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"!

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.

How Can You Not Know People Hate You?

From a psychological perspective, the on-going mass uprising in Egypt raises one puzzling question: how can President Hosni Mubarak not know Egyptians hate him? Surely, for a man who has been in power for 30 years, he must have at least some indication how Egyptians view him. Common sense should tell us that but apparently dictators past and present are unable to understand common sense.

I have for long seen and understood how some people have incredibly mind-boggling ways to justify their lofty positions and self-serving behaviour. Deep down they know they are unfairly privileged, and they know many others are suffering or not doing so well. They know it's not nice to be in power for too long, to enjoy all the comfort and riches, yet they'll say to themselves, "why not?" "I've been coming to office every day, I've brought at least some development, I've brought some positive changes, so why not I enjoy and gain some things for myself? And why should I step down? Everywhere I go people smile and greet me. That means they all love me and want me to stay as long as I want."

I'm sure Sigmund Freud would've been proud to see how true his defense mechanism theory has turned out to be. Hosni Mubarak indeed is only one out of many other world leaders who are severely out-of-touch with reality. Ben Ali of Tunisia was another, while current leaders in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are other notable examples.

Here in Malaysia, we are not short of case examples either. The recently retired MIC leader is one outstanding example. Here is a person who was the leader of his community for 30 years, who along the process became so rich he could afford to have a collection of tailor-made Italian suits and spent millions for his children's wedding ceremony. Yet the majority of Indians here remain poor, a substantial percentage in fact are living below the poverty level.

But perhaps the most interesting case is a certain chief minister in East Malaysia. Again, here's a man who has been in his position for 30 years, has become rich beyond all imaginations, and has enriched his family members too along the way. And, again it's the same story. He is rich while his people have remained poor. People don't like him but he doesn't seem to care nor realise that fact. After all, he is seeking yet another term in power.

A certain iconic figure of the opposition would fit as an example too. He seems to be so engrossed with his ultimate ambition to be the next prime minister he does not realise many in his own party and previously ardent supporters are beginning to really hate him. He talks about justice and proclaims war against nepotism and croniyism, yet he keeps his wife as president of his party, allowed his daughter to be elected vice-president while he himself remains the de facto leader (whatever that means).

How can you not know people hate you? Apparently some people are just incapable of knowing.

Diktator Berhati Mulia?

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 4 November 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Dr M dan Lee Kuan Yew ada persamaan mereka')

Bekas perdana menteri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad pernah berkata antara tokoh zaman silam yang dikaguminya ialah pemerintah Rusia, Peter the Great, seorang Tsar yang memerintah Rusia selama lebih 40 tahun, dari tahun 1672 hingga 1725.

Kehebatan Peter the Great terletak pada kejayaannya memaju dan meluaskan empayar Rusia setaraf dengan empayar-empayar lain di benua Eropah. Di awal pemerintahannya, beliau banyak merantau meninjau kemajuan negara-negara Eropah Barat. Di Belanda misalnya, beliau mengkaji teknik pembinaan kapal dan pembangunan pelabuhan, dan di London beliau mengkaji pembangunan dan perancangan bandar. Hasilnya, pelabuhan dan armada tentera laut Rusia dimajukan dan bandar Saint Petersburg yang megah dan indah berjaya didirikan.

Kejayaan Peter the Great memang tidak dinafikan. Rusia sebelum dan selepas zaman pemerintahannya perbezaannya amat ketara. Jika sebelumnya Rusia lebih tertumpu pada budaya dan industri tradisi, Rusia pada zaman pemerintahan Peter the Great berubah menjadi sebuah empayar yang moden dan progresif. Pastinya banyak kemajuan yang dikecapi rakyat Rusia berpunca daripada kebijaksanaan raja mereka Peter the Great.

Semua kemajuan ini tercapai walaupun Peter the Great hakikatnya seorang pemimpin diktator yang zalim dan autokratik. Tidak ada sistem demokrasi di Rusia ketika itu. Tidak ada pilihanraya dan tidak ada kebebasan untuk bersuara. Barang siapa yang berani menentang akan dibunuh dan diseksa. Mayat mereka dipacak pada tiang agar rakyat dapat melihat nasib yang menimpa mereka yang berani menentang. Malah, sejarah telah merakamkan bagaimana Peter the Great sanggup menyeksa dan membunuh anak lelakinya sendiri yang ingkar mematuhi kemahuannya.

Bagi mereka yang mengagumi Peter the Great, segala kisah kezaliman ini barangkali tidak begitu penting. Yang lebih penting adalah kemajuan dan pembangunan negara. Penyeksaan dan pembunuhan dianggap asam garam pemerintahan. Matlamat mencapai kemajuan dan pemodenan itu yang lebih utama.

Dr. Mahathir baru-baru ini telah berkata, sistem pemerintahan diktator itu adakalanya baik untuk sesetengah negara. Yang penting, pemimpin diktator itu berhati mulia (benevolent dictator) dan mampu membawa kemajuan kepada rakyat di bawah pemerintahannya. Barangkali bagi Dr. Mahathir, Peter the Great adalah contoh utama seorang diktator yang berhati mulia.

Memang benar, pemimpin-pemimpin diktator dulu dan kini bukan semua tindakan mereka jahat dan kejam. Bahkan, ada yang nampak ikhlas mahu membantu rakyat jelata. Saddam Hussein misalnya, berjaya menaikkan taraf pendidikan rakyatnya di Iraq sehingga mencapai taraf yang tertinggi di Timur Tengah pada suatu ketika. Di Cuba pula, pemimpinnya Fidel Castro berjaya mengurangkan jurang kemiskinan di kalangan rakyat dan memastikan khidmat perubatan dan bantuan makanan diberikan kepada semua. Maka, mengapa masih ramai yang tidak mahu sistem pemerintahan diktator seperti ini?

Sistem ini ditentang kerana kuasa dipusatkan kepada seorang manusia biasa yang sedikit sebanyak pasti ada kelemahannya. Seorang pemimpin yang agung, tidak kira betapa tinggi akal dan wibawanya, pasti lambat laun akan lalai dengan kedudukannya. Semakin lama beliau memerintah, semakin tinggi beliau dipuja. Akhirnya tersematlah di fikiran beliau layak untuk terus menjadi ketua, dan dalam segala hal dan perkara beliaulah yang paling arif dan bijaksana. Maka rakyat kesemuanya hanya perlu tunduk dan patuh. Pandangan dan maklum balas tidak diperlukan.

Sistem demokrasi tidak mahu perkara sebegini terjadi. Dalam sistem ini, kuasa diberi pada rakyat untuk memilih dan menolak pemimpin. Pemimpin adalah hamba kepada rakyat, dan di tangan rakyat terletak segala kuasa. Jika pemimpin berjasa, beliau akan disanjung. Jika beliau mengkhianati amanah yang diberi, beliau akan dipaksa mengundur diri. Sistem demokrasi percaya bahawa pemimpin negara boleh ditukar ganti. Rakyat diberi ruang dan kebebasan untuk menegur dan mengkritik pemimpinnya dan pemimpin itu harus menerimanya dengan rela hati.

Tidak ada sebenarnya seorang diktator yang benar-benar berhati mulia. Kesemuanya bersalah menghukum individu-individu yang tidak bersetuju dengan kepimpinan mereka. Ratusan ribu rakyat Iraq misalnya telah menjadi mangsa kekejaman Saddam. Castro pula begitu banyak memenjarakan orang-orang yang mengkritik dan menentangnya.

Mungkin, contoh terbaik seorang diktator berhati mulia ialah Lee Kuan Yew, bekas perdana menteri Singapura. Singapura di bawah pemerintahannya melonjak dari sebuah pulau kecil yang mundur kepada sebuah kota kosmopolitan yang maju, aman dan makmur. Namun di sebalik kejayaan Lee, ada juga kisah-kisah orang yang disekat kebebasan mereka untuk bersuara. Ramai antara mereka pernah meringkuk di penjara.

Antara Dr. Mahathir dan Lee sebenarnya ada banyak persamaan. Kedua-dua tokoh ini misalnya percaya sistem demokrasi yang diamalkan di negara-negara maju di Barat tidak sesuai untuk negara-negara di rantau Asia. Negara-negara di Asia dikatakan mempunyai nilai-nilai murni yang tersendiri (Asian values) yang mencerminkan budaya dan keperluan masyarakat di rantau ini. Nilai-nilai murni ini termasuklah sifat taat dan setia kepada pemimpin yang tidak berbelah bagi. Dan sekiranya kebebasan bersuara diberikan dengan luas kepada semua, ianya akan mengancam keharmonian dan kestabilan negara.

Generasi muda sekarang ini tidak dapat menerima tanggapan sebegini. Ramai antara kami pernah belajar dan menetap di negara-negara Barat. Kami melihat sendiri bagaimana kebebasan bersuara di sana tidak mengakibatkan kehancuran negara dan masyarakat. Malah kami melihat bagaimana kebebasan itu mendesak pemimpin-pemimpin bertindak dengan lebih berhati-hati dan bertanggungjawab. Pemimpin-pemimpin kerajaan datang dan pergi, namun negara tetap teguh berdiri. Tidak hancur sesebuah negara itu bilamana pemimpin kerajaan ditukar ganti.

Kami tidak mahu diktator yang berhati mulia kerana semua diktator itu sama sahaja. Semuanya bertindak mengikut kehendak dan buah fikiran mereka semata-mata. Walhal bukan dalam semua hal dan perkara pendapat mereka benar belaka. Dalam sesebuah negara, ada ramai yang berhati mulia. Mengapa perlu bergantung kepada seorang sahaja? Adakah hati seorang diktator berhati mulia itu lebih mulia dari semua seteru-seteru politiknya?

Di Malaysia misalnya, adakah pemimpin-pemimpin Umno dan Barisan Nasional sahaja yang berhati mulia yang ikhlas mahu membangunkan negara? Pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang bagaimana? Adakah semua mereka ini berhati busuk dan mahu menghancurkan negara? Dan, adakah semua mereka ini bodoh-bodoh belaka, tiada ilmu dan tiada keupayaan langsung untuk memimpin negara?

Kami bukannya mahu kebebasan mutlak yang membiarkan pemimpin-pemimpin, agama, kaum dan budaya dicerca dan dihina. Cukuplah sekadar ruang yang sedikit luas diberikan agar rakyat boleh meluahkan pendapat dengan jujur dan berhemah tanpa perlu merasa takut menerima hukuman. Zaman sekarang bukan lagi zaman feudal di mana segala titah dan buah fikiran raja dan pemimpin umpama wahyu yang diturunkan.

Memang menjadi lumrah pemimpin-pemimpin politik berbeza pendapat dan falsafah. Pertahankanlah pendapat dan falsafah masing-masing dengan jujur, telus dan matang. Biar rakyat yang menentukan mana yang menjadi pilihan. Tidak perlu seorang diktator berhati mulia yang menentukan.

Do We Really Want The Best and The Brightest?

Professor Doran Hunter, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and Senior Fulbright Scholar was at IIUM recently where he delivered a series of talks centred around the issue of moral and good governance. During his last lecture, he was asked about his views on the necessity to have the best and the brightest to lead a moral and good government. His response was quite astounding.

He first made reference to the classic book The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam who explained how the best and brightest people who advised President John F. Kennedy on Vietnam; all of them were wrong on how to best deal with the tensive situation. JFK in fact was the only one who was sensible enough to understand that war should be the absolute final resort, not a strategic move for any kind of psychological and moral victory. And the reason JFK was so adamantly against full military action was not because he was the best and brightest or even smarter than all his expert-advisers. He felt so strongly about it simply because he was once a soldier, thus knew very well what wars are all about especially the countless sufferings and hardships they bring.

Professor Hunter then drove home the point that the best and brighest are not always right. They may be the brightest as far as intelligence and academic achievements are concern, but without any real experience dealing with real-life situations, all their knowledge could be dangerously superficial. Which is why Americans have most often voted in presidents who were either former senators or former governors. These people may not necessarily be the brightest but they have the experience and the practical understanding on how to govern effectively and get things done. Hence the conclusion by Professor Hunter, he would never agree with the idea of using technology in genetic science to 'breed' an elite group of the best and brightest individuals to lead nations and governments.

Professor Hunter however seemed to have contradicted himself when responding to queries on his views on President Obama and his cabinet members. Although a Republican, Professor Hunter admits that he voted for Obama because he graduated from the best law school in America (at Harvard University) and has deep respect and understanding of the American Constitution having taught 'Constitutional Law' at several universities prior to his direct involvement in politics. Professor Hunter further exclaims that President Obama has managed to put together a remarkable cabinet whose members are among the best and brigthest in America.

These views may appear contradictory at a glance but once thought about further and deeper may not necessarily be so. President Obama's academic credentials were not the only reason why millions of Americans voted for him. His unique family and social background and experiences as a community organiser convinced many Americans that he truly understands the routine hardships and predicaments of millions of ordinary Americans. As the comedian Chris Rock once said in an interview during the campaign period back in 2008; "it's simple, vote for the guy with one house (Obama)... The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy (John McCain) can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses." (McCain and his wife were reported to own 12 houses)

Intelligence and academic credentials alone are not enough. But if they are blended with a deep sense understanding and experience of realities as viewed by the common people, that would be a powerful combination.

In my recent article to the Centre for Policy Initiatives, I expressed the need to find Malaysia's very own Manmohan Singh. I admit the article focussed more on the current Indian Prime Minister's impeccable academic and professional credentials, but those who are familiar with his personal background would know that Manmohan Singh also came from humble origins. His experience growing up in pre-partitioned India and as a Sikh in a Hindu-majority society I'm sure has helped him enormously while serving as prime minister.

Which begs us to ask, are only those from a lower social class whose families were poor and endured extreme hardship capable of becoming a compassionate and just political leader? Or from another point-of-view, are those with upper-class family background who grew up with wealth and comfort incapable to fully understand the plight and realities of the common people?

Malaysia's current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is a living-ebodiment of this challenge. As a son of a former prime minister, how can he possibly understand the daily and routine hardship faced by many Malaysians? How can he possibly for example appreciates the struggles of a fisherman or a rubber-tapper who wakes up at 5 am every morning to work? Does he know what it feels like to struggle every month to pay various bills and expenses - water, electricity, food, children's expenses etc?

I'm sure he doesn't, which is why he appears most of the time like the feudal leader he is rather than a leader for the people. But that's not his fault, isn't it? I mean, should his father Tun Abdul Razak denied him the comfort of living in the Prime Minister's official residence and sent him to school in a far away kampung and let him live a wooden pondok just so that he knows what it feels like to be poor?

This is fast encroaching into issues in parenting vis-a-vis the challenges of modernity, which deserves a different posting, later...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

President Obama: Lowered Expectations

Today, the world will witness the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America, President Barack Hussein Obama, the first African-American president in the history of the country; the first African in fact to serve as head of government of a country beyond the African continent!

That the event today will be one of the most memorable in history is of no doubt. And its significance from the perspective of race and ethnic relations in America and in other parts of the world can never be underestimated. But to expect President Obama to be the financial guru to solve the US sub-prime mortgage crisis, the mastermind of a new international economic architecture, the mediator of all conflicts in the world; in short the man with the solutions to all the problems in America and beyond, such expectations are made in dreams, never in touch with reality.

I never quite understood how George W. Bush got elected (twice!) as the US President. To me, it was very obvious that both Al Gore and John Kerry were the more qualified candidates. Both men were clearly more intelligent, and looked by far the more capable. President Bush on the other hand, was the sheriff-like figure with a plain-speaking style, who bulldozed his way through debates and discussions, stuck to his conviction and ignored what others had to say. In that sense, he was quick and effective, not complicated.

Thus, one thing we can safely expect from President Obama is a change of leadership style. Obama is quite clearly a high-complexity individual. Studies in personality psychology have shown that high-complexity individuals encourage a wide range of information from various sources, are more interested in receiving negative feedback and are more likely to incorporate them in the decision making process.

President Obama has repeatedly stressed that he does not want a group of blind-followers as members of his cabinet. What he wants is a 'Team of Rivals' to ensure that every decision is made after thorough discussions, that the merits and demerits are considered for every situation, that there will be no stones left unturned. More significantly perhaps, Obama has decided to keep his BlackBerry to ensure that he gets direct personal feedback from people outside of his administration.

As a Muslim, I don’t expect President Obama to be able to solve all the problems in the world. Nor do I have the audacity to hope that he will revert to the faith of his father and champion the cause of the religion. But I am at least reassured that he is willing to listen and consider a diverse range of propositions. And for him to select Dr. Ingrid Mattson to say a prayer during the inauguration I think is a wonderful gesture.

End the Paranoia

In his book Fratricide in the Holy Land – A Psychoanalytic View of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Avner Falk, an Israeli psychoanalyst wrote:

"...we Israelis are a paranoid nation because we see ourselves as the victims of this world, with the whole world as our enemies. We live in constant fear of annihilation and as a group have no empathy for the suffering of our antagonists."

Similarly, in an emotional essay; "How Can Children of the Holocaust Do Such Things: A Jewish Plea", written in the aftermath of Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006, Sara Roy, a Jewish scholar on Middle-Eastern Studies at Harvard wrote:

"There are among Israelis real feelings of vulnerability and fear, never resolved but used, intensified. Seeing one's child injured or killed is the most horrible vision -- Israelis are vulnerable, far more than other Jews. Yet, we as a people have become a force of extremism, of chaos and disorder, trying to plough an unruly sea-addicted to death and cruelty, intoxicated, with one ambition: to mock the pauper."

The tenacity and courage of the Jewish people today are often credited to the many trials and tribulations faced by Jewish communities throughout history. Jews were persecuted by the ancient Egyptians, the Romans, Babylonians, early Christians and the Nazi Germans. From the tyranny of the Pharaoh to the lunacy of Hitler, the tremendous suffering endured by the Jews left indelible marks in their history which has now become a permanent feature of their psyche.

Many Jews believe they are victims of hate, not just any kind of hate but hatred that comes naturally from the hearts of many. This anti-Semitism to them, is the reason why the Jews were persecuted throughout history and the very reason why some people still continue to threaten the existence of the state of Israel today.

The Jews are the direct descendants of Abraham. Conscious of this fact, many Jews see themselves as a special group of people. It is by the will of God that Abraham was chosen as His messenger. And if indeed Abraham was chosen because of certain qualities, his descendants by right should also inherit some, if not all of these qualities. God favoured Abraham over the rest of His creations, thus his descendants should also continue to be favoured.

God, to the Jews is a patriarch God. And the patriarch God made a covenant with the Jews that they would be "as uncountable as the stars and through (them) would the nations of the world be blessed." This covenant is part of the Jewish natural existence, which is the unique characteristic that distinguishes them from the rest of mankind. God therefore, is contracted to provide more than equal treatment to the Jews in accordance with their position as the chosen people.

A chosen group of people may well have certain special rights, and they ought to have some special responsibilities too. But do these special rights make the life of a Jewish person more worthy than a life of a gentile (a non-Jewish person)?

In the last six months that Hamas has fired rockets to southern Israel and since the Israeli assault in Gaza began two weeks ago, the total number of Israeli casualties stands at 13. In contrast, the number of Palestinian casualties has risen to more than 850. The Israeli authorities have of course emphasised they are targeting Hamas militants, not civilians; and they had no choice but to attack in response to Hamas’ provocation and the need to ensure the safety of the people of southern Israel.

If indeed the Israelis are only targeting militants, why are they using white phosphorous munitions in densely populated areas? Unless of course, due to my ignorance on weapons technology, these bombs are smart bombs, so smart they injure only militants not civilians. And on their claim that they had absolutely no choice but to attack, did the Israeli authorities ever tried to talk to certain factions in Hamas who in the last few months have indicated their willingness to accept a two-state solution?

One would expect those among the chosen ones, and ones with ample history of sufferings, would conduct their actions in such a way that the innocents are protected and to ensure others do not have to suffer as they had suffered. Instead, they are inflicting suffering upon others as if to ensure others experience what they had experienced.

The Palestinians today most certainly have so much hatred against the Jews in Israel. But from where does all this hate comes from? Is it the case that all Palestinians by nature carry a certain unique DNA that makes them hate all Jews?

When the entire living memory of two generations of Palestinian refugees consists of destitute living conditions and constant scuffles with the Jewish-Israeli army, what other emotions can they have about the Jews other than hate? People don’t hate the Jews because they are Jews, and neither does this hatred comes from envious feelings against the special status of the Jewish people. People hate the Jews because of their unilateral actions and perceived arrogance in dealing with the Palestinians.

This specially chosen group of people should cease with the paranoia that they are perennial victims of the entire history of human civilisation. As much as they have suffered, others have suffered and are suffering too. Since they are now the side with considerable strength and power over the enemy, they should use their position to stop the war and enforce negotiations for peace. Special people should carry out this special responsibility.

War In Gaza: When Grown-Ups Behave Like Children...

My four year old twins quarrel quite often, mostly on petty issues and when I or my wife intervenes after one of them hits the first blow (with a slap, pinch etc), both would scream the same line of defence "HE/SHE STARTED IT!"

Hearing from both warring sides in the ongoing war in Gaza, one would hear the same childish arguments. The Israelis argue they have to attack Gaza because Hamas had broken the ceasefire agreement by firing rockets to southern Israel. But Hamas says it was the Israeli who first broke the ceasefire by organising military raids inside Gaza. Hamas also says they fired the rockets in response to Israeli’s blockade which has severely affected the transportation of essential goods to Gaza. To that, the Israeli says the blockade was necessary to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and the entry of terrorists into Israeli territory. And Hamas says they have the right to acquire weapons to defend themselves from Israeli military raids. Israel also claims they have the right the expand their military capabilities (with the generous help of the Americans of course) to defend themselves from their hostile Arab neighbours. Military raids, according to Israel are conducted against militant groups and terrorists in Gaza. Hamas says as long as there is Jewish occupation of Palestinian lands, militants have valid reasons to target Israelis. And the Jews argue that Israel is the land of their ancestors hence it belongs to them. The Palestinians obviously disagree and cry out that the land, which is now part of the state of Israel, less than a century ago was their homeland which they were forced to abandon because of the Jewish occupation. To the Jews in Israel, it is not an occupation but merely the return of lands which are rightly theirs as promised by God as proclaimed in the Torah and the Bible. And so it goes, on and on... (read more on the Palestinian case and the Israeli case)

Of course, the points above barely touch the surface of what is in fact a highly complex conflict situation. Nonetheless, one can clearly see that both parties blame the other as the source and instigator of the problem. Hence, neither will concede that it was their fault that the crisis has now fully escalated because both claim they are the victims, and as victims they have the right to defend themselves and retaliate against the enemy by killing them, and killing them all; civilians and combatants, men and women, adult and children.

Do any of these people seriously want peace? As far as I’m concern, all the hotheads in Hamas and the Israeli government should be blamed for this crisis. Time and time again we hear from both sides the argument that they are the victims and they had no choice but to attack. Is that really true?

The real victims are peace-loving civilians from both sides. And the true heroes here are the handful of dedicated and selfless humanitarian workers risking their lives helping the sufferring people.

To the hotheads and violent extremists on both sides, grow up! Kiss and make-up.

The Making of Muslim Terrorists

Denial, is a common reaction among many Muslims to any news of terrorist acts committed by Muslims. At first the reaction will be: "a Muslim could not have done that", then to: "how can a Muslim do such a thing?", and finally the conclusion: "it must be a conspiracy!"

I was in Joensuu, Finland (barely two weeks since my arrival) when 911 occurred. I was first told of the attacks on the World Trade Centre when I came to the masjid on that day for evening prayers. And to be honest, when my Muslim brothers were talking about the attack, most of them were expressing a genuine feeling of jubilation. Yes, in jubilation that America was attacked in its own soil, and to a large extent, proud (not shame) that it was allegedly done by our fellow Muslim brothers.

It is always difficult for me to explain terrorist acts committed by Muslims. On one hand, I feel the need to explain this is not what Islam propagates while on the other, I cannot deny the atrocities committed by my fellow Muslims. Often, my arguments were defensive but ultimately, a point that I would vehemently defend is, blame the Muslims who committed these crimes, don’t blame Islam. Hence, there are in fact only Muslim terrorists, not 'Islamic' terrorists!

I’ve travelled across a few cities in Western Europe and in almost all of them, managed to spend some time at the masjids and talked with members of the local Muslim communities. In all these places, there were always groups of young, angry and high-spirited Muslims who displayed strong animosity towards America and the entire Western–kafir civilisation, and often times, wished and prayed for their total destruction.

From where does all this anger come from? My background in psychology propels me to focus on a more micro perspective, specifically in relation to the social psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance; a psychological discomfort that arises as a result of inconsistencies between one’s self-concept and behavioural actions.

Any Muslim who has experienced a deep sense of religious awakening, would very likely come across some of the well-known ahadith (Prophetic traditions) emphasising on the importance of ukhuwwah (Islamic brotherhood) and unity. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Muslims are like the limbs of a man, where if the eye hurts the whole body feels pain and if the head hurts, the whole body feels pain and suffering." And in another hadith emphasising on the responsibility of a Muslim to another, the Prophet said: "Whoever does not take an interest in the affairs and problems of the Muslims, he is not of them. And whoever's state is such that, each morning and evening, he is not loyal and earnest to Allah, his Apostle, His Book, the Islamic ruler and towards the Muslims as a whole, he is not of them."

Muslims who learn and internalise lessons from these narrations would feel a deep sense of connectedness, an emotional-spiritual bonding with Muslims all over the world across different countries and continents. Such feelings often transcend relations based on citizenship, race and ethnicity. It is with this deep and intense feeling of brotherhood that many Muslims began to develop a strong sense of sympathy toward Muslims inflicted with hardship and struggles. Hence when they hear and read about the sufferings of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, they would ask themselves firstly: "have I done anything to help my Muslim brothers and sisters?", followed by the painful question: "what can/should I do to help them?"

For some, the behavioural reaction would be making some donations to charity funds for the suffering people. But for some others, that would not be enough. They would think that a Muslim should be able to do more than that. And when the hardships experienced by Muslims in these areas are associated with struggles against a non-Muslim enemy, the call for jihad will soon be heard. When this happens, many Muslims would respond positively to the call seeing it as a legitimate way to harmonise their self-concept as a devout Muslim responsible for defending his/her Muslim brothers, and their behavioural reactions from one which was docile and passive to a more active and confrontational approach. Armed with religious justification, these Muslims would thereon rally behind any groups whose ideology resonates with their newly found confrontational attitude. Being confrontational means to do whatever that is necessary to destroy the enemy which include resorting to committing acts of terrorism.

So, coming back to the common reactions among Muslims mentioned in the first paragraph, yes, Muslims are capable of becoming terrorists. In fact, it won’t surprise me if some of the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attack are neither Indians nor Pakistanis. They could very well be Muslims from the UK or any other Western countries, whose minds have been indoctrinated with intense hate and animosity. A book published last year The Islamist by Ed Husain, a British Muslim and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, outlines the author’s journey towards radicalism and explains how such an ideology can and have inspired acts of terrorism.

Conspiracy? The only thought I have along this line stems from the question, 'where these people get their weapons from?' There can’t be that many countries in the world that manufacture weapons. And weapons are also not cheap. Thus, the burning question in my mind, if most of these struggling Muslim communities don’t even have enough to cater for their basic needs, how did they get all these weapons?

Allahu'alam (Allah knows best)

In view of the need for Muslims to strive for the cause of Islam and to protect and defend our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, are there other means to fulfil it other than through violence and terror? Something for all of us to think about...

Ma'as salam.

British Conspiracy Against Islam

All this hype on the latest James Bond movie reminds me of a little book I read a few years ago, Confessions of a British Spy and British Enmity against Islam. I first came across this book in 2001 at the masjid in Joensuu, Finland. A fellow postgraduate student from Turkey at the University of Joensuu had placed the book there because he was apparently uncomfortable with the influence of Salafi teachings among members of the congregation.

Confessions was allegedly written based on the memoir of a British secret agent named Hempher who served in various undercover operations in the Middle-East for the British government in the 19th century. The book presents in some detail what was arguably Hempher’s greatest mission: to engineer the destruction of the Ottoman Empire by empowering local rebellious groups. To gain control of the Arab Peninsular, Hempher sought the assistance of a local cleric and community leader Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab from Najd, who went on to spread a puritanical and revivalist version of Islam known today as Wahhabism.

I do not wish to indulge too much on the content of the book (curious readers can access the entire book in PDF format by clicking on the full title of the book in the first paragraph). Sufficient to say its main thesis is, the Wahhabi movement and Salafi teachings are products of a British conspiracy initially designed to hasten the demise of the Ottoman Empire, and to sow a perpetual sense of ‘religious’ rivalry and antagonism among Muslims.

Of course, it would be naive (and stupid) to say that spies and espionage missions do not exist but to say that Wahhabism is a product of British conspiracy to me is more paranoia than reality. The fact is, the authenticity of Confessions has been put in serious doubt by both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers, which by right should render the book to a status of a work of historical fantasy and imagination. Nonetheless, the book remains very popular among Muslims especially among the young, idealistic and those with a political-reformist mentality.

Conspiracy theories are in abundance in the internet. I have to confess that I do occasionally go through them but I do so more out of curiosity and for entertainment. I used to attend a Salafi-Wahhabi study group and I clearly do not see how Salafism can be construed as something other than a genuine approach (among many approaches) to understand and practice Islam. What has given Wahhabism and Salafism a bad name are their alleged followers, those with extreme views and militant tendencies like Usama Bin Laden. Yes, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and in Saudi Arabia Wahhabism and Salafism are dominant, but just because Bin Laden and some of his followers subscribe to these approaches, does that make Wahhabism and Salafism absolutely bad and dangerous?

Extremists exist everywhere, in Wahhabi-Salafi groups as well as among followers of other approaches. A friend of mine once received an 'advise' from a Salafi sister that he should stop wearing trousers because wearing trousers is an imitation of Western-kafir culture. I myself was once 'warned' by someone that if I do not make bai’ah to his sheikh hence joining his tarikah, I will be led astray by the devil and end up in hell fire. These are examples of people with extreme views who genuinely believe that they are in the right while others are wrong. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasised that while most terrorists are indeed extremists, very few extremists are in fact terrorists. There are millions of Muslims in the world who subscribe wholeheartedly to the writings and words of Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab, Nasaruddin Al-Albani and Abdul Aziz Bin Baz. The views of these respectable scholars to many are extreme (refer to the collection of articles at Mas'ud Ahmed Khan's homepage), but very few among their followers went on to become militants and terrorists.

My point is, the Wahhabism-British-conspiracy theory is in fact a myth, likewise the alleged association between Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda with Wahhabi political ideology as well as many other so-called conspiracies against Islam associated with various international organisations (a subject I wish to address in future postings inshaAllah). We can be followers of Wahhabism, Salafism, Sufism, Ikhwanul Muslimin, Jama’ah Tabligh etc. In the end, we are all Muslims, united by the same Tawhidic doctrine amid our differences in some specific aspects of belief and practice. Let’s stop this paranoia with conspiracy theories and the seeds of distrust that it carries.

Allahu'alam.

2008 US Election: Understanding Voting Behaviour

Can Barack Obama still lose the election despite leading in all the polls less than 3 days before election day? Of course he can. Nothing is certain in politics. A lot can still happen between now and Tuesday. As Obama himself pointed out, "it’s gonna get nasty" in these last few days. Already, news of Obama's Kenyan aunt's illegal status in America has just 'conveniently' emerged. And the Republicans, not wanting to appear personal in it's attack, simply commented that "it is a family matter". Nice!

Analysis and predictions on how Obama could still lose the election range from sensational conspiracy theories to some very pertinent and real social psychological phenomena. Of the latter, one that I am most curious about is the Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, an African-American, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for Governor of California. All the polls before the election showed Bradley with significant leads against his White-American Republican rival. Bradley however narrowly lost the election and his defeat was attributed to a large number of White voters who voted against him despite proclaiming their support prior to the election in response to polling questions. Why? Because these White voters feared being labelled as racists if they told pollsters they were not going to vote for Bradley.

The Bradley effect will certainly come into play in this year's US Presidential Election. That is without a doubt. The only question is how significant will it be? Will it be significant enough to give John McCain an unlikely victory? Many political commentaters and Obama supporters think that it won't. The McCain camp agrees while at the same time hoping that it would. We'll just have to wait and see.

Whether Obama or McCain gets elected is not of direct concern to us non-Americans. However, once you consider that the US President is the leader of the world's largest economy and most powerful military, hence arguably the most powerful man on earth, we, citizens of the world should observe the elections with keen interest. There is no doubt that most people outside America want Barack Obama to win. His multicultural background indeed is a major factor, but above all, I believe Obama's plan to reinvigorate international diplomacy in his foreign policy; a refreshing change to the Bush doctrine, that has really endeared him to the international community.

Furthermore, for many non-Americans like myself, the choice is pretty obvious. As W Scott Thompson pointed out, "McCain came in near the bottom of his (Naval) Academy class, Obama the top (Harvard Law School). Sarah Palin had to try five times to get through college (earning a bachelor degree in journalism). Obama ran the Harvard Law Review — you can’t get higher. Why wasn’t the choice obvious?" I can't agree more.

Which brings me to the issue of political sophistication. In 1960, psychologists from the University of Michigan conducted a landmark study on how Americans decide on who and which party they would vote for. The survey's result, published in the book The American Voter, categorised Americans into four groups of levels of conceptualisation. The first two groups; the ideologues and near-idealogues who account for 2.5 percent and 9.5 percent of the American population respectively, are party loyalists who vote for their respective parties partly due to their strong belief in the party's ideology, but arguably more because of blind loyalty. The rest in the population are 'independent voters', who may be persuaded to vote for a particular party or candidate because of "group benefits" (42 percent of the population), "the nature of times" (24 percent), and for no reason whatsoever (22.5 percent, which represents the number of Americans who don't care and not interested about politics, and most likely has never voted in any elections). This study was of course done almost 50 years ago but a recent study published in the book The American Voter Revisited presents some very startling similar results.

What these studies have basically concluded is that the majority of Americans are unsophisticated voters; they don't understand the main issues in the elections and they don't do any research or serious thinking when they cast their votes. A damning revelation considering that the reason why we have direct presidential elections in the first place is to choose the best leader to lead a country. How can the 'best' person be elected if the majority of the population are ignorant on the issues? In reality, the person who is elected is one who has the most number of votes (in America, that would mean the electoral college votes), but when the people who voted them in are considerably ignorant, does the person who receives the highest votes really is the BEST person to lead the country? This is what we call the paradox of democracy.

If the reason not to vote for Obama is his inexperience, that is quite understandable. His lack of executive experience is indeed an issue but the fact that he has managed to run a successful and discipline campaign (he has never used race as an issue) against firstly the Clintons, and now against John McCain, shows what an astute person he is, a quality I believe is more important than mere number of years of experience (and a mounting political baggage that comes with it) in the senate. Even then, I can understand why some people would still vote for McCain because of his greater experience and image as a maverick.

What I don't understand is why many Americans are still supporting McCain's running mate Sarah Palin? The case for Sarah Palin is that she is an average American, a hockey mum, who connects with the American people. Well yes, she is just as ignorant! Her public statements in the last two months have shockingly exposed the vastness of her ignorance, which for a person who could be a heartbeat away from the presidency, is really unbelievable. In that sense, yes, Sarah Palin can relate to the hockey mums and Joe Six-Packs in America. But as Jon Meacham's Newsweek wrote, "do we (Americans) want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks?"

I would argue for the latter for America and all other countries in the world. And for that to happen, voters need to acquire greater political sophistication.