What I hate about politics...

Early during my college days (at PPP/ITM, Shah Alam), since I had probably impressed some of my English instructors with my above-average fluency in English, I was asked to attend trials for the college English debate team. I wasn't really keen to attend but did so nonetheless out of respect for one of my instructors who really wanted me to try.

So I went, and was randomly assigned as the first debater for the opposition side. My task was, well, to oppose whatever it was the arguments presented by the proposition. Alas, sitting on my chair listening to the first debater from the affirmative side passionately explaining her points for the motion, I began to feel how strongly in agreement I was with most of her points. But I was conscious of the fact that my task was to disagree and I should be focused on doing just that.

When I spoke however, my words betrayed me as I went on to commit one of the most fundamental mistakes in a debate - expressing my agreement with my opponent's point-of-view. The topic was on media censorship and my opponent had just argued why children should not be exposed to violence and sexual content in movies. To me, that made perfect sense, so I told myself "how and why should I disagree". Agreeing with and conceding to your opponent are sure ways to lose a debate, and I did end-up losing that debate. And quite obviously, I was not selected to join the college debating team.

To defend your arguments at all cost and to never concede that your opponent might be right are the essentials of partisan politics too. The goal and dream of every politician is to successfully portray himself as someone who knows the answers to all the problems in the history of mankind and to portray his opponent as a complete idiot. The problem with that is; as anyone with even a tiny-bit of objectivity would agree, no one has the answers to everything.

In ancient Greece, there was a group of people renowned for their oratory and persuasive skills. They are commonly referred to as the Sophists. The Sophists were intellectuals skilled in the use of rhetoric. Their goal was to persuade and impress their audience. Whether their words represent their beliefs and conviction was not of their concern. The truth is not important. Winning is all that matters.

Socrates detested the Sophists. He himself was a skilled orator but to him, the goal of every argument and dialogue is to establish the truth. And if one's argument is proven to be wrong, he should concede and gracefully acknowledge the veracity of others' opinion. The Sophists however were known to resort to cynicism and relativism when cornered.

Politicians today (most of them at least) are not dissimilar to the Sophists. To them, winning the argument is all that matters. Whether they represent the truth or whether you even believe in what you say is not really important. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate in this year's US presidential election is a prime example. During the Republican primaries, in order to secure the support from fellow Republicans, Romney painted a picture of himself as a true conservative on every single issue; healthcare, abortion, taxes, government etc. Now that he is the Republican candidate, his focus has shifted to middle-ground voters so, quite conveniently, he is now portraying himself more as a centrist and less conservative.

You can convince some, even many perhaps that your shifting of views is a non-issue but for the more analytical and perceptive among us, it is something deeply disturbing. Why? Because ideally, we want a leader with principles and conviction, one who is honest and truthful in all his words and actions. We don't want a leader who is more like a prototype salesman who is willing to say anything to clinch a deal. Sooner-or-later, your flip-flop tendency will be exposed and your own words will come back to haunt you.

Like the Sophists, politicians too often resort to cynicism when their principles and views are seriously questioned. The key is to deflect attention away from yourself by using negative politics. Essentially, this is all about painting the picture that your opponent is utterly useless and incompetent. And by doing so, you hope to persuade people to support you not necessarily because they like you and your ideas, but because they hate your opponent and his policies so much they are willing to vote for anyone except him.

What is ironic about this is, a politician is supposedly concerned about all that is good for the country, but if for example you are in the opposition and you do not want people to continue to support the government, you would actually be happy whenever there is a negative report about the country. Consciously, or subconsciously at least, you would want every single policy undertaken by the current government to fail; the more devastating the failure the better. Because the more the government is seen to have failed, the more the people will hate the government, and the more willing they will be to vote them out and vote for you instead in the next election.

We see this everywhere, in the US, in Malaysia and other countries all over the world. Mitt Romney for example seems happy to make the argument that President Barack Obama's economic policies in the last four years have all failed. And each time a report on the US economy comes out, he and his supporters have painstakingly extrapolate every single negative aspect in it, and while doing so ignoring whatever positives it may contain.

This is the thing about politics that I really, really hate. Having said that, I accept that this is part-and-parcel, perhaps even the bread-and-butter of politics. It is not the arena for idealists, and I do consider myself an idealist. Hence, I have no business to ever be directly involved in politics. The cognitive dissonance that comes with it would be unbearable. But then, Allahu'alam, like many other things in life, you can never say "never"!

"None of you believes till..."

Despite what I still consider to be an immensely disappointing movie, Revenge of The Sith, the last of the Star Wars movies did have a few memorable moments. Most poignant, as far as the story line is concerned, was a scene that had very little special effects, very few movements and no dialogue.

It was the scene just before Anakin Skywalker turned to the Dark Side. Master Windu had gone to confront Chancellor Palpatine and he ordered Anakin to remain at the Jedi Temple and wait for his return. Anakin of course at this point, his mind was messed, torn, and confused... He is a Jedi who had just discovered that the Chancellor is the elusive Sith Lord. He had premonitions of his wife's death and the Sith Lord was the only person who had offered to help. The Jedi way of course was to let go and allow fate to run its course. But that is exactly the one thing that Anakin, a young man so much in love with his secret wife cannot bring himself to do.

The beauty of this scene is the way it depicts emotional suffering. Anakin, for all his obvious powers, cannot and should not attempt to change fate but when you are told there is perhaps a way to do so, how can you not be tortured by the thought that you should at least try? That thought ran through his mind as he sat alone at the Jedi Council's chambers. He stood up and walked to the window overlooking his wife's residence from a distance. As he stood there, unknown to him his wife too was standing by her window staring at the Jedi Temple with deep concerns about how her young husband was battling with his premonitions. When Anakin could no longer bear waiting, he decided to leave the temple in an apparent attempt to change fate. And the rest, as they say is 'history'.

Love may energise but may also lead you astray and weaken you beyond your imagination. There was once in my life my thoughts and emotions were so consumed by deep affections towards someone, so deep that it was disturbing me even during my prayers. I remember hating myself for having such feelings as I thought I was immune from all these.

Immune from these I was not and when I could no longer get them contained, I confided to a few close friends seeking their advice on what I should do. All except one, encouraged me to approach the person to get to know her better with a clear intention of marrying her. The one dissenting view however was Yoda-esque, a startling yet profound words of advice; "If indeed the feelings you have for this sister are as deep and strong as you described, do not marry her! You will always be weak."

Followed his advice I did not as a few weeks later, I personally approached the person. Fortunately, I was rejected. Strangely enough, whatever feelings of disappointment I had was very much diluted by the overwhelming sense of relief I felt once everything was off my chest. And because of that, I was able to move on, and the whole emotional episode soon enough became rather insignificant.

That was my first experience with 'love'. Quite an ordeal it was but a necessary and an invaluable learning experience indeed. "I really learned a lot, really learned a lot, love is like a flame, it burns you when it's hot" Probably Nazareth was a tad too pessimistic here about love but to be outrageously optimistic like what Celine Dion once sang; "I'm everything I am because you loved me", can't be right either, can it? Loving someone can be exhausting... so does knowing someone is in love with you but for some reasons you cannot and will never reciprocate.

The Prophet (may peace be upon him) explained: "None of you (truly) believes till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Hadith 15)

Certainly, the hadith tells us of the importance of loving the Messenger of Allah, but underlying it is a bigger spiritual message on how to manage and prioritise love. And this was further expounded by Imam Al-Ghazali in Book 36; on Love, Longing, Intimacy and Contentment, of his Ihya Ulum al-Din.  Al-Ghazali cited the above hadith early in this chapter along with a few more ahadith that bore the same opening phrase, "none of you believes till..."

A literal reading of these ahadith would perhaps lead some to argue that the Prophet was rather histrionic; a trait characterised by a desire to be the centre of everyone's attention. Such an argument however, is both misleading and malicious. The focus here is not on the Prophet the messenger but the message. And the message is the religion of Islam in which God is Supreme, the Creator from Whom we came and to Whom we shall return.

Faith in God is central to everything. All our actions, words and intentions ought to be those that pleases Him, as taught and exemplified by the Prophet (peace be upon him). To love God is to do what pleases Him in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet. If that is indeed the love most dear to a person, his conviction on what is vice and virtuous will remain strong in all circumstances. But if the love most dear to him is centred around another person; a spouse, a lover, a parent or a child, he may be tempted to commit evil and sacrifice his faith and conviction in the name of love.

Sadly though, the world is filled with love stories where irrational sacrifices are made in the name of love. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a prominent example. A glorious love story, I contend, it is not but a story of supreme foolishness and of misplaced priorities. Why? Because in a period of not more than three days, Romeo and Juliet met and fell instantly in love, and from thereon were prepared to kill, denounce their respective families and take their own lives. How such actions therefore are worthy of applauds and admiration is just bewildering.

At least in Anakin Skywalker's case, he was in love with a former queen whom he had adored for many years. His action however remains wrong. It was wrong of him to let his deep feelings for someone; no matter how dear she was to him, cloud his judgment and lead him to betray his teachers.

Likewise for Heinz; of the famed vignettes by Lawrence Kohlberg. No matter how much Heinz may love his wife, to steal medicines for her would be wrong. Whether your wife lives or dies is beyond your control. And medicines are not magical antidotes. For the pharmacist to charge such an exorbitant amount of money is indeed wrong, but two wrongs do not make something right. In such difficult circumstances is where faith is paramount.

So, should we all then not let ourselves develop feelings and emotions towards anyone? Is falling in love such a terrible thing? Certainly not. But the focus should be more; in reference to Sternberg's theory, on companionate love rather than romantic and infatuation love. And as Muslims, we are asked to seek those who may bring us closer to God, and those who may help unleash the good within us. For a widowed single father-of-three for whom midlife crisis has come early, these are my hope and prayers exactly.

Tanzil - Quran Navigator

Tanzil - Quran Navigator

To Toe or Not To Toe

Josh Hong’s article dated 11 May 2012 on Malaysiakini is referred.

Josh’s views on Tunku Abdul Aziz vis-a-vis Bersih 3.0 echo those of the leaders and the majority of the supporters of the rally. They are entitled to hold their views and for that they should be respected. But for those like Tunku Abdul Aziz, who respectfully disagreed, respect must be duly accorded too.

I certainly agree with the basic premise that the authorities should have allowed and facilitated Bersih’s gathering at Dataran Merdeka. That the authorities chose not to however was very much expected. What was less expected was the authorities’ willingness to offer five alternative venues. Thus, like Tunku Abdul Aziz, I too would have preferred Bersih to choose among these alternatives and hold the gathering in a more controlled surrounding. In fact, I would imagine had the leaders of Bersih been a bit more creative, they could have asked for permission to use all five venues! Attracting a crowd to fill-up all the venues would not have been a problem.

Most people agree that they are some serious weaknesses in how elections are conducted in this country. Most people would agree too that the police were overly aggressive in their actions against participants of the rally. I have no doubt too that there were agent provocateurs involved but again, the point that I wish to reiterate, all these were entirely expected. Hence, I personally find Tunku Abdul Aziz stinging view that the organizers of Bersih were partly responsible for the violence that occurred during the rally absolutely justified.

Regretfully, instead of applauding Tunku Abdul Aziz for his independent view, his party the DAP chose to censure him. Joseph Lieberman, a senior United States senator once famously said, “Why should we toe the party line?” Senator Lieberman, although a Democrat, had on numerous occasions expressed opinions and voted against his party’s wishes even on major issues like the war in Iraq and President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform. His independent tendencies even compelled him to openly endorse John McCain of the Republican Party instead of Obama in the last US Presidential Election.

Likewise, when then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was seeking support for Great Britain’s participation to invade Iraq, more than a hundred Members of Parliament from his own Labour Party voted against his motion at the British House of Commons. These rebel MPs openly demanded for more evidence to justify Britain’s participation in the war.

These are examples of how a mature democracy should be. To toe the party line is indeed important but not necessarily mandatory. A party member cannot just simply agree for the sake of agreeing. If the individual cannot bring himself to agree with a stand taken by the party, he should explain why he disagrees. Tunku Abdul Aziz did just that and if indeed that was the reason why his senatorship was not renewed, I feel that the DAP is no better than Barisan Nasional in the way it handles internal dissent. After all, when MIC’s S. Sothinathan was suspended for three months for criticising the government in parliament seven years ago, the DAP and other opposition leaders lamented about how unfair they thought the decision was.

If we really do aspire to be a country with the best democracy, internal dissent should not be considered a crime and the ‘perpetrator’ should never face retribution. Worth emulating is President Obama’s treatment of Senator Lieberman. After soundly defeating John McCain for the US presidency, President Obama, though mindful of Senator Lieberman’s criticism against him throughout the campaign, personally ensured that Senator Lieberman’s seniority and committee chairmanship at the US Senate were not affected. Senator Lieberman, in return continued to work in tandem with the Obama administration on various issues that they both agreed with. That is the level of trust and cooperation that many of us in Malaysia would like to see. If indeed governance and leadership is all about agreeing with the party and its leaders on every single issue, why do we need democracy?

Note: Tunku Abdul Aziz has since resigned from the DAP.

Beyond "What If?"

British wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill is often revered as one of the most important figures in World War II. His inspiring speeches galvanised the battered spirits of the British people, and his strong leadership inspired the British army and their allies towards victory. Any man of lesser resolve and determination would have caved in and surrendered to the then mighty Nazi Germans.

That is what everyone knows. What very few people know is the fact that Churchill nearly died about 10 years before World War II. No, he didn't nearly die in some battlefield somewhere in the then vast British Empire. He nearly died after he was knocked down by a taxi in New York City! Churchill had an American mother so he was probably there for a social visit. He did not die but the injuries sustained were serious enough he had to be hospitalised for an entire week.

"What if?" is a question many would ask while imagining alternative eventualities in life. What if Churchill had died? Would the Germans successfully conquered Great Britain and gained absolute control of Western Europe? If that had happened, perhaps most of us today would be reading and writing in German rather than in English, and perhaps most football fans in the world would be following the Bundesliga rather than the English Premier League.

One may ask "what if?" for any issues, from the most profound to the most trivial. What if Hussein Onn had persevered and appointed Ghazali Shafie (instead of Mahathir Mohamad) as Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister in 1976? Mahathir probably would never become prime minister, ousted most likely from the government by Ghazali and forced to return to his Maha Clinic in Alor Star. No Mahathir, no Proton Saga, no Penang Bridge, no KLCC, and no KLIA. How backwards Malaysia would still be ;)

What if Eric Cantona had joined Liverpool, and not Leeds United and eventually Manchester United in the early 1990's? In 1992, Liverpool manager Graeme Souness was asked by Michel Platini (then manager of the French national team) to bring the talented yet temperamental young striker to England. Souness refused the offer so Cantona went to Leeds United instead. Leeds won the league that season. He was sold to Manchester United the next season and the club immediately won the league for the first time in more than two decades and went on to win more league titles over the years, enough to even surpassed Liverpool's proud long-standing record of 18 English league titles. Liverpool of course depressingly has not won the league since 1990.

Pondering with "what if" may also be an act of regret for not doing something that perhaps could have prevented a tragedy from happening. Former Wales manager and football player Gary Speed died tragically a few months ago. Most likely, he had committed suicide but expert testimony given during the coroner's inquest suggests that it might have been purely accidental. Whichever, it will not take the pain away from Gary Speed's wife who confessed that she and Gary had an exchange of words about "something or nothing" the last time she saw him alive. She went out for a ride to clear her mind but soon returned home only to find she had accidentally locked herself out. She spent the night in the car and in the morning found her husband's body hanged in the garage.

Imagine how it feels like that your very last conversation with your late spouse was an unpleasant one. Imagine the "what if" that goes through Mrs. Speed's mind. "What if I did not leave the house?"; "What if I had brought my house keys with me?"; "What if I did not make such a big deal about the 'something or nothing' we had argued about?" Imagine that... Well, I certainly can. The circumstances surrounding my wife's death were certainly different. She certainly did not take her own life but we did have our own incident over 'something or nothing' on that fateful day. And because of that, I have continued to ask myself "what if" I had done this or that, and "what if" I had said something that night.

It's not easy to move beyond these "what if's'". One cannot choose to have selective amnesia. I cannot simply extract specific data from my brain and delete it from my memory. It stays with me and continues to haunt me. Deal with it one must and as a Muslim, I've learned to accept all that has happened as God's will, the wisdom of which I shall learn to understand for the rest of my life.

Fate is to be accepted, not questioned. To sometimes ask 'what if?' is instinctive, to be burdened by it however is maladaptive and un-Islamic. "I am enslaved to fate, of all else say no more; With a sweet tongue speak, else I plea say no more; Speak not of troubles, of treasures tell me more; And if of this you know not, be not troubled, say no more." (Rumi 149, Divan-e Shams)

For the first time in almost a year, I feel strong enough to move on, to finish all that I've started and to begin the search for a new mother for my three young children. Regaining some level of optimism is essential. Optimistic I am of many things, including for Liverpool to finally win their 19th league title next year (or sometime before the end of time:)) and for Roger Federer to finally beat Rafael Nadal at Rolland Garros. Churchill, Cantona AND Mahathir are best left to history.

The Vegetable Challenge

One of the most difficult challenges I've faced as a single-parent is to get my children to eat green vegetables. I can get them to prepare themselves to school, buckle-up in the car, clean-up their rooms (somewhat), and even switch-off the television with little resistant but to get them to eat green vegetables is almost impossible. Somehow, they just cannot bring themselves to swallow those green leaves and they look genuinely distressed when forced to do so. I am indeed at a lost on how to change this.

Once upon a time, Popeye The Sailor Man was a popular cartoon among kids. The fact that Popeye eats spinach to get his strength to beat-up his foe helped a lot of parents then to get their kids to eat vegetables. But Popeye unfortunately isn't popular among kids anymore. And as far as I know, they aren't any contemporary cartoon characters whose main persona revolves around him/her eating vegetables.

I had troubles with vegetables too during my own childhood. Popeye was a motivator but what crucially pushed me to start eating lots of vegetables was something I learned when I was 10, in Standard 4 in a class that existed back then called Alam & Manusia. We were learning about the different vitamins and the various benefits they each provide. Way down the list was Vitamin K and one of its main benefits is to prevent infertility (mencegah kemandulan).

I didn't actually know what infertility means. All I knew was it meant a person wouldn't be able to have kids. And since I was already imagining having lots of kids of my own, the word infertility (mandul) so terrified me, it got me started eating lots and lots of vegetables. It worked wonders I guess as I had three kids within seven years of marriage. To have more however would be a bit difficult now since my wife passed away nine months ago.

My late wife was indeed more successful in persuading the kids to eat vegetables. Whenever she cooked, at least one veggie dish will be prepared and she would always ask the kids to take some. And the kids somehow were able to eat them. It seems like they only eat vegetables cooked by their mother, not by anyone else.

I'm struggling quite a bit since my wife died. I'm not ashamed to admit that. Looking after the kids and dealing with the various chores around the house aren't what I'm struggling with. The emotional and spiritual issues are those that continue to affect me. My late wife would've celebrated her birthday yesterday (9 January), and as I remember back the circumstances that preceded her death, my heart still aches with a tinge of sadness.

At some point however, we have to move on. As much as I think I can raise our three children on my own, there will always be a few things that I won't be able to do on my own. My eldest daughter is fast approaching the stage where there will be a few 'female issues' to deal with. And I could certainly use some help to get the kids to eat green vegetables again.