tradition and culture.
I have never understood for example why in a very warm climate country like ours, we still emphasise suit-and-tie as the utmost formal attire. If you walk to a departmental store and talk to the sales assistant in English with an immaculate English accent, the sales assistant will treat you like a king and serve you politely. And talking about departmental stores, has anyone thought about the irony of having shops in an independent Malaysia with the name 'East-India Company' and 'British India'? Was not the East-India Company the British company who cheated our sultans and took away many of our lands? Can anyone of Indian decent stomach a shop and clothing brand by the name 'British India'? Of course, this is Malaysia not India. But imagine, if you are a Malaysian visiting India today and you see shops with the name 'British Malaya'? That doesn't sound so nice, does it?
Someone once told me a joke: "if you throw a coin in London's Oxford Street (especially during the end-of-the-year shopping season), one-out-of-four times you will hit a Malay". A slightly different version says you will hit either a 'Datuk' or a 'Datin'. Whichever, the joke demonstrates how Anglo-philic we are despite the often-heard jibes and rhetorics against the British, and Western values and Western culture in general. After all, isn't our flag look conspicuously similar to America's?
The concert was eventually cancelled. Being a fan of classic rock music and a bit of a concert-goer at that time, I was extremely disappointed. I remember writing in my log book (I was taking an English language intensive course at the time) about how silly I thought the decision was. My contention was, yes, the concert happened to fall on Merdeka Day, but it was scheduled to be held in the evening, not during the day. All the talk and spirit of patriotism, nationalism etc are normally expressed in the morning. There won't be much anymore by night time so why not let some of us enjoy a good performance from a rock legend?
I must admit my attitude and viewpoints then were bad and immature. Yes, to have a rock concert held on the country's independence day is indeed inappropriate.
Having said that, I still can't accept the rhetoric about Rod Stewart being British and somehow represents the British colonizers and the colonial period. We Malaysians in fact are a strange lot. We talk about oppression under the British and hail our heroes who fought against them but in our day-to-day actions still embrace and adore their tradition and culture.
I have never understood for example why in a very warm climate country like ours, we still emphasise suit-and-tie as the utmost formal attire. If you walk to a departmental store and talk to the sales assistant in English with an immaculate English accent, the sales assistant will treat you like a king and serve you politely. And talking about departmental stores, has anyone thought about the irony of having shops in an independent Malaysia with the name 'East-India Company' and 'British India'? Was not the East-India Company the British company who cheated our sultans and took away many of our lands? Can anyone of Indian decent stomach a shop and clothing brand by the name 'British India'? Of course, this is Malaysia not India. But imagine, if you are a Malaysian visiting India today and you see shops with the name 'British Malaya'? That doesn't sound so nice, does it?
Someone once told me a joke: "if you throw a coin in London's Oxford Street (especially during the end-of-the-year shopping season), one-out-of-four times you will hit a Malay". A slightly different version says you will hit either a 'Datuk' or a 'Datin'. Whichever, the joke demonstrates how Anglo-philic we are despite the often-heard jibes and rhetorics against the British, and Western values and Western culture in general. After all, isn't our flag look conspicuously similar to America's?
Saturday 8 August 2009
The Rise of China
The rise of China as a global superpower was one of the issues often discussed throughout the International Visitors Leadership Programme (IVLP) I took part in back in September 2007 (with visits across six different cities in the US). I had read mostly optimistic views about the issue hence, found it quite surprising that in many of these discussions, some very strong pessimistic views were expressed instead.
A fellow participant from Taiwan especially (not surprisingly I guess), conveyed on numerous times his views that the West, especially the United States, should recognise the Republic of Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation-state and not be afraid of any kind of backlash from Beijing. According to him, China needs the rest of the world more than the other way around. Also, to him, China is facing a multitude of domestic problems ranging from socio-economic to environmental issues, which will hinder significantly China’s economic progress in the near future and eventually prevent it from ever becoming a genuine economic and military superpower.
Every country has its own domestic issues. China, the world’s most populous nation obviously has more and of various kinds compared to others. Some outsiders therefore, I believe are too quick to complaint about the situation here.
I’ve visited China every year for the last six years. I admit, on certain issues, I used to have some very negative views. For example, I found it hard to accept that despite being a communist country, education and health-care services are not provided free to its citizens. I’ve observed how Chinese parents struggle financially to pay for their children’s education and how much people here have to spend from their own pocket for medical treatment.
I had lived in Finland for almost two years and witnessed in this socialist-democratic country the generosity and efficiency of the state in providing free education and health-care services to its people. A socialist Finland and a communist China I thought should have similar approaches when it comes to public services.
But really, to compare China and Finland is not even like comparing apples and oranges. Apples and oranges are indeed different but at least they are of similar sizes. China and Finland are more like durian and melon seed! The total population in Beijing alone is a few times more than that of Finland. Still, the Finnish government has struggled for a number of years to maintain the social welfare system for its five million citizens. Can anyone imagine the financial and administrative challenges of maintaining a similar system for one-and-half billion (one thousand and five hundred million) people?
What we can see in China today in fact is a careful and well-planned process of liberalisation to encourage healthy competition, individual responsibility, and careful financial planning. The moment a child is born, parents know they have to plan ahead for the child’s future. Basic education is available for all but only those who excel will receive financial assistance from the state. No one is refused basic health care services. State medical insurance scheme are also now available and the premiums are reasonable.
The Chinese government I believe is more than aware of its own domestic issues and are well-placed to deal with them successfully. Always, the most important challenge in providing effective governance is to strike a fine balance between freedom and control. The Chinese has been able to do this remarkably well for the last decade despite the predictions of a few doomsayers.
Can China rise then as a genuine global superpower? I think China already is, and has been one for a number of years now and will remain so for many decades to come. I do not think the Chinese government harbours any ambitions of military takeovers of its neighbours hence the discussion about China as a future military superpower does not really matter. But China’s rise as an economic superpower, despite the various socio-political-economic issues it has to face, is obvious and inevitable. A country that constitutes a-fifth of the world’s population will always play a major role in this era of globalisation.
Countries around the world are all competing for stronger ties with China. Heads-of-governments of Malaysia, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, as well as foreign ministers of Great Britain, United States and others had all purposely arranged for official visits to China at the start of their respective tenure.
As for me, I have forged my own ties with the Chinese people for the last six years. My Chinese wife and I recently welcomed our third child, a baby girl born in the north-west Chinese city of Lanzhou, whom we hope and pray will grow to be a global citizen with the best of both Malay and Chinese Islamic values.
A fellow participant from Taiwan especially (not surprisingly I guess), conveyed on numerous times his views that the West, especially the United States, should recognise the Republic of Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation-state and not be afraid of any kind of backlash from Beijing. According to him, China needs the rest of the world more than the other way around. Also, to him, China is facing a multitude of domestic problems ranging from socio-economic to environmental issues, which will hinder significantly China’s economic progress in the near future and eventually prevent it from ever becoming a genuine economic and military superpower.
Every country has its own domestic issues. China, the world’s most populous nation obviously has more and of various kinds compared to others. Some outsiders therefore, I believe are too quick to complaint about the situation here.
I’ve visited China every year for the last six years. I admit, on certain issues, I used to have some very negative views. For example, I found it hard to accept that despite being a communist country, education and health-care services are not provided free to its citizens. I’ve observed how Chinese parents struggle financially to pay for their children’s education and how much people here have to spend from their own pocket for medical treatment.
I had lived in Finland for almost two years and witnessed in this socialist-democratic country the generosity and efficiency of the state in providing free education and health-care services to its people. A socialist Finland and a communist China I thought should have similar approaches when it comes to public services.
But really, to compare China and Finland is not even like comparing apples and oranges. Apples and oranges are indeed different but at least they are of similar sizes. China and Finland are more like durian and melon seed! The total population in Beijing alone is a few times more than that of Finland. Still, the Finnish government has struggled for a number of years to maintain the social welfare system for its five million citizens. Can anyone imagine the financial and administrative challenges of maintaining a similar system for one-and-half billion (one thousand and five hundred million) people?
What we can see in China today in fact is a careful and well-planned process of liberalisation to encourage healthy competition, individual responsibility, and careful financial planning. The moment a child is born, parents know they have to plan ahead for the child’s future. Basic education is available for all but only those who excel will receive financial assistance from the state. No one is refused basic health care services. State medical insurance scheme are also now available and the premiums are reasonable.
The Chinese government I believe is more than aware of its own domestic issues and are well-placed to deal with them successfully. Always, the most important challenge in providing effective governance is to strike a fine balance between freedom and control. The Chinese has been able to do this remarkably well for the last decade despite the predictions of a few doomsayers.
Can China rise then as a genuine global superpower? I think China already is, and has been one for a number of years now and will remain so for many decades to come. I do not think the Chinese government harbours any ambitions of military takeovers of its neighbours hence the discussion about China as a future military superpower does not really matter. But China’s rise as an economic superpower, despite the various socio-political-economic issues it has to face, is obvious and inevitable. A country that constitutes a-fifth of the world’s population will always play a major role in this era of globalisation.
Countries around the world are all competing for stronger ties with China. Heads-of-governments of Malaysia, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, as well as foreign ministers of Great Britain, United States and others had all purposely arranged for official visits to China at the start of their respective tenure.
As for me, I have forged my own ties with the Chinese people for the last six years. My Chinese wife and I recently welcomed our third child, a baby girl born in the north-west Chinese city of Lanzhou, whom we hope and pray will grow to be a global citizen with the best of both Malay and Chinese Islamic values.
Wednesday 24 June 2009
Tales of Refugees
In January 2004, when I informed my senior officer at UNHCR that I would be quitting my job to take up a teaching position at IIUM, I was 'demoted' to a position called Temporary Protection (TP) Screener. I was only expected to start at the university in April, so I was still able to work if the office allowed me to. However, my original position as 'Programme Assistant' was a new position that required much training and exposure. Since I had already decided to quit within the next two months, the senior programme officer and I agreed it would be better for the office to find a long term replacement and train her for the position. But because I could still be around for the next two months I was asked to fill-in as a TP Screener. I agreed and I'm glad I did.
Previously, as Programme Assistant, I was always inside the office going through files and papers working mostly on the computer. As a TP Screener, I was in the frontline dealing directly with asylum seekers. At that time, the office was receiving a huge number of people from Aceh, Indonesia. My main task was to process the Acehnese who came to the office, interview them individually and later make recommendations to the Protection and Eligibility Officers whether each case should be processed further. To obtain an official refugee status, being screened by a TP Screener is the first stage of a very long process. There are at least two other stages of evaluation that an asylum seeker has to go through. The whole process therefore may drag on for years depending on the severity and imminent nature of each case.
Just two days into this new position, I encountered one of the most shocking experiences in my life. An Iranian asylum seeker, whose refugee application had received multiple rejections, set himself ablaze just outside the UNHCR compound. I went to the scene together with other colleagues when we heard noises of commotion outside and was stunned to find a man engulfed in flames. To this day, the things I remember most about the incident are the smell of human flesh burning in front of my eyes and the unbelievable composure of the man (he moved very casually the entire time when he was in flames and after it was put off). He died at the hospital nine hours later.
Dealing with Acehnese refugees felt quite awkward to me. Mostly because, to a certain extent I am one of them. My maternal great-great grandfather was supposedly from Aceh who came to the peninsular sometime in the mid-19th century. According to the 'legend', he was hunted by the Dutch for rebelling against them. He came to the peninsular therefore as a refugee, to seek asylum and to start a new life. And there I was, a century-and-a-half later, interviewing people who arrived to these shores in similar predicaments.
I met some interesting characters in my two months as TP Screener. Most who came were nice and friendly, some looked terrified, while a few were quite aggressive. Most of the time though I was able to engage into extended conversations with them about the situation in Aceh and about their personal ordeals (which I have to say, was something I wasn't supposed to do). Almost all the men had physical scars to show to proof that they were victims of the Indonesian army's brutality while some of the women talked about personal encounters of sexual abuse. I kept an open mind all along assuming that these accounts were true. Some of my colleagues though cautioned me that many of them might be lying just to get my sympathy. Perhaps. Possibly some of these people were wonderful actors but when I saw tears and distinct signs of fear in their eyes and movements, I certainly did not think they were.
I was blessed though to have encountered one of the most heart-warming stories in life one can ever imagine, the story of a young Acehnese mother and her children. She arrived in Malaysia together with her husband and two small children two years earlier. After going through the whole process with UNHCR, the whole family was put on the priority list for resettlement in a third country. The Canadian government had evaluated their case and agreed to allow them to resettle in Canada. While waiting for the papers to go through, the husband received news from home that his father was very ill and had expressed his wish to see his son before he dies. The husband was a wanted man in Indonesia, so to go back would be incredibly risky. But he went back nonetheless promising his wife and informing UNHCR that it will be a very quick visit.
After more than six months, the husband still had not returned. Eventually some news came from Indonesia that he was in fact detained upon arrival in Sumatra and was sent to jail. Nobody had heard anything about him since then which indicated quite strongly that he could already be dead. Meanwhile, in Kuala Lumpur, his wife and two children were about to finally receive the green light to go to Canada. The wife however was faced with the difficult situation of moving to a strange foreign country as a single-mother with two young children.
A friend of her husband then offered to marry her to help her resettle in Canada. Although he was also an Acehnese, being an unmarried young man, he was not high in the priority list and honestly did not have any prospect to be offered resettlement to a third country. Some people therefore would think that this man was merely taking advantage of this young mother's unfortunate situation. She did not doubt his sincerity though for the man had been helping her to look after her children for the past few months. She agreed to marry him. UNHCR and the Canadian authorities had no objections and allowed him to replace her 'late' husband's place to move to Canada.
Two weeks before their departure date, a man walked into the UNHCR office and claimed he was the 'presumed dead' husband. His family members and UNHCR officers were both convinced that he was indeed the man he claimed to be. Apparently, he managed to break out from prison a few months back and was finally able to sneak back to Malaysia. His wife (or his ex-wife to be exact), although was happy to see her long lost husband (now ex-husband), was now no longer married to him. She had already taken a new husband about a month earlier. What made things more complicated was this. The Canadian government was willing to accept only a fix number of refugees. So, since the wife was now married to another man, her 'ex-husband' who had suddenly reappeared would not be allowed to follow her and their two children to Canada. What she had to do then was to choose, which husband to take? Her new husband whom she had recently married, or her ex-husband who had been wrongly presumed to be dead?
Imagine the dilemma this young Acehnese mother was facing. On one hand, she wanted to be grateful to her new husband who had cared for her and her children in the last few months, while on the other hand she felt the need to be loyal to her ex-husband who is also the father of her two children. The children ultimately were the deciding factor. The wife strongly believed they needed their father more than anything. But being now legally married to another man, she could not just dump her new husband and take back her previous one. Specific procedures in the shar'iah (Islamic law) must be followed. She had to, first-of-all ask for divorce from her husband, and then remarry her ex-husband. What happened at this point was most touching and memorable.
UNHCR arranged for a special meeting with all persons involved which included a representative from the Canadian embassy. In that unforgettable meeting, the wife made the official request to her husband, an emotional plea to him to let her go to allow her and her children to be reunited with her ex-husband. She chose her words very carefully and spoke in a very gentle voice. She repeatedly thanked her husband for what he had done for her and her children, and apologise profusely and desperately to him while tears were flowing freely from her eyes.
Theoretically, it would have been perfectly legal if the husband refused to divorce his wife. No one would be able to say anything against it as he was legally the husband who held the rights to either divorce or not to divorce. After a brief silent yet very anxious moment, he spoke softly and agreed. By that time, tears were flowing on everyone's cheek. Even the Canadian man was moved to tears even though he did not quite understand what was actually spoken. He was to play an important role in the conclusion of this emotional tale when he went back to lobby the authorities in Canada to allow this unfortunate soon-to-be-divorced-husband to resettle in the country. Somehow, he succeeded! Thus, in the end 'both husbands' went to Canada together with the young mother and her two children.
As the world 'celebrate' (not sure whether this is an appropriate word to be used here) World Refugees Day four days ago (20th June), the stories of refugees I met during my time as a TP Screener reminded me of the scale of suffering others have to endure and how fortunate indeed I am to be exempted from such experiences. Refugee crises worldwide have gotten much worse since my time at UNHCR. In Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the number of refugees are mounting. Events that precipitate the escalation of the crisis do not involve these refugees. They are caused by those in the echelons of power whose lives are seldom directly affected by the tragedies they help create; which might just push one to question, is there justice in this world?
I believe in the end justice will be served, if not in this world, in the hereafter. Those who wrongly suffered will attain salvation and those who created mischief and caused suffering to others will be made to rue their actions.
Previously, as Programme Assistant, I was always inside the office going through files and papers working mostly on the computer. As a TP Screener, I was in the frontline dealing directly with asylum seekers. At that time, the office was receiving a huge number of people from Aceh, Indonesia. My main task was to process the Acehnese who came to the office, interview them individually and later make recommendations to the Protection and Eligibility Officers whether each case should be processed further. To obtain an official refugee status, being screened by a TP Screener is the first stage of a very long process. There are at least two other stages of evaluation that an asylum seeker has to go through. The whole process therefore may drag on for years depending on the severity and imminent nature of each case.
Just two days into this new position, I encountered one of the most shocking experiences in my life. An Iranian asylum seeker, whose refugee application had received multiple rejections, set himself ablaze just outside the UNHCR compound. I went to the scene together with other colleagues when we heard noises of commotion outside and was stunned to find a man engulfed in flames. To this day, the things I remember most about the incident are the smell of human flesh burning in front of my eyes and the unbelievable composure of the man (he moved very casually the entire time when he was in flames and after it was put off). He died at the hospital nine hours later.
Dealing with Acehnese refugees felt quite awkward to me. Mostly because, to a certain extent I am one of them. My maternal great-great grandfather was supposedly from Aceh who came to the peninsular sometime in the mid-19th century. According to the 'legend', he was hunted by the Dutch for rebelling against them. He came to the peninsular therefore as a refugee, to seek asylum and to start a new life. And there I was, a century-and-a-half later, interviewing people who arrived to these shores in similar predicaments.
I met some interesting characters in my two months as TP Screener. Most who came were nice and friendly, some looked terrified, while a few were quite aggressive. Most of the time though I was able to engage into extended conversations with them about the situation in Aceh and about their personal ordeals (which I have to say, was something I wasn't supposed to do). Almost all the men had physical scars to show to proof that they were victims of the Indonesian army's brutality while some of the women talked about personal encounters of sexual abuse. I kept an open mind all along assuming that these accounts were true. Some of my colleagues though cautioned me that many of them might be lying just to get my sympathy. Perhaps. Possibly some of these people were wonderful actors but when I saw tears and distinct signs of fear in their eyes and movements, I certainly did not think they were.
I was blessed though to have encountered one of the most heart-warming stories in life one can ever imagine, the story of a young Acehnese mother and her children. She arrived in Malaysia together with her husband and two small children two years earlier. After going through the whole process with UNHCR, the whole family was put on the priority list for resettlement in a third country. The Canadian government had evaluated their case and agreed to allow them to resettle in Canada. While waiting for the papers to go through, the husband received news from home that his father was very ill and had expressed his wish to see his son before he dies. The husband was a wanted man in Indonesia, so to go back would be incredibly risky. But he went back nonetheless promising his wife and informing UNHCR that it will be a very quick visit.
After more than six months, the husband still had not returned. Eventually some news came from Indonesia that he was in fact detained upon arrival in Sumatra and was sent to jail. Nobody had heard anything about him since then which indicated quite strongly that he could already be dead. Meanwhile, in Kuala Lumpur, his wife and two children were about to finally receive the green light to go to Canada. The wife however was faced with the difficult situation of moving to a strange foreign country as a single-mother with two young children.
A friend of her husband then offered to marry her to help her resettle in Canada. Although he was also an Acehnese, being an unmarried young man, he was not high in the priority list and honestly did not have any prospect to be offered resettlement to a third country. Some people therefore would think that this man was merely taking advantage of this young mother's unfortunate situation. She did not doubt his sincerity though for the man had been helping her to look after her children for the past few months. She agreed to marry him. UNHCR and the Canadian authorities had no objections and allowed him to replace her 'late' husband's place to move to Canada.
Two weeks before their departure date, a man walked into the UNHCR office and claimed he was the 'presumed dead' husband. His family members and UNHCR officers were both convinced that he was indeed the man he claimed to be. Apparently, he managed to break out from prison a few months back and was finally able to sneak back to Malaysia. His wife (or his ex-wife to be exact), although was happy to see her long lost husband (now ex-husband), was now no longer married to him. She had already taken a new husband about a month earlier. What made things more complicated was this. The Canadian government was willing to accept only a fix number of refugees. So, since the wife was now married to another man, her 'ex-husband' who had suddenly reappeared would not be allowed to follow her and their two children to Canada. What she had to do then was to choose, which husband to take? Her new husband whom she had recently married, or her ex-husband who had been wrongly presumed to be dead?
Imagine the dilemma this young Acehnese mother was facing. On one hand, she wanted to be grateful to her new husband who had cared for her and her children in the last few months, while on the other hand she felt the need to be loyal to her ex-husband who is also the father of her two children. The children ultimately were the deciding factor. The wife strongly believed they needed their father more than anything. But being now legally married to another man, she could not just dump her new husband and take back her previous one. Specific procedures in the shar'iah (Islamic law) must be followed. She had to, first-of-all ask for divorce from her husband, and then remarry her ex-husband. What happened at this point was most touching and memorable.
UNHCR arranged for a special meeting with all persons involved which included a representative from the Canadian embassy. In that unforgettable meeting, the wife made the official request to her husband, an emotional plea to him to let her go to allow her and her children to be reunited with her ex-husband. She chose her words very carefully and spoke in a very gentle voice. She repeatedly thanked her husband for what he had done for her and her children, and apologise profusely and desperately to him while tears were flowing freely from her eyes.
Theoretically, it would have been perfectly legal if the husband refused to divorce his wife. No one would be able to say anything against it as he was legally the husband who held the rights to either divorce or not to divorce. After a brief silent yet very anxious moment, he spoke softly and agreed. By that time, tears were flowing on everyone's cheek. Even the Canadian man was moved to tears even though he did not quite understand what was actually spoken. He was to play an important role in the conclusion of this emotional tale when he went back to lobby the authorities in Canada to allow this unfortunate soon-to-be-divorced-husband to resettle in the country. Somehow, he succeeded! Thus, in the end 'both husbands' went to Canada together with the young mother and her two children.
As the world 'celebrate' (not sure whether this is an appropriate word to be used here) World Refugees Day four days ago (20th June), the stories of refugees I met during my time as a TP Screener reminded me of the scale of suffering others have to endure and how fortunate indeed I am to be exempted from such experiences. Refugee crises worldwide have gotten much worse since my time at UNHCR. In Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the number of refugees are mounting. Events that precipitate the escalation of the crisis do not involve these refugees. They are caused by those in the echelons of power whose lives are seldom directly affected by the tragedies they help create; which might just push one to question, is there justice in this world?
I believe in the end justice will be served, if not in this world, in the hereafter. Those who wrongly suffered will attain salvation and those who created mischief and caused suffering to others will be made to rue their actions.
Thursday 18 June 2009
Why Mahathir Hates Lee Kuan Yew?
I have read for many years about Tun Dr. Mahathir’s deep resentment and suspicion against Singapore. From his writings in The Early Years to his occasional jibes against the 'little red dot' after stepping down as Malaysia's prime minister in 2003, Dr. Mahathir's feelings towards Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew are clear and obvious. His recent blog post The Modern Middle Kingdom, is the latest evidence to this. Many may wonder from where did all these negative feelings and emotions come from? Allow me to offer some answers.
Dr. Mahathir obtained his medical degree in Singapore (the University of Malaya was then located there), and it was during his studies there he met his wife Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah. For most people, your alma mater and the place where you first met your wife would always have a special place in your heart. You would have fond memories of the place and would always want to visit it whenever you can. Well, Dr. Mahathir is not like most people. He is different!
When Dr. Mahathir was a university student in Singapore, he regularly contributed articles to the Straits Times. Writing under his famous pen-name C.H.E. Det, he once wrote:
"Early in the modern history of Malaya, it was discovered that the Chinese were the most suitable people for the opening up of undeveloped areas, and it became the policy of the government, then centred in Singapore, to encourage Chinese immigration. Neither the government nor the increasing number of Chinese British subjects saw any reason to enforce severe restrictions on the quota. Thus, numerical superiority coupled with their native diligence and business drive born out of the hard life in China, proved beyond the capacity of the easy going Malays to compete. With the passing years they sank lower and lower until they now form the lowest stratum of Singapore’s society. And so in the island today the Malays, once the owners and rulers are to be found only in the poorer quarters living in dilapidated attap and plank huts, sometimes only a stone’s throw from the palatial residences of Chinese millionaires. The few Malays in the city live in the servants' quarters of Chinese and European houses."
(Excerpt from Dr. Mahathir’s article published on 9 April 1950. The full article plus others can be found in the book The Early Years.)
Dr. Mahathir obviously found it very annoying that the majority of Malays in Singapore were poor and uneducated, fit only to become common labourers and trishaw-pullers. It annoyed him further to see the Chinese as masters and the Malays their servants when historically the Malays are the natives of Singapore while the Chinese came to the island only because of the British.
Not surprisingly, when Lee Kuan Yew was at the height of his campaign for a 'Malaysian Malaysia', hence seen to question the provision on special Malay rights in the Federal Constitution during Singapore’s brief stint in Malaysia (from 16 September 1963 to 9 August 1965), speaking as a true Malay nationalist, Dr. Mahathir (then Member of Parliament of Kota Star) made the following stinging remark towards Lee in parliament:
"They (Singaporean Chinese) have never known Malay rule and cannot bear the idea that the people they have so long kept under their heels should now be in a position to rule them."
And Lee Kuan Yew responded with the following:
"Of course there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses? ... If we delude people into believing that they are poor because there are no Malay rights or because opposition members oppose Malay rights, where are we going to end up? You let people in the villages believe that they are poor because we don't speak Malay, because the government does not write in Malay, so he expects a miracle to take place in 1967 (when Malay becomes the sole national language). The moment we all start speaking Malay, he is going to have an uplift in the standard of living, and if doesn't happen, what happens then? ... Meanwhile, whenever there is a failure of economic, social and educational policies, you come back and say, oh, these wicked Chinese, Indian and others opposing Malay rights. They don't oppose Malay rights. They, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved..."
(Excerpts from Dr. Mahathir's and Mr. Lee's speeches at the Malaysian Parliament on 25 May 1965, quoted in The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew)
In a speech he gave five days later in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew made further reference to Dr. Mahathir's remarks:
"You know what they said in Parliament, Dr. Mahathir from Kota Star? -- "We in Singapore are not accustomed to Malay rule. We are not like people in Kelantan and Terengganu." Well, let me tell him this: when we joined Malaysia, we never agreed to Malay rule; we agreed to Malaysian rule; never Malay rule. This is all bunkum. Somebody has made a grave error of judgment if they believe that we agreed to Malay rule. (We) never agreed to it."
(Excerpt from Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s speech on 30th May 1965. Click here to access the full text)
For Dr. Mahathir then, Lee Kuan Yew was nothing more than a Chinese snob who dared to question the fundamental belief that Malaysia is the motherland of only the Malays. The Malays therefore are the only rightful leaders of this country while others may acquire limited supporting roles. Indeed Dr. Mahathir once said in reference to Lee Kuan Yew's foray into Malaysian federal politics in 1965, as "the mad ambition of one man to see himself as the first Chinese Prime Minister of Malaysia." And, he described Lee’s political strategy as to "assume a brave front and dare everyone in the hope that it will overawe what it presumes to be the less clever and more timid groups into refusing to rise to the challenge." (quoted in Paradoxes of Mahathirism)
Needless to say, Dr. Mahathir was not one to be easily overawed and intimidated. And during his 22 years as Prime Minister of Malaysia, he was determined not to act in any way that may be perceived as if Malaysia was intimidated by its southern neighbour. He would condemn anyone from his administration whom in his opinion had done so, which explains why he was so livid with Abdullah Badawi for cancelling the 'crooked bridge' project because that to him was a clear indication that Malaysia was submitting meekly to Singapore's wishes. And I'm sure it must have angered Dr. Mahathir too to see the current Malay UMNO leaders acting like (as described by a colleague) a group of nervous students having a meeting with their school headmaster, when they met with Lee Kuan Yew during the latter's recent visit to Malaysia.
Having presented some of these political-historical background of Dr. Mahathir's resentment against Lee Kuan Yew, I do however believe at the core of all this, the uneasy relationship between these two iconic figures in history is due to their similar personalities. Both are strong leaders with almost absolute convictions on their own abilities and strengths. Both share the same leadership motive patterns of having high need for power and low need for affiliation. They care more about doing things they believe to be right; and have very little concern about whether they are popular and conventional.
Both however are genuinely sincere leaders. Their love and dedication for their respective countries can never be questioned.
Dr. Mahathir obtained his medical degree in Singapore (the University of Malaya was then located there), and it was during his studies there he met his wife Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah. For most people, your alma mater and the place where you first met your wife would always have a special place in your heart. You would have fond memories of the place and would always want to visit it whenever you can. Well, Dr. Mahathir is not like most people. He is different!
When Dr. Mahathir was a university student in Singapore, he regularly contributed articles to the Straits Times. Writing under his famous pen-name C.H.E. Det, he once wrote:
"Early in the modern history of Malaya, it was discovered that the Chinese were the most suitable people for the opening up of undeveloped areas, and it became the policy of the government, then centred in Singapore, to encourage Chinese immigration. Neither the government nor the increasing number of Chinese British subjects saw any reason to enforce severe restrictions on the quota. Thus, numerical superiority coupled with their native diligence and business drive born out of the hard life in China, proved beyond the capacity of the easy going Malays to compete. With the passing years they sank lower and lower until they now form the lowest stratum of Singapore’s society. And so in the island today the Malays, once the owners and rulers are to be found only in the poorer quarters living in dilapidated attap and plank huts, sometimes only a stone’s throw from the palatial residences of Chinese millionaires. The few Malays in the city live in the servants' quarters of Chinese and European houses."
(Excerpt from Dr. Mahathir’s article published on 9 April 1950. The full article plus others can be found in the book The Early Years.)
Dr. Mahathir obviously found it very annoying that the majority of Malays in Singapore were poor and uneducated, fit only to become common labourers and trishaw-pullers. It annoyed him further to see the Chinese as masters and the Malays their servants when historically the Malays are the natives of Singapore while the Chinese came to the island only because of the British.
Not surprisingly, when Lee Kuan Yew was at the height of his campaign for a 'Malaysian Malaysia', hence seen to question the provision on special Malay rights in the Federal Constitution during Singapore’s brief stint in Malaysia (from 16 September 1963 to 9 August 1965), speaking as a true Malay nationalist, Dr. Mahathir (then Member of Parliament of Kota Star) made the following stinging remark towards Lee in parliament:
"They (Singaporean Chinese) have never known Malay rule and cannot bear the idea that the people they have so long kept under their heels should now be in a position to rule them."
And Lee Kuan Yew responded with the following:
"Of course there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses? ... If we delude people into believing that they are poor because there are no Malay rights or because opposition members oppose Malay rights, where are we going to end up? You let people in the villages believe that they are poor because we don't speak Malay, because the government does not write in Malay, so he expects a miracle to take place in 1967 (when Malay becomes the sole national language). The moment we all start speaking Malay, he is going to have an uplift in the standard of living, and if doesn't happen, what happens then? ... Meanwhile, whenever there is a failure of economic, social and educational policies, you come back and say, oh, these wicked Chinese, Indian and others opposing Malay rights. They don't oppose Malay rights. They, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved..."
(Excerpts from Dr. Mahathir's and Mr. Lee's speeches at the Malaysian Parliament on 25 May 1965, quoted in The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew)
In a speech he gave five days later in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew made further reference to Dr. Mahathir's remarks:
"You know what they said in Parliament, Dr. Mahathir from Kota Star? -- "We in Singapore are not accustomed to Malay rule. We are not like people in Kelantan and Terengganu." Well, let me tell him this: when we joined Malaysia, we never agreed to Malay rule; we agreed to Malaysian rule; never Malay rule. This is all bunkum. Somebody has made a grave error of judgment if they believe that we agreed to Malay rule. (We) never agreed to it."
(Excerpt from Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s speech on 30th May 1965. Click here to access the full text)
For Dr. Mahathir then, Lee Kuan Yew was nothing more than a Chinese snob who dared to question the fundamental belief that Malaysia is the motherland of only the Malays. The Malays therefore are the only rightful leaders of this country while others may acquire limited supporting roles. Indeed Dr. Mahathir once said in reference to Lee Kuan Yew's foray into Malaysian federal politics in 1965, as "the mad ambition of one man to see himself as the first Chinese Prime Minister of Malaysia." And, he described Lee’s political strategy as to "assume a brave front and dare everyone in the hope that it will overawe what it presumes to be the less clever and more timid groups into refusing to rise to the challenge." (quoted in Paradoxes of Mahathirism)
Needless to say, Dr. Mahathir was not one to be easily overawed and intimidated. And during his 22 years as Prime Minister of Malaysia, he was determined not to act in any way that may be perceived as if Malaysia was intimidated by its southern neighbour. He would condemn anyone from his administration whom in his opinion had done so, which explains why he was so livid with Abdullah Badawi for cancelling the 'crooked bridge' project because that to him was a clear indication that Malaysia was submitting meekly to Singapore's wishes. And I'm sure it must have angered Dr. Mahathir too to see the current Malay UMNO leaders acting like (as described by a colleague) a group of nervous students having a meeting with their school headmaster, when they met with Lee Kuan Yew during the latter's recent visit to Malaysia.
Having presented some of these political-historical background of Dr. Mahathir's resentment against Lee Kuan Yew, I do however believe at the core of all this, the uneasy relationship between these two iconic figures in history is due to their similar personalities. Both are strong leaders with almost absolute convictions on their own abilities and strengths. Both share the same leadership motive patterns of having high need for power and low need for affiliation. They care more about doing things they believe to be right; and have very little concern about whether they are popular and conventional.
Both however are genuinely sincere leaders. Their love and dedication for their respective countries can never be questioned.
Saturday 30 May 2009
Existential Vaccum Revisited
One of my favourite books of all time is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Dr. Frankl, who founded the clinical psychological technique called logotherapy, was a resident at the Nazi-German's concentration camps during World War II. In the first part of the book, Dr. Frankl wrote about his observation of how some of his fellow inmates were able to withstand all the sufferrings while some others quite simply gave up, refused to try, and eventually die. Those who survived, according to Dr. Frankl, had one thing in common - they all had reasons to live and those reasons kept them alive no matter what.
In the second part of his book, Dr. Frankl explains what he believes to be a modern phenomenon - the existential vacuum. Dr. Frankl believes the reason why many people today are stressful and depressed is because they do not have a reason to live. Today, there are many who live their lives based on hedonistic principles where everyday is just like any other day to maximise pleasure and minimise stress. Not much thought is given on how one may contribute to more profound goals in live, and on how to carry one's responsiblities beyond the essential and necessary.
We are servants of God, children of our parents, parents to our children, members of our organisations etc. All these ought to give us many reasons to live to fill-up the existential vacuum which Dr. Frankl had explained.
Perhaps Dr. Frankl wasn't quite right to say that there is a vacuum. The reasons to live are there and they are part of our existence regardless of whether we know and understand them. Perhaps the real challenge is to be conscious of and internalise the right reasons to live. When a fanatical football fan kills himself when the team he supports loses a championship game, his problem is not that he does not have a reason to live. His problem was having the wrong reason for his existence.
My life today revolves almost entirely around my family. My children especially, are my reasons to live and persevere come whatever may. But sometimes I do wonder, is that a good enough reason to define my existence?
In the second part of his book, Dr. Frankl explains what he believes to be a modern phenomenon - the existential vacuum. Dr. Frankl believes the reason why many people today are stressful and depressed is because they do not have a reason to live. Today, there are many who live their lives based on hedonistic principles where everyday is just like any other day to maximise pleasure and minimise stress. Not much thought is given on how one may contribute to more profound goals in live, and on how to carry one's responsiblities beyond the essential and necessary.
We are servants of God, children of our parents, parents to our children, members of our organisations etc. All these ought to give us many reasons to live to fill-up the existential vacuum which Dr. Frankl had explained.
Perhaps Dr. Frankl wasn't quite right to say that there is a vacuum. The reasons to live are there and they are part of our existence regardless of whether we know and understand them. Perhaps the real challenge is to be conscious of and internalise the right reasons to live. When a fanatical football fan kills himself when the team he supports loses a championship game, his problem is not that he does not have a reason to live. His problem was having the wrong reason for his existence.
My life today revolves almost entirely around my family. My children especially, are my reasons to live and persevere come whatever may. But sometimes I do wonder, is that a good enough reason to define my existence?
Saturday 23 May 2009
Floored By Mosquito
Last year, more than 40,000 dengue cases were reported in Malaysia with more than 100 dengue-related deaths. Worldwide, the total number of cases last year was estimated at more than 50 million cases. That was last year. This year, I am officially part of the statistics.
I had high fever exactly two weeks ago. At first, we thought it was just a normal fever, so I consumed the usual – panadols and antibiotics. When the fever did not subside after more than three days, I was asked to take a blood test. The result confirmed I had dengue fever.
Having dengue fever doesn't cause you much pain. But it sure does make you feel extremely uncomfortable. Your body becomes weak, your joints ache and you have no appetite to eat. Alhamdulillah (Praise to Allah), I didn’t have to endure it for long. I was hospitalised for five days, constantly given sodium chloride to boost my platelet level until my whole body was bloated with liquid; and now finally feel strong enough to resume normal daily activities.
What have I learned from this experience? Well, I learned first-hand how a tiny insect can floor an adult human being. And it added more to what I was made to realise since a few years back that you can only stretch your body so much. Once it breaks, you’ll be made to rue the times you wasted your health on.
I had high fever exactly two weeks ago. At first, we thought it was just a normal fever, so I consumed the usual – panadols and antibiotics. When the fever did not subside after more than three days, I was asked to take a blood test. The result confirmed I had dengue fever.
Having dengue fever doesn't cause you much pain. But it sure does make you feel extremely uncomfortable. Your body becomes weak, your joints ache and you have no appetite to eat. Alhamdulillah (Praise to Allah), I didn’t have to endure it for long. I was hospitalised for five days, constantly given sodium chloride to boost my platelet level until my whole body was bloated with liquid; and now finally feel strong enough to resume normal daily activities.
What have I learned from this experience? Well, I learned first-hand how a tiny insect can floor an adult human being. And it added more to what I was made to realise since a few years back that you can only stretch your body so much. Once it breaks, you’ll be made to rue the times you wasted your health on.
Monday 27 April 2009
Waterboarding and Torture
The recent release of CIA Interrogation Memos has caused great consternation among many both in the US and around the world. The memo described the interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, authorised by the previous Bush administration.
The most controversial technique is waterboarding. Here, the prisoner's body is strapped on a board, legs fully stretched and hands tied behind his back around the board. The board is slanted to one side to position the prisoner’s head lower than his feet. The prisoner’s face is covered with a wet cloth and cold water will be poured over and over the prisoner’s face. With the cloth covering the face, the prisoner is not in danger of drowning but the prisoner will feel as if he is drowning and going to die. What the interrogators hope to achieve is that the prisoner will eventually succumb, beg for the procedure to stop and agree to cooperate with his captors.
US attorneys declared in 2002 that waterboarding causes "no pain or actual harm whatsoever". Therefore, it cannot be considered torture because it does not result into any "severe pain and suffering". Other US government officials claimed the technique will not cause any negative psychological effects and it is essentially the same technique used in US military trainings.
No matter how some people may want to twist it, waterboarding is indeed a method of torture. It is in fact something that has been practiced for at least a few hundred years, most notably during the 15th century Spanish Inquisition, World War II and the Vietnam War.
People have justified the use of such technique by citing the need to extract vital information from captured prisoners (click here to access an interesting presentation on the morality of waterboarding). I sympathise with such views and will not totally dismiss it despite my overall objection to the use of torture.
Some people here in Malaysia may think that this happens elsewhere only, not in this country. Well, you might just want to do some research on prisoners and detainees here to catch a glimpse of what has been going on in this 'peaceful' country of ours. One important reference is Dr. Syed Husin Ali's book Two Faces. Currently the Deputy President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Malaysia's main opposition political party), Dr. Syed Husin Ali who was then professor of anthropology at the University of Malaya, and member of the now defunct Malaysia's People Socialist Party (Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia) was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for six years from 1974 to 1980.
In his book, Dr. Syed Husin described how he was slapped, punched and kicked repeatedly, and made to stand shirt-less while cold air from the air-condition was blasting straight towards him. Apparently, one of the things his interrogators wanted him to 'confess' was that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia) was a communist agent! The good professor of course did not comply and had to endure detention under the ISA for his lack of cooperation.
During my brief stint working at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) here in Kuala Lumpur, I heard worse accounts of tortures endured by illegal immigrants. I have no way to verify them of course but these stories, if indeed true, are real proof of Professor Philip Zimbardo's chilling theory on how easily ordinary human beings can be so evil and cruel to others.
All-in-all, let's hold on to one of the foundational values in all religions of the world: 'do onto others what you want others to do onto you'.
Related Article: Torture in detention: Guantanamo to Malaysia by Josh Hong
The most controversial technique is waterboarding. Here, the prisoner's body is strapped on a board, legs fully stretched and hands tied behind his back around the board. The board is slanted to one side to position the prisoner’s head lower than his feet. The prisoner’s face is covered with a wet cloth and cold water will be poured over and over the prisoner’s face. With the cloth covering the face, the prisoner is not in danger of drowning but the prisoner will feel as if he is drowning and going to die. What the interrogators hope to achieve is that the prisoner will eventually succumb, beg for the procedure to stop and agree to cooperate with his captors.
US attorneys declared in 2002 that waterboarding causes "no pain or actual harm whatsoever". Therefore, it cannot be considered torture because it does not result into any "severe pain and suffering". Other US government officials claimed the technique will not cause any negative psychological effects and it is essentially the same technique used in US military trainings.
No matter how some people may want to twist it, waterboarding is indeed a method of torture. It is in fact something that has been practiced for at least a few hundred years, most notably during the 15th century Spanish Inquisition, World War II and the Vietnam War.
People have justified the use of such technique by citing the need to extract vital information from captured prisoners (click here to access an interesting presentation on the morality of waterboarding). I sympathise with such views and will not totally dismiss it despite my overall objection to the use of torture.
Some people here in Malaysia may think that this happens elsewhere only, not in this country. Well, you might just want to do some research on prisoners and detainees here to catch a glimpse of what has been going on in this 'peaceful' country of ours. One important reference is Dr. Syed Husin Ali's book Two Faces. Currently the Deputy President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Malaysia's main opposition political party), Dr. Syed Husin Ali who was then professor of anthropology at the University of Malaya, and member of the now defunct Malaysia's People Socialist Party (Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia) was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for six years from 1974 to 1980.
In his book, Dr. Syed Husin described how he was slapped, punched and kicked repeatedly, and made to stand shirt-less while cold air from the air-condition was blasting straight towards him. Apparently, one of the things his interrogators wanted him to 'confess' was that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia) was a communist agent! The good professor of course did not comply and had to endure detention under the ISA for his lack of cooperation.
During my brief stint working at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) here in Kuala Lumpur, I heard worse accounts of tortures endured by illegal immigrants. I have no way to verify them of course but these stories, if indeed true, are real proof of Professor Philip Zimbardo's chilling theory on how easily ordinary human beings can be so evil and cruel to others.
All-in-all, let's hold on to one of the foundational values in all religions of the world: 'do onto others what you want others to do onto you'.
Related Article: Torture in detention: Guantanamo to Malaysia by Josh Hong
Wednesday 22 April 2009
Dreams: To Believe or Not To Believe?
Someone once confided in me about his wife's pledge to never again see her own mother. The wife had been ill for quite some time and the doctors were not able to explain why. Eventually she decided to seek advice from a spiritual figure, a sheikh, who then told her to perform solat istikharah. The sheikh told her that the cause of her illness will be revealed in a dream immediately after. What she saw in her dream on the same night she'd performed istikharah was her own mother! And since she had absolute faith in her sheikh, she began to believe that the cause of her prolong illness was indeed her mother. She believed her mother had put black magic (sihir) on her because she was still displeased with her for marrying someone she did not approve.
I know of other people who dreamnt about marrying certain individuals, again upon performing solat istikharah. And again, since they believed these were 'clear signs' from Allah, they were convinced that the persons they saw in their dreams were destined to be their future husbands or wives. From then on, they put themselves under tremendous pressure waiting to be married to the identified persons, ignoring and rejecting marriage proposals from other individuals. Once the pressure became unbearable, they revealed their dreams to the persons they dreamnt about, hence passing the pressure to them to accept their 'destinies'.
There are quite a number of studies on dreams in Islam (click here to access an entire book by Dr. Umar Azam who wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject). As explained in a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim, there are generally three different types of dreams, (1) righteous dreams (rahmani) which are from Allah, (2) dreams that causes sadness (syaitani) which are from the devil, and (3) dreams from the ramblings of the mind (nafsani).
Many people are quick to conclude that just because the content of their dreams were positive, they must fall under the first category of gladtidings from Allah. What more when they had these dreams immediately after solat istikharah, a practice based on a number of authentic ahadith.
I will never question the authority of these hadith but I would definitely question our abilities to truthfully understand and interpret dreams. Interpretation of dreams is a complex art, much more complex I'm sure that just putting on the keywords like what we have here. Some dreams may have a negative manifest content, but the interpretations and meaning behind them could very well be positive. Some dreams may seem to indicate we should decide in a certain way but the interpretation may actually be an advice to decide completely the opposite.
To believe, or not to believe? In the end, I believe one should consult more than one spiritual figure to really understand his/her dreams. I do believe there are people of impeccable levels of spirituality among us but they are not infallible. At least, ask for a second opinion.
I know of other people who dreamnt about marrying certain individuals, again upon performing solat istikharah. And again, since they believed these were 'clear signs' from Allah, they were convinced that the persons they saw in their dreams were destined to be their future husbands or wives. From then on, they put themselves under tremendous pressure waiting to be married to the identified persons, ignoring and rejecting marriage proposals from other individuals. Once the pressure became unbearable, they revealed their dreams to the persons they dreamnt about, hence passing the pressure to them to accept their 'destinies'.
There are quite a number of studies on dreams in Islam (click here to access an entire book by Dr. Umar Azam who wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject). As explained in a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim, there are generally three different types of dreams, (1) righteous dreams (rahmani) which are from Allah, (2) dreams that causes sadness (syaitani) which are from the devil, and (3) dreams from the ramblings of the mind (nafsani).
Many people are quick to conclude that just because the content of their dreams were positive, they must fall under the first category of gladtidings from Allah. What more when they had these dreams immediately after solat istikharah, a practice based on a number of authentic ahadith.
I will never question the authority of these hadith but I would definitely question our abilities to truthfully understand and interpret dreams. Interpretation of dreams is a complex art, much more complex I'm sure that just putting on the keywords like what we have here. Some dreams may have a negative manifest content, but the interpretations and meaning behind them could very well be positive. Some dreams may seem to indicate we should decide in a certain way but the interpretation may actually be an advice to decide completely the opposite.
To believe, or not to believe? In the end, I believe one should consult more than one spiritual figure to really understand his/her dreams. I do believe there are people of impeccable levels of spirituality among us but they are not infallible. At least, ask for a second opinion.
Tuesday 7 April 2009
Nuclear-Free World
US President Barack Obama has expressed his vision of a nuclear-free world. Speaking in Prague, during his first official visit to Europe, President Obama explains that although the goal may not be achieved anytime soon, the United States, as the only country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons, has the moral responsibility to lead the mission and ensure the framework is firmly laid for other countries to follow.
Albert Einstein was the man who was partly responsible for the invention of nuclear weapons. He did not make them of course, but it was his theory of relativity which inspired the idea of such a ferocious weapon of mass destruction. He did however, at the start of World War II, encourage the Americans to develop the bomb. He even exerted some pressure on the Americans to do so as quickly as possible due to his fear of what might happen if Germany and Hitler managed to build it first.
Einstein nonetheless never expected the weapon would be used. He wanted the bomb to be made to scare the Germans off, to prevent them from pursuing their world conquering ambitions. In other words, the bomb was made to make the world safer from the dangers posed by the Germans.
When the bomb was eventually used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein became a very troubled man. He later on said, President Roosevelt (had he been alive) would never have authorised the use of nuclear bombs especially on civilian targets. And a few months before he died, Einstein was quoted to have said that the role he played in the creation of nuclear bombs was the "one great mistake in my life" (quoted in Robert Clark's book Einstein: The Life and Times)
Einstein's initial justification on why the bomb must be made is the exact same logic applied by countries with nuclear weapons today. They acquire nuclear arsenals allegedly not with the intention of using them, but to make their countries safer by preventing others from threatening and attacking them. On a smaller scale, the same justification is used by many countries to build up their military capabilities by allocating billions of dollars annually for their militaries.
Those who are for nuclear weapons and continuous military investment would often argue that the world is infested with bad and evil people. Weapons are needed to battle them. If we don't develop weapons, they will and the world will be in danger. So the good guys must have some weapons to prevent the bad guys from attacking others. And the good guys must also have the most powerful weapon, not for them to use it of course, but to scare the bad guys from causing massive destructions. Therefore, only the good guys must have nuclear weapons, and the bad guys should not.
Problem is, who decides who are the good guys and the bad guys? Who decides that the Indians are the good guys and the Pakistanis not? Who decides that Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot? What are the criteria used to decide who can and cannot have this and that?
I firmly support President Obama's call for a nuclear-free world. Since we can't really decide on who should and should not have it, everyone should not have it then. Unless of course, some people think we need the bomb to prevent alien invasion!
Albert Einstein was the man who was partly responsible for the invention of nuclear weapons. He did not make them of course, but it was his theory of relativity which inspired the idea of such a ferocious weapon of mass destruction. He did however, at the start of World War II, encourage the Americans to develop the bomb. He even exerted some pressure on the Americans to do so as quickly as possible due to his fear of what might happen if Germany and Hitler managed to build it first.
Einstein nonetheless never expected the weapon would be used. He wanted the bomb to be made to scare the Germans off, to prevent them from pursuing their world conquering ambitions. In other words, the bomb was made to make the world safer from the dangers posed by the Germans.
When the bomb was eventually used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein became a very troubled man. He later on said, President Roosevelt (had he been alive) would never have authorised the use of nuclear bombs especially on civilian targets. And a few months before he died, Einstein was quoted to have said that the role he played in the creation of nuclear bombs was the "one great mistake in my life" (quoted in Robert Clark's book Einstein: The Life and Times)
Einstein's initial justification on why the bomb must be made is the exact same logic applied by countries with nuclear weapons today. They acquire nuclear arsenals allegedly not with the intention of using them, but to make their countries safer by preventing others from threatening and attacking them. On a smaller scale, the same justification is used by many countries to build up their military capabilities by allocating billions of dollars annually for their militaries.
Those who are for nuclear weapons and continuous military investment would often argue that the world is infested with bad and evil people. Weapons are needed to battle them. If we don't develop weapons, they will and the world will be in danger. So the good guys must have some weapons to prevent the bad guys from attacking others. And the good guys must also have the most powerful weapon, not for them to use it of course, but to scare the bad guys from causing massive destructions. Therefore, only the good guys must have nuclear weapons, and the bad guys should not.
Problem is, who decides who are the good guys and the bad guys? Who decides that the Indians are the good guys and the Pakistanis not? Who decides that Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot? What are the criteria used to decide who can and cannot have this and that?
I firmly support President Obama's call for a nuclear-free world. Since we can't really decide on who should and should not have it, everyone should not have it then. Unless of course, some people think we need the bomb to prevent alien invasion!
Thursday 2 April 2009
Learning To Be Altruistic
Many years ago, when I was walking back home from a grocery store, I went pass a crowded bus stop. As I passed through the crowd of about 30 people, I heard a faint voice asking for help coming from the sitting area inside. I turned my head and saw two young ladies; one of them was resting her head on the other lady's lap. Seeing that I was somewhat responding to her call for help, the second lady pleaded to me to help bring her friend to a clinic. Her friend looked really ill. She was very pale and was breathing heavily.
Without much hesitation, I offered to help and brought the lady to the nearest clinic. I carried her in my arms to a clinic which was about 100 metres away. And while I was doing this, everyone around the bus stop stared at me as if I was doing something wrong.
This happened years ago before I began my studies in psychology. Eventually, I realised what I did that day can be considered an example of altruistic behaviour. On the one hand, yes, I am proud of what I did, but on the other, I am sad to have witnessed a real example of bystander effect. I was clearly not the only person who heard the call for help from the two ladies. But amazingly, not only did none of them there offer to help, everyone of them (including the two people sitting right next to the two ladies) had turned their faces away deliberately pretending not to hear a thing.
I should probably mention here that the two ladies were Indonesians (recognisable by their accent), and they were both wearing shorts. I don't know, probably others thought they were involved in immoral activities but even if that was true, does that mean they did not deserve to be helped?
I never saw the two ladies again. The few people that I've told about this have mostly given me mixed reactions. They praised me for what I did while at the same time scolded me for my supposed naivety. How a small act of helping someone can be considered naive is beyond me. I certainly did not expect anything for what I did, nor did I think it was really praiseworthy.
To be altruistic is to be able to tell ourselves, for whatever we do we should not expect anything (tangible and intangible) in return. I don't know from where really I learned this but this has always been one of the philosophies in life that I greatly cherish. Probably it has even become an obsession of some sort that I often become extremely annoyed whenever I see people demanding for rewards and appreciations for their good deeds.
In studies on organisational behaviour, altruism is a dimension of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). I've just completed a research project on the work culture of primary school teachers here in Malaysia. One of the variables we looked at was OCB. When we compared the scores on OCB among Malay, Chinese and Indian school teachers, we found Malay school teachers scoring significantly higher than the Chinese and Indian respondents.
Teaching is a tough job, which certainly requires a degree of dedication that goes beyond any extrinsic motivation. Why Malay school teachers here were found to be significantly better on this quality however was difficult for us to explain. Perhaps, just perhaps, their passion for teaching is far higher, seeing it more as a noble deed and service to the society rather than a job that gives them their monthly salaries.
A quantitative cross-cultural comparison study like this unfortunately does not tell us the details about many things. Of interest to me personally is to know how we can teach people to be altruistic. My two small children often demand things in return whenever we (my wife and I) ask them to do something. Yes, they are children but how can I teach them or make them learn eventually that they should not expect anything from anybody? I want them to live by the principle that the most important thing in life is to do what is right, without thinking much (if not at all) about receiving any reward in return.
If only we know how to do this, I'm sure this world would be a far, far better place. Our children, and everyone in the society, from the most common labourers right up to presidents, kings and prime ministers; can thus be taught the mentality that we live to serve, not to serve for a living.
Without much hesitation, I offered to help and brought the lady to the nearest clinic. I carried her in my arms to a clinic which was about 100 metres away. And while I was doing this, everyone around the bus stop stared at me as if I was doing something wrong.
This happened years ago before I began my studies in psychology. Eventually, I realised what I did that day can be considered an example of altruistic behaviour. On the one hand, yes, I am proud of what I did, but on the other, I am sad to have witnessed a real example of bystander effect. I was clearly not the only person who heard the call for help from the two ladies. But amazingly, not only did none of them there offer to help, everyone of them (including the two people sitting right next to the two ladies) had turned their faces away deliberately pretending not to hear a thing.
I should probably mention here that the two ladies were Indonesians (recognisable by their accent), and they were both wearing shorts. I don't know, probably others thought they were involved in immoral activities but even if that was true, does that mean they did not deserve to be helped?
I never saw the two ladies again. The few people that I've told about this have mostly given me mixed reactions. They praised me for what I did while at the same time scolded me for my supposed naivety. How a small act of helping someone can be considered naive is beyond me. I certainly did not expect anything for what I did, nor did I think it was really praiseworthy.
To be altruistic is to be able to tell ourselves, for whatever we do we should not expect anything (tangible and intangible) in return. I don't know from where really I learned this but this has always been one of the philosophies in life that I greatly cherish. Probably it has even become an obsession of some sort that I often become extremely annoyed whenever I see people demanding for rewards and appreciations for their good deeds.
In studies on organisational behaviour, altruism is a dimension of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). I've just completed a research project on the work culture of primary school teachers here in Malaysia. One of the variables we looked at was OCB. When we compared the scores on OCB among Malay, Chinese and Indian school teachers, we found Malay school teachers scoring significantly higher than the Chinese and Indian respondents.
Teaching is a tough job, which certainly requires a degree of dedication that goes beyond any extrinsic motivation. Why Malay school teachers here were found to be significantly better on this quality however was difficult for us to explain. Perhaps, just perhaps, their passion for teaching is far higher, seeing it more as a noble deed and service to the society rather than a job that gives them their monthly salaries.
A quantitative cross-cultural comparison study like this unfortunately does not tell us the details about many things. Of interest to me personally is to know how we can teach people to be altruistic. My two small children often demand things in return whenever we (my wife and I) ask them to do something. Yes, they are children but how can I teach them or make them learn eventually that they should not expect anything from anybody? I want them to live by the principle that the most important thing in life is to do what is right, without thinking much (if not at all) about receiving any reward in return.
If only we know how to do this, I'm sure this world would be a far, far better place. Our children, and everyone in the society, from the most common labourers right up to presidents, kings and prime ministers; can thus be taught the mentality that we live to serve, not to serve for a living.
Sunday 29 March 2009
Wanting Something So Much...
There are a few movies which after watching them, had left me completely dumbfounded. One of them is an Iranian movie called 'The Bride' (released in 1990). Starring the famous Iranian actress Niki Karimi, the movie tells a story of a young man who, after much struggle and perseverance, finally managed to marry the woman of his dreams.
Sounds more like a romantic fairytale, isn’t it? But this movie has such a surprising twist it left me wondering how a common incident in life can indeed lead to tragic and unfortunate consequences.
The opening scene of the movie shows how the man was made to agree by his then future father-in-law to achieve a set of conditions before he could be allowed to marry the daughter. I can't recall exactly what these conditions were but there were difficult enough that the young man took more than two years before finally achieving them.
After the wedding, the ecstatic young man drove his bride to their honeymoon. Throughout the journey, he was in such jovial mood he boasted to his wife about how proud he was to marry her despite the trouble her father had given him. He even boasted about some illicit ventures he was involved in during the years he struggled to meet her father’s conditions. Though not entirely amused by her husband’s antics, the wife was nonetheless happy and was looking forward to their future together when SUDDENLY...
...an old lady appeared from nowhere walking slowly to cross the street. Since the man was still preoccupied with his boasting of his 'achievement', he didn’t see the old lady until it was too late. He knocked her down unconscious, but... she was not dead.
Amazingly, the man refused to neither bring the old lady to the hospital nor report the accident to the police. Instead, he removed the body from the road and placed it inside his car trunk. Horrified by her husband's actions, she pleaded to him to do what is right and follow the course of the law. Her husband stubbornly refused and his very reason was something like: "I have struggled and sacrificed so much to marry you. If I bring the old lady to the hospital, the police will investigate the accident and I may be found guilty and be put to jail. I will be separated from you. I will NOT let that happen!"
When we want something so much, we may act in such irrational ways that betray our conscience and moral-logical principles. No doubt we will be burdened by a deep psychological tension but this can quite comfortably be neutralised by the defence mechanisms of denial and rationalisation. Desperate people think and act in desperate ways. They believe in their own perception of destiny, clouded surely by some delusions of their own invincibility.
Be-as-that-may, in the end, the truth will prevail, always...
The opening scene of the movie shows how the man was made to agree by his then future father-in-law to achieve a set of conditions before he could be allowed to marry the daughter. I can't recall exactly what these conditions were but there were difficult enough that the young man took more than two years before finally achieving them.
After the wedding, the ecstatic young man drove his bride to their honeymoon. Throughout the journey, he was in such jovial mood he boasted to his wife about how proud he was to marry her despite the trouble her father had given him. He even boasted about some illicit ventures he was involved in during the years he struggled to meet her father’s conditions. Though not entirely amused by her husband’s antics, the wife was nonetheless happy and was looking forward to their future together when SUDDENLY...
...an old lady appeared from nowhere walking slowly to cross the street. Since the man was still preoccupied with his boasting of his 'achievement', he didn’t see the old lady until it was too late. He knocked her down unconscious, but... she was not dead.
Amazingly, the man refused to neither bring the old lady to the hospital nor report the accident to the police. Instead, he removed the body from the road and placed it inside his car trunk. Horrified by her husband's actions, she pleaded to him to do what is right and follow the course of the law. Her husband stubbornly refused and his very reason was something like: "I have struggled and sacrificed so much to marry you. If I bring the old lady to the hospital, the police will investigate the accident and I may be found guilty and be put to jail. I will be separated from you. I will NOT let that happen!"
When we want something so much, we may act in such irrational ways that betray our conscience and moral-logical principles. No doubt we will be burdened by a deep psychological tension but this can quite comfortably be neutralised by the defence mechanisms of denial and rationalisation. Desperate people think and act in desperate ways. They believe in their own perception of destiny, clouded surely by some delusions of their own invincibility.
Be-as-that-may, in the end, the truth will prevail, always...
Wednesday 18 March 2009
"Only 19% Malays Want UMNO To Rule" Really?!
The Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research recently released the report of its survey on 'Perceptions on UMNO Party Elections 2009' (the summary of its main findings can be accessed here).
The official media publication of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS), Harakah; pounced on the opportunity to cite a particular finding of the survey claiming that "Hanya 19 Peratus Melayu Mahu UMNO Memerintah" ("Only 19 Percent Malays Want UMNO To Rule"). Many other pro-PAS and Pakatan Rakyat blogs and news media have since made similar claims.
19 percent is a really shocking figure. I've done some preliminary research on Malay support for UMNO and based on what I've gathered, I don't believe the number of Malays supporting UMNO could be that low. So I read through the report on the main findings to find the evidence for this remarkable claim.
Of relevance are the findings reported on pages 15 and 44. Both pages report responses to the question "As a Malaysian, what is your hope for UMNO?" Page 15 reports the responds from the overall sample (n=1031) which includes Malay, Chinese and Indian respondents. While on page 44, one will find the breakdown of responses from male and female Malay respondents (n=592).
What intrigued me is the question "As a Malaysian, what is your hope for UMNO?" My first reaction was, was this an open-ended or close-ended question? Looking at the nature of the findings, my immediate guess was it must have been an open-ended question.
I emailed Mr. Ibrahim Suffian, Director of the Merdeka Centre to seek some clarifications. I am grateful for his reply and the information he relayed to me confirms my suspicions. Firstly, it was indeed an open-ended question. And according to him, the answers given by respondents were later on recorded into similar categories of answers.
The question now is, since it was an open-ended question (and a very general question I should stress), can we make the interpretation that because only 19 percent Malay respondents indicated their hopes for UMNO to "continue lead the country", only 19 percent Malays want UMNO to rule the country? And those who 'did not express hope' for UMNO to continue lead the country, can we be certain they 'do not want UMNO to rule' the country?
I am of the opinion (and Mr. Ibrahim Suffian agrees with me) that the best way to test the claim that only a small minority of Malays want UMNO to continue rule the country, is to put forward in a survey more specific items such as: "I want UMNO to continue lead the country", and respondents respond to a Likert Scale (from 'Strongly Agree' to 'Strongly Disagree') or 'Yes/No'. If the results show only a small number of respondents (say for example only 19 percent of the sample) indicating agreeableness to the statement, only then can we confidently and responsibly claim that "only 19 percent of Malays want UMNO to rule."
Let me stress that by writing this piece, I am not in any way questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Merdeka Centre. I have great respect for Mr. Ibrahim Suffian and highly appreciate the effort he and his research team has put in to provide credible scientific data on public opinion. However, I do at times question the maturity and wisdom of those who use these numbers to fulfil their own prophecies and political opinions.
Less than two weeks ago, I attended a forum in which Mr. Ibrahim Suffian was one of the three panellists. The organiser of the event was a pro-Pakatan Rakyat Perak-ian NGO. Mr. Ibrahim Suffian was the last panellists to speak. Before he spoke, both panellists before him, and the forum moderator especially, expressed their personal views that if the Perak state election is held at any time in the near future, Pakatan Rakyat will sweep through with a landslide victory.
Clearly, speaking based more on facts and numbers rather than emotions and sentiments, Mr. Ibrahim Suffian explained that even though Pakatan Rakyat may well win a Perak state election, the margin of victory may not be very significant. Realistically, PR can only hope for an improved majority of elected members to the Perak state parliament.
Why? Because despite all its weaknesses and mistakes, UMNO still has a considerable number of loyal members and supporters who will always vote for UMNO and only for UMNO. These are mostly the more elder members of the community who have seen and can only see UMNO ruling the country. The number of these UMNO loyalists may have shrunk in the last few years, but they remain until today strong and formidable.
Allah knows how much I am sympathetic to the struggles of Pakatan Rakyat, and how much indeed I wish for the coalition to be given the chance to govern the country. To achieve that however is not that easy. There are more work to be done and much persuasion to be made. Please do not make the same mistakes UMNO and Barisan Nasional made in the runout towards last year’s general election, and that is to believe in their own spin and to be deceived by their own propaganda.
The official media publication of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS), Harakah; pounced on the opportunity to cite a particular finding of the survey claiming that "Hanya 19 Peratus Melayu Mahu UMNO Memerintah" ("Only 19 Percent Malays Want UMNO To Rule"). Many other pro-PAS and Pakatan Rakyat blogs and news media have since made similar claims.
19 percent is a really shocking figure. I've done some preliminary research on Malay support for UMNO and based on what I've gathered, I don't believe the number of Malays supporting UMNO could be that low. So I read through the report on the main findings to find the evidence for this remarkable claim.
Of relevance are the findings reported on pages 15 and 44. Both pages report responses to the question "As a Malaysian, what is your hope for UMNO?" Page 15 reports the responds from the overall sample (n=1031) which includes Malay, Chinese and Indian respondents. While on page 44, one will find the breakdown of responses from male and female Malay respondents (n=592).
What intrigued me is the question "As a Malaysian, what is your hope for UMNO?" My first reaction was, was this an open-ended or close-ended question? Looking at the nature of the findings, my immediate guess was it must have been an open-ended question.
I emailed Mr. Ibrahim Suffian, Director of the Merdeka Centre to seek some clarifications. I am grateful for his reply and the information he relayed to me confirms my suspicions. Firstly, it was indeed an open-ended question. And according to him, the answers given by respondents were later on recorded into similar categories of answers.
The question now is, since it was an open-ended question (and a very general question I should stress), can we make the interpretation that because only 19 percent Malay respondents indicated their hopes for UMNO to "continue lead the country", only 19 percent Malays want UMNO to rule the country? And those who 'did not express hope' for UMNO to continue lead the country, can we be certain they 'do not want UMNO to rule' the country?
I am of the opinion (and Mr. Ibrahim Suffian agrees with me) that the best way to test the claim that only a small minority of Malays want UMNO to continue rule the country, is to put forward in a survey more specific items such as: "I want UMNO to continue lead the country", and respondents respond to a Likert Scale (from 'Strongly Agree' to 'Strongly Disagree') or 'Yes/No'. If the results show only a small number of respondents (say for example only 19 percent of the sample) indicating agreeableness to the statement, only then can we confidently and responsibly claim that "only 19 percent of Malays want UMNO to rule."
Let me stress that by writing this piece, I am not in any way questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Merdeka Centre. I have great respect for Mr. Ibrahim Suffian and highly appreciate the effort he and his research team has put in to provide credible scientific data on public opinion. However, I do at times question the maturity and wisdom of those who use these numbers to fulfil their own prophecies and political opinions.
Less than two weeks ago, I attended a forum in which Mr. Ibrahim Suffian was one of the three panellists. The organiser of the event was a pro-Pakatan Rakyat Perak-ian NGO. Mr. Ibrahim Suffian was the last panellists to speak. Before he spoke, both panellists before him, and the forum moderator especially, expressed their personal views that if the Perak state election is held at any time in the near future, Pakatan Rakyat will sweep through with a landslide victory.
Clearly, speaking based more on facts and numbers rather than emotions and sentiments, Mr. Ibrahim Suffian explained that even though Pakatan Rakyat may well win a Perak state election, the margin of victory may not be very significant. Realistically, PR can only hope for an improved majority of elected members to the Perak state parliament.
Why? Because despite all its weaknesses and mistakes, UMNO still has a considerable number of loyal members and supporters who will always vote for UMNO and only for UMNO. These are mostly the more elder members of the community who have seen and can only see UMNO ruling the country. The number of these UMNO loyalists may have shrunk in the last few years, but they remain until today strong and formidable.
Allah knows how much I am sympathetic to the struggles of Pakatan Rakyat, and how much indeed I wish for the coalition to be given the chance to govern the country. To achieve that however is not that easy. There are more work to be done and much persuasion to be made. Please do not make the same mistakes UMNO and Barisan Nasional made in the runout towards last year’s general election, and that is to believe in their own spin and to be deceived by their own propaganda.
Wednesday 11 March 2009
Freudian Personality Psychology
Psychoanalysis is the first formal approach in the study of personality psychology. The emphasis of this approach is on unconscious forces within an individual. Sigmund Freud is universally considered the founder of the psychoanalytic school. According to Freud, the basic elements of personality are instincts, a driving force or impulses that mediate between the mind and the body (Schultz & Schultz, 2001). In addition, Freud proposed the three levels of personality: the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, while the structures of personality were explained by the concepts id, ego and superego.
In analysing the psychoanalytic approach to the study of personality from the Islamic perspective, one has to first consider the differences in the understanding of the concept of human nature. The psychoanalytic approach has a very pessimistic view of human nature as the ultimate goal of all human behaviours according to Freud is to reduce anxiety (Freud, 1926). In addition, on the issue of free will and determinism, Freud believed that human personality is determined by the life and death instincts, and the invincible and inaccessible unconscious forces within an individual.
Islam believes man's nature is inclined towards good since the essence of man is spiritual goodness (Ali, 1995). On free will and determinism, the emphasis is more on free will. An essential element of man's free will is imbued in the term ikhtiyar, derived from the root word khayr (good). Hence ikhtiyar is not merely about exercising choice but choosing what is good and beneficial (Al-Attas, 1990).
On the influence of unconscious forces, Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Al-Fawa'id acknowledged that all behavioural actions begin with wasawis (concealed whispers) (Badri, 200). This unconscious element however, is not viewed as the powerful deterministic force in the magnitude described by Freud. These inner fleeting thoughts, which may incline towards both good and bad behaviour, can be easily steered towards good and away from evil by an individual's deep sense of faith (iman) and religiosity.
In explaining personality development, Freud introduced the five psychosexual stages starting with the oral stage followed by the anal, phallic, latency and genital stages. Freud believed that an individual's personality is largely shaped by the experiences in the first five years of a person’s life (encompassing the first three stages of the theory).
This huge emphasis on early childhood experiences is not in harmony with the perspective of Islam. Islam's view on human nature is more optimistic where human beings are deemed to be naturally incline towards goodness and are always capable of improving. Every living individual has continuous potential for growth and self-development which can never be exhausted. The spectacular transformation in the personalities of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Umar al-Khattab and Abu Dhar al-Ghifari in particular; transformed from the greatest of bullies during the Jahiliyyah period to amongst the most pious Muslims upon conversion to Islam, are outstanding examples of how radical personality changes and improvements can occur even during adulthood.
(The above is an excerpt from an unpublished paper entitled 'Personality Psychology From An Islamic Perspective' written in 2007)
In analysing the psychoanalytic approach to the study of personality from the Islamic perspective, one has to first consider the differences in the understanding of the concept of human nature. The psychoanalytic approach has a very pessimistic view of human nature as the ultimate goal of all human behaviours according to Freud is to reduce anxiety (Freud, 1926). In addition, on the issue of free will and determinism, Freud believed that human personality is determined by the life and death instincts, and the invincible and inaccessible unconscious forces within an individual.
Islam believes man's nature is inclined towards good since the essence of man is spiritual goodness (Ali, 1995). On free will and determinism, the emphasis is more on free will. An essential element of man's free will is imbued in the term ikhtiyar, derived from the root word khayr (good). Hence ikhtiyar is not merely about exercising choice but choosing what is good and beneficial (Al-Attas, 1990).
On the influence of unconscious forces, Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Al-Fawa'id acknowledged that all behavioural actions begin with wasawis (concealed whispers) (Badri, 200). This unconscious element however, is not viewed as the powerful deterministic force in the magnitude described by Freud. These inner fleeting thoughts, which may incline towards both good and bad behaviour, can be easily steered towards good and away from evil by an individual's deep sense of faith (iman) and religiosity.
In explaining personality development, Freud introduced the five psychosexual stages starting with the oral stage followed by the anal, phallic, latency and genital stages. Freud believed that an individual's personality is largely shaped by the experiences in the first five years of a person’s life (encompassing the first three stages of the theory).
This huge emphasis on early childhood experiences is not in harmony with the perspective of Islam. Islam's view on human nature is more optimistic where human beings are deemed to be naturally incline towards goodness and are always capable of improving. Every living individual has continuous potential for growth and self-development which can never be exhausted. The spectacular transformation in the personalities of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Umar al-Khattab and Abu Dhar al-Ghifari in particular; transformed from the greatest of bullies during the Jahiliyyah period to amongst the most pious Muslims upon conversion to Islam, are outstanding examples of how radical personality changes and improvements can occur even during adulthood.
(The above is an excerpt from an unpublished paper entitled 'Personality Psychology From An Islamic Perspective' written in 2007)
Saturday 28 February 2009
Story of the Reed
"The cry of the flute is indeed fire, not air; He who lacks fire, may he die in despair.
It's a blaze of love that sets the reed on fire; It's the yearning of love that wine boils in desire.
Only the sense-less can the hold the sense so dear; Where can ever the tongue find a better fan than ear."
These are excerpts from Professor Amir Zekrgroo's own translation of the Preface of Rumi’s Mathnawi, the "Ney-Nameh", or the "Story of the Reed" presented yesterday in the second of his series of lectures on ‘Rumi and his Mathnawi’. (Click here to access the original Persian and various English translation of the Ney-Nameh)
The story of the reed begins as a story of pain, the pain of separation from one's habitat and nature; a mythical way of expressing a lover's infinite longing for The Beloved. This represents the deep spirituality of the Sufis, who yearn for none other than God’s love and blessings.
For centuries, people have cut bamboo reeds to make flutes and pens for writing; the former emits the beautiful sound of the wind, and the latter the splendid art of beautiful writings. One is amazed then, how a thin and bland stick could be so useful and soothing.
Professor Zekrgoo contends, the reed symbolises the perfect man, who is hollow of ego and worldly desires. As Muhammad Iqbal once exclaimed: "the ego is partly free, partly determined, and reaches fuller freedom by approaching the Individual who is most free: God."
It's a blaze of love that sets the reed on fire; It's the yearning of love that wine boils in desire.
Only the sense-less can the hold the sense so dear; Where can ever the tongue find a better fan than ear."
These are excerpts from Professor Amir Zekrgroo's own translation of the Preface of Rumi’s Mathnawi, the "Ney-Nameh", or the "Story of the Reed" presented yesterday in the second of his series of lectures on ‘Rumi and his Mathnawi’. (Click here to access the original Persian and various English translation of the Ney-Nameh)
The story of the reed begins as a story of pain, the pain of separation from one's habitat and nature; a mythical way of expressing a lover's infinite longing for The Beloved. This represents the deep spirituality of the Sufis, who yearn for none other than God’s love and blessings.
For centuries, people have cut bamboo reeds to make flutes and pens for writing; the former emits the beautiful sound of the wind, and the latter the splendid art of beautiful writings. One is amazed then, how a thin and bland stick could be so useful and soothing.
Professor Zekrgoo contends, the reed symbolises the perfect man, who is hollow of ego and worldly desires. As Muhammad Iqbal once exclaimed: "the ego is partly free, partly determined, and reaches fuller freedom by approaching the Individual who is most free: God."
Tuesday 17 February 2009
Against Post-Conventional Morality
In his theory of morality development, Lawrence Kohlberg proposed that the highest stage of moral reasoning is the post-conventional stage. At this stage, right-or-wrong is decided either through social contract orientation (the will of the majority), or through a universal ethical principles orientation. The latter is an internalised standard where one’s personal conviction, derived from one’s active reasoning; is held supreme regardless of conformity with social mores.
People who I have debated with on the issue of homosexuality would often apply their own personal conviction to argue for its permissibility. In tandem with modern principles of human rights, they would argue that since homosexuals do not cause any harm to their own personal lives or create disorder or anarchy in the society, homosexuals should be allowed to practice their preferred sexual orientation.
The human rational mind is no doubt capable of complex processes and meticulous reasoning but to committed adherents of religions, is still subjected to morality by divinity. We believe in submission to a divine code of law derived from the scriptures and teachings of our religious teachers.
For Muslims, the shari'ah (divine law derived from the Quran and Prophetic traditions) is supreme and its authority is not subjected to personal whims and fancies. As Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali once wrote:
"In matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Quran or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights or duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote, although these too have a certain role to play in the determination of the ahkam (religious rulings)." (Kamali, M.H., Freedom of Expression in Islam, p.107).
To stand against homosexuality is to follow directly the authority of the Quran. Therefore, to all Muslims, including Muslim clinical psychologists who have been trained to refer to DSM IV (in which homosexuality is not classified as an abnormal behaviour), homosexuality must be prohibited, and for those who have ignorantly acquired such orientation, they must be corrected.
For proponents of liberal ideologies, submission to religious principles is a sign of weakness as the human mind is deemed capable enough to come to its own conclusion on what is right and what is wrong. And the underlying philosophy remains, that unless a behavioural practice is proven to cause harm to other individuals in the society, the practice should be considered legal and permissible no matter how much others may dislike it.
To that, I would invite people to stretch their imagination and apply the same philosophy to another type of sexual behaviour: incestuous relations. If a man decides to have sex with either his mother or his own daughter in the privacy of his own residence, shouldn’t we consider it legal and permissible too since it does not harm other individuals in the society?
People who I have debated with on the issue of homosexuality would often apply their own personal conviction to argue for its permissibility. In tandem with modern principles of human rights, they would argue that since homosexuals do not cause any harm to their own personal lives or create disorder or anarchy in the society, homosexuals should be allowed to practice their preferred sexual orientation.
The human rational mind is no doubt capable of complex processes and meticulous reasoning but to committed adherents of religions, is still subjected to morality by divinity. We believe in submission to a divine code of law derived from the scriptures and teachings of our religious teachers.
For Muslims, the shari'ah (divine law derived from the Quran and Prophetic traditions) is supreme and its authority is not subjected to personal whims and fancies. As Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali once wrote:
"In matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Quran or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights or duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote, although these too have a certain role to play in the determination of the ahkam (religious rulings)." (Kamali, M.H., Freedom of Expression in Islam, p.107).
To stand against homosexuality is to follow directly the authority of the Quran. Therefore, to all Muslims, including Muslim clinical psychologists who have been trained to refer to DSM IV (in which homosexuality is not classified as an abnormal behaviour), homosexuality must be prohibited, and for those who have ignorantly acquired such orientation, they must be corrected.
For proponents of liberal ideologies, submission to religious principles is a sign of weakness as the human mind is deemed capable enough to come to its own conclusion on what is right and what is wrong. And the underlying philosophy remains, that unless a behavioural practice is proven to cause harm to other individuals in the society, the practice should be considered legal and permissible no matter how much others may dislike it.
To that, I would invite people to stretch their imagination and apply the same philosophy to another type of sexual behaviour: incestuous relations. If a man decides to have sex with either his mother or his own daughter in the privacy of his own residence, shouldn’t we consider it legal and permissible too since it does not harm other individuals in the society?
Saturday 7 February 2009
Lessons from Puyi
A few weeks ago, my eyes were glued to the television for two hours watching the History Channel special programme on 'Puyi: The Last Emperor of China'. Aisin-Gioro Puyi, who was forced to abdicate in 1912, was the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty which ruled China for more than 200 years. The Chinese emperor institution however had existed for much longer, since 221 BC with the unification of Chinese territories under the ancient Qin Dynasty.
In my younger more radical years, I used to imagine turning Malaysia into a republic. This is a country where we have not one, but nine kings ruling over the nine Malay royal states in the Federation of Malaysia. My disdain then was based on what I perceived to be a waste of economic resources to maintain the institution and what I observed to be neurotic submissiveness to rulers who have at best mythical claims to their inborn positions. These sentiments were so strong in me that for a number of years I adopted the pen name Megat Seri Rama when writing to various newspapers and magazines.
Now, having read more on Malaysia’s political history, and after internalising a more moderate and accommodating political philosophy, I believe it is important for us to maintain the monarchy as an institution that provides check-and-balance to the executive, especially, upon hearing the words of wisdom from some of the present day monarchs, some of whom have impeccable academic and professional qualifications; on their deep sense of realism on the need to earn the respect of the people.
The current crisis in Perak however has compelled me to reconsider that opinion and revisit my previous radicalism. As a Malay, I respect the role of the Malay Rulers and trust them to always act in the best interest of the people. But when an honourable state government leader is forced to resign due to the works of devious characters and political chameleons, I feel the seething anger of the people and understand why many have now turned against the Ruler. Anyone who reads the messages left on His Royal Highness Sultan of Perak’s official guestbook would realise the explosive magnitude of public anger (the guestbook has now been deactivated).
From the perspective of Malay tradition, these angry reactions are acts of betrayal and blatant shows of disrespect to the Ruler. After all, the Malay Rulers, as did Puyi, are perceived as Rulers with a divine mandate, who must be accorded with respect and reverence of the highest order. The Malay Rulers are descendants of Sang Si Perba; a descendant of Iskandar Zulkarnain, to whom on behalf of the Malay people, Demang Lebar Daun made a sacred oath of loyalty, an oath which bounded the Malays forever as loyal servants of the King. This is the story told in the 'Malay Annals' that justifies the divine mandate of the Malay Rulers.
Let us be honest. This is a myth! Just as the Ummayyah and Abbasid families never had any divine right to kingship, neither do any of our Malay Rulers. Nor do the Al-Saud family is Saudi Arabia, the Al-Sabah family in Kuwait, the Al-Maktoum family in Dubai, and all other monarchs in the world for that matter.
However, we respect and preserve the monarchy tradition to safeguard the interest of the people and to maintain social order. But when the interest of the people is not safeguarded, the role and existence of the Malay royal institution are bound to be questioned.
Millions of Chinese wept when Puyi was forced to abdicate and leave the Forbidden City. Millions of Russians did too when the last Tsar and members of his family were killed by the Bolsheviks. But all these tears for the lost of a historical-cultural institution were powerless to withstand the uprising of the masses.
Let there be no doubt that I do not want to see an uprising against the Malay Rulers. The institution must be preserved as a symbol of Malay-Muslim leadership accorded with the appropriate level of respect. But if the crisis in Perak is not resolved in a fair and just manner, the institution will continue to be ridiculed and questioned. And the consequent tragedy may well alter the social order of the Malaysian society forever.
In my younger more radical years, I used to imagine turning Malaysia into a republic. This is a country where we have not one, but nine kings ruling over the nine Malay royal states in the Federation of Malaysia. My disdain then was based on what I perceived to be a waste of economic resources to maintain the institution and what I observed to be neurotic submissiveness to rulers who have at best mythical claims to their inborn positions. These sentiments were so strong in me that for a number of years I adopted the pen name Megat Seri Rama when writing to various newspapers and magazines.
Now, having read more on Malaysia’s political history, and after internalising a more moderate and accommodating political philosophy, I believe it is important for us to maintain the monarchy as an institution that provides check-and-balance to the executive, especially, upon hearing the words of wisdom from some of the present day monarchs, some of whom have impeccable academic and professional qualifications; on their deep sense of realism on the need to earn the respect of the people.
The current crisis in Perak however has compelled me to reconsider that opinion and revisit my previous radicalism. As a Malay, I respect the role of the Malay Rulers and trust them to always act in the best interest of the people. But when an honourable state government leader is forced to resign due to the works of devious characters and political chameleons, I feel the seething anger of the people and understand why many have now turned against the Ruler. Anyone who reads the messages left on His Royal Highness Sultan of Perak’s official guestbook would realise the explosive magnitude of public anger (the guestbook has now been deactivated).
From the perspective of Malay tradition, these angry reactions are acts of betrayal and blatant shows of disrespect to the Ruler. After all, the Malay Rulers, as did Puyi, are perceived as Rulers with a divine mandate, who must be accorded with respect and reverence of the highest order. The Malay Rulers are descendants of Sang Si Perba; a descendant of Iskandar Zulkarnain, to whom on behalf of the Malay people, Demang Lebar Daun made a sacred oath of loyalty, an oath which bounded the Malays forever as loyal servants of the King. This is the story told in the 'Malay Annals' that justifies the divine mandate of the Malay Rulers.
Let us be honest. This is a myth! Just as the Ummayyah and Abbasid families never had any divine right to kingship, neither do any of our Malay Rulers. Nor do the Al-Saud family is Saudi Arabia, the Al-Sabah family in Kuwait, the Al-Maktoum family in Dubai, and all other monarchs in the world for that matter.
However, we respect and preserve the monarchy tradition to safeguard the interest of the people and to maintain social order. But when the interest of the people is not safeguarded, the role and existence of the Malay royal institution are bound to be questioned.
Millions of Chinese wept when Puyi was forced to abdicate and leave the Forbidden City. Millions of Russians did too when the last Tsar and members of his family were killed by the Bolsheviks. But all these tears for the lost of a historical-cultural institution were powerless to withstand the uprising of the masses.
Let there be no doubt that I do not want to see an uprising against the Malay Rulers. The institution must be preserved as a symbol of Malay-Muslim leadership accorded with the appropriate level of respect. But if the crisis in Perak is not resolved in a fair and just manner, the institution will continue to be ridiculed and questioned. And the consequent tragedy may well alter the social order of the Malaysian society forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)