Muslim first...(Part II): Islamization and '1Malaysia'

The Malaysian society I grew up in was certainly different from what it is today. I started primary school in 1984 at the time when the effects of the Islamization wave, which began in the 1970's was yet to be seen. I went to a primary school in Kelana Jaya, a then young housing area in the fringes of Petaling Jaya. The local society was truly multiracial and this was reflected by the multiracial composition of my classmates in school.

Looking back at my class photos, I can see that when I was in Standard 1 (Tahun 1 Limau, 1984, Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan Taman Seaport), out of 45 students in that class, only twelve of them were Malays. I had 20 Chinese classmates, eight Indians while the rest were Kadazan-Dusun, Ceylonese and Eurasians. And my Standard 2 class (Tahun 2 Durian, 1985) was the same. There were 44 students in the class, 15 of them Malays, 21 Chinese and five Indians.

Those numbers sum-up quite nicely my childhood environment. My friends and I, we were truly '1Malaysia'. In fact, my best mate in primary school was a Chinese boy named Oliver, and in my first three years of secondary school in Kelana Jaya, my closest friend was my Indian buddy, Thanaraj.

I was conscious about my race and religion, and I'm sure all my friends in school were conscious of theirs too. That, however, did not stop us from playing together. We knew we had different cultural-religious beliefs and practices. We talked about them at times and from these conversations we learned to respect one another.

Occasionally, there were misunderstandings. I can recall one specific occasion when we were all tired and thirsty after playing football, a Chinese friend refused to drink water from the same bottle with me, not because he thought my bottle was dirty or anything but because; as what he said "aku makan babi" (I eat pork)". He was genuinely concerned that if his lips touched the bottle, the bottle would instantly become haram (forbidden) for me to drink from. 

I can see from those old class photos too that back then, all of us Malay boys wore shorts to school while the Malay girls all wore pinafores. One or two Malay girls started wearing baju kurung in Standard 4 while the boys started wearing long pants in Standard 5. Even in Standard 6, there were still more Malay girls in pinafores and skirts (prefect attire). Now, all Malay boys in primary schools right from Standard 1, wear long pants to school, and all the Malay girls wear baju kurung with tudung or headscarves as well.

The Malay-Muslim society in Malaysia has certainly become more Islamic over the last three decades. The influx of Islamic television programmes in recent years is a stark reminder of that too. Back in the early 1980's, the only regular religious programme was Muqaddam, a basic Quran reading programme hosted by Ustaz Hassan Azhari, aired on RTM1 every afternoon. Friday sermons were not even shown live on national television. There were recorded and aired after the evening news at 8.30 pm on Fridays. I remember this because what came immediately after was Tayangan Minggu Ini, a programme which aired old Malay movies of P. Ramlee and his contemporaries.  

The ‘Islamic Malaysia’ that we live in today is a country were 'Islamic' content penetrates into all spheres of life; in education, entertainment, medicine, finance, fashion and others. A Muslim, like me, certainly has no problems with this for Islam is my religion. But for non-Muslims?

I can understand their concerns. More so if I imagine myself in a reversed situation, i.e. a Muslim minority living in a non-Muslim majority society. If, for example that I live in the UK, and the British people suddenly became more religious that all public schools suddenly revert to routines and practices of mission schools in the past; with prayers read and hymns sang in student assemblies, the BBC begin to air more religious programmes; live coverage of mass on Sundays, Christian talent shows etc, and the British Prime Minister announcing a national policy of insertion of Christian values in public service, as a Muslim living in the UK, I would definitely be very concerned.      

Coming back to the reality here in Malaysia, I disagree with the popular assumption that the person chiefly responsible for the Islamization of the society was former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir. Yes, he was indeed the man who introduced a national policy of insertion of Islamic values (dasar penerapan nilai-nilai Islam) in the 1980's, and the Islamization wave that hit the country coincides nicely with his premiership. But really, that was pretty much what it was, a coincidence. Anyone who became prime minister at that time would have introduced some form of Islamization, one way or another.

Not to say that Dr. Mahathir was insincere. He was indeed the country's first practicing Muslim prime minister. And I do believe he is genuinely religious in his own way. But more than anything, Dr. Mahathir was a cunning observer of political trends. He recognised and understood the Islamization wave that hit, not only the Muslims here but Muslims all over the world. He knew that if UMNO did not try to 'Islamize' itself, it might lose its position to PAS as the major political vehicle for the Malays. So he went on executing a deliberate political strategy’ to Islamize’ the government and his party. And getting the then ABIM president, Anwar Ibrahim, to join UMNO was undoubtedly part of that strategy.     

As far as winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims is concern, that strategy worked. Except for his last general election in 1999, UMNO and Barisan Nasional garnered the majority of Malay votes in every general election held during Dr. Mahathir’s tenure. But when it comes to race relations and national integration, that strategy has certainly caused great consternation.

Many non-Malays now refer to national schools as 'Malay schools' precisely because almost all the students there are Malays. There are hardly any non-Malays. The situation is particularly acute in urban areas. I live in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur and the local national primary school here has not had a single Chinese student enrolled for more than ten years.          

Non-Muslim parents, especially Chinese, have overwhelmingly refused to send their children to national primary schools. This has been going on for almost two decades now, hence, as a result, we have an entire generation of Malaysians growing up in a more-or-less homogeneous environment; growing up interacting only with those of the same race with very little interaction with others.

When you don’t interact with others, what would be the most likely effect? Tolerance and acceptance, or prejudice and discrimination? You don't need a PhD in social psychology or sociology to know the answer.

The situation today certainly does not look good. The dream for a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and ‘1Malaysia’ looks increasingly more like a pipe dream. But I believe there are still ways to salvage that dream. It requires commitment and sacrifices from all; Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays. For the sake of genuine peace and harmony, each of us needs to accept some changes and let go some of our long-held opinions.

For example...

Slightly better than chimpanzee...

There was a popular joke that made the rounds in the late 1990's about the different levels of efficiency of the election commissions in various Asian countries. At the time, many countries in the region were experiencing a surge of interest in elections and politics. The joke goes something like this:

A journalist wants to know which country in Asia is fastest in announcing the results of their national elections. First, he went to Indonesia and met with the Election Commission (EC) there. The Indonesian EC said, "we are a big country and our system isn't really good, so we can only announce the official results three months after the election." The journalist next went to India and asked the EC there the same question. The Indian EC said, "we have a huge population but our system is good, we can announce the results three days after the election". Next, to Singapore, and the journalist was told, "we are very efficient, we announce the results in three hours". The journalist finally went to Malaysia and told the Malaysian EC how efficient Singapore was, to which the Malaysian EC chief retorted, "we can do even better, we can announce the results three months before the election!"   

This was of course during the time when elections in Malaysia were more predictable and if someone did really want to fix the election, he could have done so quite easily. Civil society was not strong, election monitoring bodies almost non-existent and opposition parties most often did not have enough counting and polling agents. Elections can still be fixed today, of course, but to do so without anyone noticing it would be extremely difficult.  

Fixed or not, to predict (correctly) election results is not easy. We often rely on experts and pundits for their views but how valid really are their views? Well, according to Professor Philip Tetlock, in his book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (2005), an 'expert' is only slightly more accurate than a dart-throwing chimpanzee! A rather sad statement, isn't it? But the evidence is overwhelming.

Here, in Malaysia, we only need to go back to the 2008 General Election to find examples of how inaccurate many expert predictions were. If you browse through all mainstream newspapers the editions just prior to the election, you will find one of the most talked about issues was 'who from Gerakan will replace Koh Tsu Koon as Penang Chief Minister?'; a question totally oblivious of even the possibility of Gerakan losing in Penang. And among pro-Barisan Nasional experts, a view often drummed-up was the 'death' of Parti Keadilan Rakyat after the election and the end of PAS' rule in Kelantan.

What happened then was really quite amusing. I can still recall watching at around 7 pm on election day how excited an RTM presenter was about wanting to know the latest tally in Permatang Pauh. She was so excited because she was expecting a result that signals the end of PKR. PKR, of course not only retained Permatang Pauh but won 30 other parliamentary seats in 2008.      

Local political experts and politicians are very much more cautious this time around. Pro-government experts have lately become more philosophical. Those with statistics and numbers are gaining more prominence.

A few days ago, Professor Redzuan Othman from the University of Malaya presented 'selected findings' from his survey on the election. He reported that 43 percent of his respondents preferred Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister, and 37 percent preferred the incumbent Najib Abdul Razak. That is indeed good news for the opposition. Pakatan Rakyat supporters are ecstatic and many are now predicting a resounding victory.

I am not a member of any political party but for this election, I have openly expressed my wish to see PR win. I honestly believe a PR win would be good for the country, and good for Umno and BN too;) But a PR victory, with one week to go, is far from certain. Seven days is a long time in politics. Many things can still happen, many 'videos' can still be produced, and many mistakes can still be made. If everything falls into place, PR may not even need Sabah and Sarawak to win federal. But make just one mistake and PR may end up with only Penang and Kelantan to govern.        

Professor Redzuan's findings would be more meaningful if this was a direct presidential election. But that's not the case here. We have a really unfair system where even if a coalition garners more than 50 percent of the popular votes, it may only get 25 percent seats in parliament. The magic number is 112. Whoever gets at least 112 parliamentary seats will form the next federal government. And at this point, nobody really knows who will that be.

The only way any pundit or expert can validly predict the outcome is to do what Nate Silver did for the US Presidential Election last year. He correctly predicted the outcome in all 50 states. More remarkably, in 48 of those, the actual votes received by each candidate fell within his margin of error.

Nate Silver did not collect any data on his own. He uses data from various polling and media agencies, averages them and run a series of regression analyses to cater for various adjustments. The method isn't really that complicated. But you need a diverse range of present and historical data to get it right, and we just don't have that here in Malaysia.

That, however should not stop us from making our own predictions. Unlike 2008, I haven't been able to observe how things are on the ground but I still would like to offer my own humble slightly-better-than-chimpanzee's prediction. Later...

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.

Power, Fear & Anger

How do the emotions anger and fear tip the balance between peace and conflict? When fear is used by government leaders on their own people, they use it to 'persuade' them to submit to their rules. "Obey me, or else..."

Fear is all about intimidation. It isn't nice, unethical even but most often, it works. If not, how else dictators and authoritarian leaders past and present managed to cling on to power despite their reckless cruelty, greed and unfair treatment of others?

Fear works tremendously in environments previously rampant with strife and clashes between groups of people. Anarchy exists in the absence of a strong authority to control warring factions. A strong authoritarian leader, a dictator, is needed to control those in dire thirst for enemy blood. The leader must be respected and feared to the extent that he is able to force such people to submission. Only then can order be restored.

Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Husni Mubarak of Egypt were dictators, no doubt. But Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore? According to a few academic-operational definitions, they probably are. But the 'd' word is also probably too strong and too harsh a word to be used on them. After all, both of them did resign from their respective government positions. And their actions while in power were certainly not in the same 'class' as those committed by Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, or even Suharto of Indonesia.

Both Mahathir and LKY however were definitely not gentlemen politicians. In response to an interview question critical of Singapore’s political culture, LKY once said: "it is not in the business of the present government to make it easy for the opposition party to overthrow us."

That short statement pretty much sums up LKY's view on democracy. Basically, for both him and Mahathir, elections are fine but they need not necessarily be free and fair. The government of the day controls the media, civil service and security forces. Use them to the maximum to secure victory. Who cares about ethics and fair play!

Here in Malaysia , the modus operandi of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition remains the same. Fear is used to intimidate in such a way that many can’t even imagine political parties other than BN ruling this country. The fear is, if indeed others were to rule, the country will collapse. For many Malays particularly, the thought of a Chinese 'kiasu' party like the DAP (Democratic Action Party) in federal government is their greatest nightmare. We Malays are certainly not afraid of Hantu Kak Limah or Zombie Kampung Pisang, but we are afraid of Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang. They may look human but are actually more scary and evil than the most devilish of devils! So it seems.

Any person with a more rational and practical mind would realize how foolish such a fear is. DAP has never contested more than 35% of parliamentary seats in any general election. That alone is enough to tell us that they can’t form the government on their own. They can only do so in a coalition with the Islamic Party (PAS) and the National Justice Party (PKR). And both PAS and PKR are led by Malay-Muslim leaders. To say that these people can so easily be bullied by DAP to abandon their stand on Malay rights and Islam is just naive and insulting.

If (a very big 'if') Pakatan Rakyat were to form the federal government after the next general election, the only people who would be overwhelmed with genuine fear are those who have unfairly benefited from their connections with the Barisan Nasional government. Businessmen, civil servants and all others who had used political connections for personal gains indeed have a real cause for concern. But for most of us who have never been part of that culture, there is nothing to fear. Life goes on. Work in the office continues.

If people find that hard to imagine, look back at what happened when the opposition took over the state governments of Selangor, Penang, Perak and Kedah after the 2008 General Election? Did the people in these states experienced armageddon? Were the Malays in these states particularly in Penang and Selangor chased away from their homes? Were they any masjids or suraus destroyed or confiscated?

Leaders in Pakatan Rakyat are not immune from mistakes, no doubt, but they certainly are not devils in human form who would condemn the people in this country to a state of abject destitution. Nor are they complete morons who have no skills and intelligence whatsoever to run this country. Likewise, for ardent supporters of Pakatan, they shouldn't be thinking that everything that is associated with UMNO and Barisan Nasional is bad. Give credit when credit is due. Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has certainly done a number of good things since he took over from Abdullah Badawi.

I believe, above all, what many of us want to see is a fair fight. Let us see more debates between leaders and personalities from both sides. Let it be a battle of ideas, not a battle which revolves around someone's anus and undergarment. This is unfortunately what the current government is utterly incapable of doing. For now, fear remains strong, especially amongst the Malays. PM Najib thus should be reasonably confident that BN will win convincingly in the next general election.

There isn't enough anger amongst Malaysians that would convince many of us to commit to the kind of actions recently seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Many indeed are angry about the rising prices of oil and other essential goods, the lack of transparency in the government and the continued perception of rampant corruption. But no one wants to see chaos in the streets. We do hope though that those in power, today and tomorrow, will realize the fact that real power is in the hands of the people. Leaders who continue to abuse their positions for their own interest will, sooner-or-later, face the wrath of the people. No matter how rich and powerful you are, you will always be haunted by fear.

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.

Keluarga atau Negara?

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 22 Julai 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Jika PM guna wang negara selamatkan perniagaan anak')

Dalam salah satu episod siri drama televisyen popular 24, presiden Amerika Syarikat, Presiden Allison Taylor (seorang wanita) digambarkan berhadapan dengan dilema yang amat berat. Anak perempuannya telah mengaku mengupah seseorang untuk membunuh seorang saksi yang telah diberi imuniti dan perlindungan oleh kerajaan.

Ada sebabnya saksi ini dibunuh. Saksi ini adalah seorang tahanan yang bertanggungjawab membunuh anak lelaki presiden. Maka adik perempuannya mahu membalas dendam atas pembunuhan abangnya. Namun, ibunya selaku presiden bukan sahaja tidak mendakwa saksi ini atas kesalahannya itu, malah memberikan imuniti kepadanya sebagai syarat beliau bekerjasama memberkas penjahat-penjahat yang lain.

Bayangkan dilema yang dihadapi Presiden Taylor? Beliau ada dua orang anak. Seorang telah mati dibunuh. Yang seorang lagi kini berhadapan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup. Yang mati tidak boleh dihidupkan kembali namun yang hidup masih boleh dilindungi.

Yang boleh mengaitkan anak perempuan presiden dengan jenayah ini ialah sebuah pita rakaman yang merakamkan perbualan antara anak presiden itu dan orang yang mengatur pembunuhan tersebut. Sekiranya pita rakaman itu dimusnahkan, tidak ada bukti lain yang boleh membuktikan penglibatan anak perempuan presiden dalam kes tersebut.

Suami Presiden Taylor mengesyorkan agar pita rakaman itu dimusnahkan. Beliau menyaran isterinya menggunakan kuasanya sebagai presiden untuk melindungi anak mereka. Lebih-lebih lagi, orang yang dibunuh itu ialah orang yang bertanggungjawab sebelumnya membunuh anak lelaki mereka.

Berdepan dengan pilihan antara tanggungjawab sebagai seorang ibu dan isteri, dan tanggungjawab sebagai presiden yang bersumpah untuk mematuhi perlembagaan negara, yang mana patut dipilih? Mungkin situasi dramatik seperti ini tidak berlaku dalam realiti. Namun dilema seumpamanya dalam situasi yang berbeza pasti boleh berlaku.

Bayangkan seorang perdana menteri, anaknya berdepan masalah kewangan yang kritikal; perniagaannya hampir musnah dan hutangnya bertimbun. Dilihat akan si bapa akan anaknya yang muram dan sengsara, adakah si bapa selaku perdana menteri patut berdiam diri sahaja tanpa melakukan apa-apa?

Selaku perdana menteri, beliau punya kuasa dan pengaruh. Beliau boleh menggunakan sumber kewangan negara untuk menyelamatkan perniagaan anaknya. Perniagaan anaknya itu pun memang perniagaan strategik yang penting untuk negara. Walaupun ianya melibatkan anaknya sendiri, tidak salah rasanya menggunakan dana awam untuk membantunya.

Mungkin secara peribadi, perdana menteri itu mahu membiarkan anaknya merana memikul tanggungjawab kegagalan perniagaannya. Hasratnya agar undang-undang negara dipatuhi dan sumber kewangan negara tidak digunakan untuk tujuan peribadi. Namun bila isteri dan ahli-ahli keluarga yang lain turut mendesak agar bantuan diberi, mampukah perdana menteri itu berpeluk tubuh berpegang pada prinsip?

Jika perdana menteri itu tetap teguh berpegang pada prinsip, beliau berdepan risiko berlakunya perpecahan dalam keluarganya sendiri. Dalam drama televisyen 24, Presiden Taylor telah dengan berberat hati menyerahkan anaknya ke pihak berkuasa. Permintaan suaminya agar bukti pita rakaman dimusnahkan tidak ditunaikan. Suaminya marah dan kecewa sehingga membuat keputusan bercerai dengan isterinya.

Dialog falsafah antara Socrates dan Euthypro wajar dijadikan renungan dalam hal ini. Euthypro merupakan seorang pakar perundangan pada zaman Greek purba. Pada suatu hari, beliau terserempak dengan Socrates di perkarangan mahkamah. Tujuan Euthypro ke situ pada hari tersebut ialah untuk mendakwa ayah kandungnya sendiri atas tuduhan membunuh.

Socrates terpegun melihat akan seorang anak yang bersedia mendakwa ayahnya sendiri. Namun Euthypro berkeras bahawa tindakannya itu adalah satu tindakan yang mulia dan soleh. Maka tercetuslah dialog antara mereka akan apakah sebenarnya takrif kemuliaan dan kesolehan itu sendiri.

Socrates melontarkan pendapat bahawa kemuliaan dan kesolehan itu adalah sebahagian daripada keadilan. Namun beliau sendiri kemudiannya menyoal, adakah semua yang mulia dan soleh itu adil dan saksama?

Memang mudah untuk kita menyangkal, tidak ada yang kabur tentang apa itu sifat yang soleh dan mulia dan apa itu keadilan. Namun hakikatnya, lain orang lain pandangannya dan neraca keadilan mereka mungkin tidak sama.

Di kalangan ahli-ahli politik dan pemimpin negara, ada yang berfikir adalah adil bagi mereka menggunakan sedikit kuasa dan pengaruh untuk kepentingan diri sendiri dan keluarga. Rasionalnya, setelah begitu banyak masa dan tenaga dikorbankan untuk orang lain, kenapa tidak sedikit manfaat dan habuan diambil untuk diri sendiri?

Dan jika anak-anak atau ahli-ahli terdekat keluarga yang lain terlibat dalam sedikit masalah, kenapa tidak digunakan kuasa untuk menutup masalah itu? Kenapa tidak digunakan serba sedikit harta dan instrumen kerajaan? Kenapa tidak diarahkan pihak berkuasa tidak mengambil tindakan? Jika buruk imej keluarga pemimpin negara, buruk juga nama negara? Maka, bukankah ‘adil’ sekiranya imej pemimpin dan keluarganya dilindungi untuk kepentingan bersama?

Tidak mustahil inilah corak pemikiran yang ada di kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin negara. Soalnya sekarang, adakah kita mahu pemimpin yang mentalitinya seperti ini atau pemimpin seperti Presiden Allison Taylor dalam drama 24?

Sudah pasti, yang lebih baik adalah yang seperti Presiden Taylor. Namun itu watak di dunia fantasi. Realitinya bagaimana? Tuhan sahaja yang Maha Mengetahui banyak mana pemimpin-pemimpin negara yang tidak teguh prinsipnya.

Kesimpulannya, barangsiapa yang merasakan pegangan prinsipnya tidak seteguh Presiden Taylor, janganlah sesekali mengimpikan apa jua jawatan politik yang melibatkan kepentingan negara. Yang sedia ada dalam kerajaan pula, jika pegangan prinsip anda juga tidak teguh, undurlah diri dengan segera sebelum bala menimpa.

Bebaskan Mahasiswa Daripada Cengkaman AUKU

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives published on its website on 17th June 2010)

Gara-gara turun padang meninjau perjalanan kempen pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor April lepas, empat orang mahasiswa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) kini berhadapan tindakan tatatertib. Mereka adalah 'mangsa' terbaru Akta Universti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) yang menghalang mahasiswa dan ahli akademik daripada terlibat dalam sebarang kegiatan politik.

AUKU yang diwarisi hari ini adalah salah satu 'harta peninggalan' bekas perdana menteri Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Pindaan ke atas AUKU pada tahun 1975 dibentangkan Dr Mahathir selaku Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu selepas berlakunya demonstrasi besar-besar anjuran gerakan mahasiswa pada tahun 1974. Demonstrasi tersebut dianjurkan bagi membela nasib petani-petani miskin di Baling, Kedah.

AUKU diperkenalkan atas alasan perlunya mahasiswa menumpukan masa dan tenaga pada pelajaran dan tidak membuang masa terlibat dalam kegiatan politik. Politik itu dianggap melalaikan. Mereka yang terlibat dalam politik dianggap sudah terpesong daripada landasan yang benar. Hasrat kerajaan ialah membendung kemungkinan mahasiswa gagal dalam pelajaran kerana keterlibatan mereka dalam kegiatan politik.

Tidak diketahui berapa ramai mahasiswa di universiti-universiti tempatan yang gagal dalam pelajaran kerana sibuk berpolitik. Mungkin benar ianya salah satu penyebab kegagalan namun pastinya ada penyebab-penyebab yang lain. Antaranya mungkin kerana sibuk bersukan, sibuk bekerja sambilan dan mungkin juga sibuk dilamun percintaan.

Sekiranya berpolitik, sebagai salah satu penyebab kegagalan, dibanteras sepenuhnya melalui AUKU, mengapa tidak AUKU diperluaskan bagi membanteras penyebab-penyebab kegagalan yang lain? Mengapa tidak diharamkan saja mahasiswa daripada bersukan, bercinta dan bekerja sambilan? Haramkan saja kesemuanya kerana kita mahu mahasiswa menumpukan hanya pada pelajaran.

Sebagai salah seorang tenaga pendidik di institusi pengajian awam, saya kurang mengerti mengapa berpolitik itu dianggap sesuatu yang begitu hina dan membahayakan. Memang benar, ada mahasiswa yang ponteng kelas dan gagal dalam peperiksaan kerana sibuk ke hulu dan ke hilir menghadiri ceramah-ceramah politik. Tetapi tidak semuanya begitu. Ada yang sibuk berpolitik tapi masih mampu mentadbir masa melaksanakan segala tugasan akademik dengan cemerlang.

Persoalannya, apakah sebenarnya golongan mahasiswa yang mahu dilahirkan melalui sistem pendidikan tinggi tempatan? Apakah kita mahu melahirkan mahasiswa yang hanya berminat membaca dan menghafal, atau adakah kita mahu mahasiswa yang mampu menghubungkan teori dengan kenyataan?

Saya pernah beberapa kali semasa kuliah cuba menilai sejauh mana pengetahuan am pelajar-pelajar saya di kelas. Saya bertanyakan soalan-soalan mudah seperti, 'apakah nama penuh Menteri Pelajaran?' dan 'apakah nama penuh parti PAS?' Agak menyedihkan bagi soalan-soalan mudah seperti ini, tidak sampai 25 peratus pun pelajar yang dapat menjawabnya dengan betul.

Yang menarik berkenaan kes empat mahasiswa UKM ini, kesemua mereka adalah pelajar program sains politik yang ketika pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor berlangsung, sedang menduduki kursus 'Analisa Pilihanraya' di Jabatan Sains Politik, UKM.

Tujuan mereka turun padang di Hulu Selangor adalah untuk meninjau realiti bagaimana kempen pilihanraya di negara ini dijalankan. Malangnya, apa yang sepatutnya dipuji sebagai inisiatif yang baik dijadikan jerat untuk memerangkap mahasiswa-mahasiswa ini.

Kesatuan kakitangan akademik tempatan sudah sekian lama menyeru kerajaan menghapuskan AUKU. Bukanlah tujuan saranan ini dibuat untuk mendesak mahasiswa terlibat dalam politik. Saranan ini dibuat atas kesedaran mahasiswa perlu diberi kebebasan menyelami pelbagai ideologi dan pemahaman. Bila lagi kalau bukan ketika menuntut di kolej dan universiti golongan muda berpeluang mengembang minda dan pemikiran?

Bukankah politik itu menganjur perdebatan dan merangsang pemikiran kritis di kalangan orang muda? Atau, adakah kita lebih selesa sekiranya golongan muda terpesona dengan muzik, wayang dan lain-lain hiburan?

Sebagai seorang pensyarah, saya pastinya lebih senang mendengar pelajar-pelajar saya menghadiri ceramah politik daripada menghadiri acara-acara hiburan. Saya juga pasti lebih gembira jika melihat pelajar-pelajar membaca Harakah dan Aliran Monthly daripada membaca Mastika dan Media Hiburan.

Perlu diingat, tidak semua mahasiswa yang terlibat dalam politik akan terpengaruh menyertai parti-parti pembangkang. Di kemuncak gerakan Reformasi pada akhir tahun 1990-an, berpuluh ribu mahasiswa seluruh negara turun menyertai demonstrasi anti-kerajaan.

Daripada puluhan ribu ini, tidak semua yang hingga sekarang masih setia menyokong parti-parti pembangkang. Ramai juga yang dulunya kuat melaung "Reformasi" dan menjunjung poster Anwar Ibrahim ke sana sini kini menyertai Umno dan parti-parti komponen Barisan Nasional yang lain.

Fahaman dan dokongan politik itu boleh berubah. Maka, janganlah disekat mahasiswa daripada mencuba dan mendekati pendekatan politik yang berbeza-beza.

Jika ya pun kerajaan bertegas tidak mahu menghapuskan AUKU, paling tidak laksanakanlah ia dengan adil. Empat orang mahasiswa UKM ini dilaporkan telah membantu berkempen untuk calon PKR dalam pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor. Ramai yang pasti tertanya, sekiranya mereka turun membantu berkempen untuk calon Barisan Nasional, adakah tindakan tatatertib akan diambil ke atas mereka juga? Barisan Nasional ialah sebuah gabungan parti-parti politik.

Kalau salah berkempen untuk PKR, pasti salah juga berkempen untuk BN!

Atau mungkin berkempen untuk BN itu tidak salah kerana BN itu kerajaan, maka berkempen untuk BN itu sebenarnya sekadar memberi khidmat pada kerajaan. Jika itulah rasionalnya, empat mahasiswa UKM ini tidak boleh dianggap salah juga. Sebabnya, kerajaan negeri di Selangor itu diterajui PKR, maka berkempen untuk PKR juga boleh dianggap memberi khidmat pada kerajaan negeri.

Saya percaya beberapa pemimpin muda Umno seperti Saifuddin Abdullah dan Mohd Puad Zarkashi mahu ruang yang bebas diberikan kepada mahasiswa untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan politik. Mereka sedar jika ruang yang bebas ini diberikan, bukan parti-parti pembangkang sahaja yang boleh menerima manfaat. Umno juga boleh secara terbuka mengembangkan pengaruhnya di kampus-kampus melalui sayap Putera dan Puteri-nya.

Empat mahasiswa UKM ini kini telah membawa kes ini ke mahkamah. Agak sukar membayangkan mahkamah akan memihak kepada mereka, namun sekurang-kurangnya kes mereka ini akan menarik perhatian ramai akan perlunya AUKU itu dihapuskan.

Hanya Cantik Di Atas Kertas

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website under the title 'Bila rumah, kereta dan harta melampaui pendapatan' on 13th May 2010)

Ketika berkhidmat di sebuah syarikat perunding peniagaan lebih sedekad yang lalu, saya diberi peluang terlibat dalam sebuah projek merangka misi dan visi sebuah organisasi utama di Malaysia. Maka tersemburlah semasa perbincangan segala frasa yang cantik dan hebat yang difikirkan dapat menjadi lambang kemegahan organisasi berkenaan. Misi dan visi itu biarlah cantik. Samada ianya berpijak di bumi yang nyata atau sekadar mimpi di awangan tidak menjadi persoalan.

Inilah antara lumrah kehidupan di negara kita. Di atas kertas segala-galanya nampak cantik dan hebat. Namun realitinya tidaklah sehebat mana, malah adakalanya sangat menghampakan.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, pada penghujung pemerintahannya sempat menaikkan taraf Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM). Suruhanjaya ini dikatakan setaraf dengan suruhanjaya bebas pencegahan rasuah di Hong Kong yang diiktiraf keberkesanaannya di serata dunia. Berbekalkan misi yang hebat untuk "mewujudkan masyarakat Malaysia bebas daripada rasuah berlandaskan nilai-nilai kerohanian dan moral yang tinggi, (dan) menjadikan SPRM agensi pembanterasan rasuah yang professional dan unggul"; ramai pemerhati terpegun dengan langkah berani yang diambil perdana menteri dan kerajaan. Suruhanjaya ini diharap dapat bertindak dengan bebas, adil dan professional bagi mengembalikan keyakinan rakyat terhadap usaha kerajaan Barisan Nasional membanteras rasuah di setiap sudut dan peringkat.

Di atas kertas, misi dan visi SPRM memang gah dan hebat. Bidang kuasanya begitu luas. Pakaian rasmi para anggotanya pun tampak segak dan kemas. Namun, dalam tempoh lebih setahun SPRM diwujudkan, pencapaiannya masih mengecewakan.

Yang paling mengecewakan pastinya kes Teoh Beng Hock yang hingga kini berdepan beribu persoalan. Samada benar beliau membunuh diri atau mati dibunuh sepertimana didakwa sesetengah pihak, umum masih mempersoal apakah rasional beliau disoal-siasat hingga larut malam? Yang diketahui umum, beliau disiasat sebagai seorang saksi, bukan pun sebagai orang yang disyaki. Dan dakwaan rasuah dalam kes itu pun melibatkan jumlah tidak sampai RM3000. Tidak pula diketahui samada beliau suspek jenayah besar yang memerlukan siasatan segera seakan-akan keselamatan negara berdepan ancaman getir yang sangat serius.

Tidak lupa juga kes dua enjin pesawat jet F5 yang hilang dicuri. Yang didakwa bagi kes ini hanyalah dua orang individu yang tidaklah tinggi pangkat dan kedudukannya. Walhal ramai beranggapan lebih ramai yang terlibat memandangkan objek yang dicuri bukannya kecil dan tidak mudah diurus dibawa ke luar negara. Memanglah siasatan kes ini lebih menjurus kepada siasatan dalaman pihak tentera. Namun tidak masuk akal sekiranya tiada langsung individu-individu daripada agensi-agensi kerajaan dan badan-badan berkanun lain yang terlibat.

Begitu juga ceritanya berkenaan kes-kes salah laku yang termaktub dalam Laporan Audit Negara 2008. Antara contoh kes salah laku yang dilaporkan ialah komputer riba yang berharga kurang RM5000 sebuah yang dibayar harga lebih RM40,000, 12 pokok pinang yang berharga kurang RM2000 dibayar harga RM9000, dan kerugian lebih RM1 billion yang ditanggung kerajaan bagi projek landasan keretapi berkembar elektrik bagi laluan dari Rawang ke Ipoh.

Kes-kes seperti ini sebenarnya sudah sekian lama dilaporkan. Dalam beberapa buku beliau yang diterbitkan pada tahun 1970'an, Professor Syed Hussein Alatas telah mengulas masalah rasuah di negara ini dengan cukup mendalam. Dan contoh kes rasuah yang dibincang beliau banyak berkisar pada apa yang terkandung dalam laporan tahunan Jabatan Audit Negara.

Sebagai contoh, dalam bukunya Intellectuals in Developing Societies (Intelektual Masyarakat Membangun), Alatas memetik kandungan Laporan Juru Audit Negara Kerajaan Persekutuan 1968 yang melaporkan bahawa dalam tempoh tiga tahun (dari tahun 1965 hingga 1967), Jabatan Telekom ketika itu telah kehilangan 1,662 peti kabel tembaga, seberat 598,556 paun yang bernilai hampir sejuta ringgit! Alatas juga memetik dalam buku yang sama kes kontrak pembangunan kapal korek yang bernilai hampir dua juta ringgit yang ditandatangani kerajaan persekutuan pada tahun 1964. Kapal korek itu hanya beroperasi selama tiga bulan sebelum mengalami kerosakan. Dilaporkan tidak ada pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkan bagi kes berkenaan.

Memandangkan kes-kes seperti ini sudah berlaku sejak lebih 30 tahun yang lalu, secara logiknya dengan wujudnya agensi pencegah rasuah seperti BPR dahulunya, dan SPRM sekarang ini, kes-kes seperti tidak lagi berlaku secara berleluasa. Namun, sepertimana yang terkandung dalam Laporon Audit Negara 2008, dan sepertimana yang diakui SPRM sendiri baru-baru ini, rasuah di sektor awam masih ditahap yang serius dan membimbangkan. Maka tidak menghairankan sekiranya masih ramai di kalangan rakyat negara ini yang masih kurang yakin dengan peranan dan tindakan SPRM.

Sebilangan besar rakyat Malaysia tidak partisan dalam persepsi mereka. Mereka hanya mahu melihat keadilan terlaksana. Bilamana adanya pemimpin-pemimpin politik (baik di pihak Barisan Nasional mahupun Pakatan Rakyat) dan pegawai-pegawai kerajaan yang rumah, kereta dan harta bendanya jelas melampaui pendapatan yang diterima, ramai yang tertanya-tanya mengapa perkara seperti ini dibiarkan berleluasa.

Misi dan visi SPRM itu cukup hebat dan cantik. Namun janganlah hanya cantik diatas kertas. Bukankah rasuah itu suatu barah yang boleh menghancurkan negara? Sejarah telah membuktikan bagaimana kerajaan-kerajaan terdahulu runtuh kerana rasuah. Malaysia pastinya tidak mahu terjerumus ke arah yang sama.

Adakah Serangan Peribadi Strategi Bijak Dalam Pilihanraya?

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website on 22 April 2010.)

Sepanjang tempoh kempen pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor minggu ini, calon Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Zaid Ibrahim diserang pelbagai tohmahan berkenaan cara hidup dan keperibadiannya. Moral dan akhlaknya dipersoalkan. Beliau dikatakan seorang kaki minum dan kaki judi yang tidak layak diangkat sebagai pemimpin orang-orang Melayu dan Islam.

Serangan peribadi atau pembunuhan karakter (character assasination) seperti ini mempunyai sejarah yang cukup panjang dalam dunia politik bukan sahaja di Malaysia bahkan di serata dunia. Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang pertama, Tunku Abdul Rahman pernah menjadi sasaran kritikan seperti Zaid Ibrahim. Beliau juga dikatakan meminum arak dan berjudi, namun bilamana isu ini dibangkitkan di parlimen, beliau dengan lantang mencabar: "ahli-ahli parlimen yang tidak pernah melakukan dosa, sila berdiri!" Kata-kata itu cukup untuk meredakan serangan peribadi ke atas dirinya.

Pembunuhan karakter terbesar dalam sejarah politik negara tidak syak lagi merujuk kepada apa yang berlaku pada Anwar Ibrahim pada tahun 1998. Beliau yang ketika itu merupakan Timbalan Perdana Menteri sebelumnya terkenal dengan imej Islamik dan tatasusila yang tinggi. Tidak semena-mena muncul bukan satu atau dua tapi lima puluh 'dalil' mengapa Anwar Ibrahim tidak boleh menggantikan Dr. Mahathir sebagai perdana menteri. 'Dalil-dalil' yang tersenarai melibatkan antaranya skandal seks dengan pelacur-pelacur luar negara, hubungan seks sejenis, hubungan seks dengan isteri orang lain, namanya yang membawa maksud peperangan (An'WAR'), dan banyak lagi.

Serangan peribadi seperti ini tidak menyasar kepada isu-isu utama politik dan kerajaan. Ianya lebih bertujuan untuk melemahkan mangsa secara psikologikal dan melunturkan imejnya pada kacamata masyarakat. Kempen negatif seperti ini pastinya jauh lebih mudah direncanakan berbanding dengan kempen positif yang memerlukan daya fikir dan intektual yang lebih.

Namun, walaupun ianya mudah dilaksanakan, adakah ianya sering membuahkan hasil yang diharapkan?

Pada tahun 1863, Perdana Menteri Britain Lord Palmerston didakwa terlibat dalam skandal seks dengan seorang wanita yang sudah berkahwin. Ramai di kalangan penyokong-penyokong parti pembangkang menganggap skandal ini akan meruntuhkan populariti Lord Palmerston dan menyebabkan beliau kecundang pada pilihanraya umum seterusnya. Tetapi, lain pula yang berlaku.

Populariti Lord Palmerston kian bertambah dan beliau dipilih semula sebagai perdana menteri selepas pilihanraya umum Britain pada tahun 1865. Beliau yang ketika itu sudah pun menjangkau umur 78 tahun dianggap ramai rakyat Britain sebagai masih mampu dan bertenaga untuk melaksanakan tugas sebagai perdana menteri. Jika tidak, mana mungkin beliau pada usia sebegitu masih mampu membuat hubungan dengan wanita lain!? Rasional yang agak pelik namun itulah yang berlaku.

Kesan yang agak sama dapat dilihat dalam kes Anwar Ibrahim berdasarkan pada apa yang berlaku pada Pilihanraya Umum 1999. Serangan peribadi ke atas Anwar yang diharap dapat melemahkan kepercayaan orang-orang Melayu ke atas dirinya jelas membuahkan hasil yang sebaliknya. Buat julung-julung kalinya, sokongan orang-orang Melayu terhadap Umno jatuh dengan teruk. Kalau tidak kerana undi kaum Cina dan India, nescaya kerajaan Barisan Nasional tumbang pada pilihanraya umum tersebut.

Maka, agak menghairankan mengapa Umno dan Barisan Nasional dalam kempen pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor ini masih mahu menggunakan taktik lapuk ini. Tidakkah mereka sedar bahawa masyarakat sekarang sudah semakin bijak dan terdedah dengan pelbagai sumber maklumat selain daripada RTM dan Utusan Malaysia?

Zaid Ibrahim ternyata telah membalas serangan ini dengan bijak. Beliau tidak mengelak dan tidak juga cuba menutup kesalahannya yang lalu. Beliau mengaku terlibat dalam perbuatan yang dimaksudkan namun kini tidak lagi. Kalau benar orang itu sudah bertaubat, apa lagi yang hendak dikatakan? "Taubatnya tidak sah?" Itu bukan kuasa kita sebagai manusia untuk menentukan.

Sebaliknya apa yang berlaku ialah serangan peribadi ini terpantul kembali ke arah mereka yang memulakannya. Di dalam internet, telah mula tersebar gambar-gambar dan kisah-kisah pemimpin-pemimpin Umno yang meminum arak dan terlibat dalam kegiatan perjudian. Malah, Ariff Sabri (ahli Umno dan penulis blog Sakmongkol AK47) jelas mengatakan bahawa ramai pemimpin Umno minum arak dan berjudi. Maka, apa yang asalnya dianggap peluru menyerang lawan kini melantun balik ke arah mereka yang menembaknya.

Walaupun Barisan Nasional mungkin akan menang di Hulu Selangor, kemenangan itu adalah kerana sikap naif sesetengah pengundi dan sokongan orang-orang Melayu yang sentiasa setia bersama Umno. Kesan jangka panjang pula, Umno dan Barisan Nasional mungkin akan hilang selama-lamanya sokongan orang-orang Melayu di bandar, golongan-golongan muda dan yang terpelajar, dan sokongan orang-orang bukan Melayu. Mereka tidak lagi mahu melayan politik kelas rendah seperti ini.

Maka menguatkan lagi keluhan yang pernah diungkap Ketua Pemuda Umno, Khairy Jamaluddin bahawa Umno kini semakin hari semakin menjadi parti yang tertumpu pada satu kumpulan spesifik dalam masyarakat Melayu sahaja yakni kumpulan yang nasionalistik dan taksub pada bangsanya sendiri. Walhal Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) yang kurang sedekad lalu dianggap parti yang konservatif dan berfikiran sempit, telah mula menampakkan kematangan berpolitik. Pengaruhnya di kalangan masyarakat bandar dan orang-orang bukan Melayu semakin berkembang tanpa melemahkan sokongan tradisinya di kalangan orang-orang Melayu yang konservatif dalam hal-ehwal agama.

Kita sudahpun masuk ke dekad kedua dalam abad ke-21. Dan negara kita sudahpun menjangkau usia lebih 50 tahun. Bilakah agaknya kita boleh mencapai kematangan dalam berpolitik? Saya percaya dalam Umno dan Barisan Nasional, ada ramai ahli-ahlinya yang berkebolehan yang mampu bermain strategi politik yang lebih positif dan matang. Silalah tampil dan bawa perubahan.

Masyarakat Bijak & Kebebasan Bersuara

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website under the title 'Tak mudah jadi pemimpin zaman sekarang' on 8th April 2010)

Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak dalam ucapannya pada perhimpunan mingguan Jabatan Perdana Menteri pada hari Isnin yang lalu mengakui bahawa salah satu cabaran besar dihadapi kerajaan sekarang ialah bagaimana untuk menangani masyarakat hari ini yang semakin hari semakin bijak. Dengan kebijakan dan kelayakan yang ada, mereka tidak mahu lagi hanya menurut dan mendengar, tapi mahukan lebih kebebasan bersuara untuk melontarkan pendapat dan kritikan.

Kesediaan perdana menteri menerima kenyataan ini sangat-sangat dialukan. Kerajaan Umno dan Barisan Nasional sudah sekian lama memainkan hujah ketaatan dan kepatuhan kepada pemimpin sebagai alasan untuk terus managih sokongan rakyat. Hujah yang berasal daripada mentaliti feudalistik ini terus dicanang terutamanya di kalangan orang Melayu. Prinsip asasnya ialah, walau apa jua kelemahan pemimpin dan pemerintah, pantang anak Melayu menderhaka!

Pada golongan muda, sering dilaungkan pula hujah ketaatan yang diadun pintaan untuk membalas budi dan berterima kasih. Semua orang Melayu yang menerima bantuan biasiswa dan pinjaman kewangan daripada kerajaan disaran agar tidak sesekali berpaling tadah menyokong selain daripada Umno dan Barisan Nasional. Yang perlu ditunjukkan adalah sikap taat setia dan berterima kasih kepada kerajaan. Mana mungkin digigit tangan yang menyuap makanan.

Hujah-hujah seperti ini sudah tidak lagi berkesan. Sepertimana yang diucapkan perdana menteri, masyarakat kini semakin bijak. Bijaknya mereka sehingga ramai yang tahu membezakan antara ketaatan kepada rakyat dan negara dan ketaatan kepada pemimpin-pemimpin politik dalam kerajaan.

Memang benar kerajaan banyak menabur bantuan biasiswa dan kewangan. Namun, dana yang digunakan untuk bantuan-bantuan ini bukanlah milik parti-parti politik Barisan Nasional. Dana yang digunakan adalah milik awam, milik rakyat Malaysia keseluruhannya. Maka, semua penerima-penerima biasiswa perlu berterima-kasih kepada rakyat Malaysia dengan menggunakan sepenuhnya ilmu dan pengalaman yang ada untuk membangunkan negara.

Antara sumbangan yang boleh dilakukan ialah dengan memperjuangkan pembentukan kerajaan yang lebih telus, adil dan efisyen. Fikrah perjuangan tidak semestinya dengan Umno dan Barisan Nasional. Ada yang memilih berjuang bersama parti-parti pembangkang. Tidak kira fikrah perjuangan mana yang dipilih, matlamatnya tetap sama yakni untuk membangunkan tanahair yang tercinta.

Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak pastinya sedar bahawa tidak munasabah untuk mengharapkan golongan muda yang berpelajaran tinggi dan terdedah dengan pelbagai falsafah ideologi dan teori pemikiran dengan mudah dapat menerima apa sahaja yang diluahkan kerajaan. Setiap dasar akan diteliti, setiap kata-kata akan diamati, dan jika ada kelemahan dan kepincangan yang dikesan, bersedialah mendengar kritikan.

Justeru itu, perlu ada ruang yang luas yang disediakan bagi rakyat berbahas dan berbincang isu-isu yang membelenggu negara dan kerajaan. Rakyat perlu diberi kebebasan melontarkan hujah, cadangan dan kritikan agar pemimpin kerajaan diingatkan bahawasanya tanggungjawab mereka bukan untuk bersenang-lenang di atas kerusi empuk pejabat kerajaan, tetapi untuk mencurahkan segala tenaga dan tumpuan kepada masalah negara dan rakyat.

Kebebasan bersuara yang diharap bukanlah kebebasan mutlak tanpa batasan. Dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama seperti di Malaysia, garis panduan yang kemas perlu digubal untuk memandu perbincangan dan perbahasan pada setiap peringkat. Kita tidak mahu kebebasan hingga ke tahap pemimpin-pemimpin kerajaan dan parti-parti politik dihina dan dijadikan bahan gurauan yang keterlaluan. Tidak molek juga sekiranya kebebasan itu sampai ke tahap gambar-gambar wajah pemimpin-pemimpin dipijak dan dibakar.

Cukuplah sekadar ruang yang luas diberikan agar segenap masyarakat dialu-alu mengutarakan hujah dan pandangan. Janganlah diugut mereka dengan ancaman dakwaan dan tindakan undang-undang walaupun mungkin hujah yang diberikan tajam dan pedas mengkritik dan mendedahkan kepincangan dalam kerajaan.

Lantaran muncul individu-individu seperti Raja Petra Kamarudin yang lantang menuduh perdana menteri dan kerajaan terlibat dalam pelbagai skandal, yang mahu dilihat ramai bukanlah tindakan undang-undang diambil ke atas mereka. Yang mahu dilihat adalah respon terperinci bagi setiap tuduhan yang dilemparkan. Bersumpah di dalam masjid mana mungkin cukup untuk meredakan desas-desus dan syak-wasangka.

Yang perlu diamati adalah cara bagaimana hujah itu disampaikan dan bahasa yang digunakan. Berbahasalah dengan cermat dan tertib. Tidak perlu terjerit-jerit sambil menghunus keris. Tidak perlu juga kata-kata nista yang menghina bangsa dan agama lain. Sekiranya terbukti kritikan yang disampaikan palsu dan berniat jahat, barulah tindakan undang-undang dikenakan.

Perbezaan pendapat adalah lumrah setiap sistem demokrasi. Tugas seorang pemimpin bukanlah untuk melayan hanya hujah yang menyokong dan melenyapkan semua yang tidak. Seorang pemimpin yang baik perlu bersedia mendengar kesemuanya, mempertimbangkannya sedalam mungkin dan bertindak hanya setelah semuanya dikaji.

Bukannya mudah menjadi pemimpin zaman sekarang. Masyarakat yang kian sofistikated pemikirannya tidak mahu pemimpin politik dan wakil rakyat yang hanya tahu menguruskan gotong-royong dan menyampaikan derma dan sumbangan. Mereka mahukan tokoh-tokoh yang arif akan isu-isu politik dan ekonomi dan berani berdepan segala hujah dan kritikan yang dilemparkan.

Sekiranya masih ada pemimpin-pemimpin politik di Malaysia baik di pihak Barisan Nasional mahupun di pihak Pakatan Rakyat yang masih menganggap kedudukan mereka setaraf dengan pemimpin zaman feudal dan golongan bangsawan dahulu kala yang tidak boleh disanggah segala hujah dan tindakan mereka, nescaya tidak lama jangka hayat politik mereka.

Structural Violence and The Exploited Poor

Discussions on violence in the society often focussed on what peace psychologists refer to as episodic violence. This refers to episodes of violence which involves physical confrontations between two or more aggressors that result in physical destruction, injuries and human casualties.

What is seldom talked about is another type of violence: structural violence. This refers to socio-economic policies and infrastructures that perpetuate a constant and widening gap between the rich and the poor. Essentially, what happens here is economic structures and public policies are built and maintained as such that the rich becomes richer and richer while the poor remain helplessly trapped in a state of destitution.

Compared to most other countries who gained independence after World War II, Malaysia has been fortunate to witness only a few occurrences of episodic violence. In fact, the May 13, 1969 incident remains the one and only major episode of communal violence to occur in the country since its independence in 1957.

What precipitated the episodic violence in 1969 was structural violence that continued to divide the major racial groups along economic lines. The Chinese were typically the rich merchants and businessmen, the Malays were farmers, fishermen, school teachers and clerks, while the Indians were mostly plantation and common labourers.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced in the aftermath of the 1969 incident was a profound attempt to reduce this structural violence. The NEP has without a doubt helped millions of Malays to pursue tertiary education, assisted thousands to set-up their own businesses, and uplifted the socio-economic status of at least two generations of Malays since its implementation.

However, although the policy was originally conceived for implementation for only 20 years, there are sections in the Malay society who believe the policy should remain for many more decades, if not forever. Loudest among them in recent days are the new 'warriors' who are part of PERKASA, an ultra Malay-nationalist group led by the one and only Dato’ Ibrahim Ali.

If someone who is poor and was clearly a victim of oppression shouts from the top of his lungs about justice for the poor Malays, I would take him seriously and pay attention to what he has to say. But when the same call is made by someone who quite obviously has continued to live a comfortable life having successfully and cunningly exploited the system, I can only shake my head in utter disbelief and dismay.

There are indeed many Malays who have remained poor despite almost 40 years of NEP. A few others however have become extremely rich but rather than giving something back to the society have continued to accumulate enormous wealth for themselves and their families by continuously exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in the policy.

Prominent blogger Haris Ibrahim in a recent posting described an interesting example of how some people had worked through the system to gain tremendous financial profit at the expense of others. His posting described how a few people who were privy of the government's plans in the early 1990's to build Putrajaya and KLIA, were scheming a plan to purchase the land around the area while the land was still cheap and then sell it for a much higher price to the government when plans for the new township and international airport are announced later.

Easy money indeed. Legally acceptable, perhaps, but most definitely morally wrong. The original land owners ought to have earned maximum profit from the land sale. And who were these naïve and unsuspected land owners? They were mostly poor Malays.

Certainly this is only one of many such examples. I, myself have had the experience of people approaching me to take part in a similar scheme. An almost complete stranger once approached me about a certain section of Langkawi Island which at the time was not yet developed. I was told then that the land can be bought cheap from the locals and in less than a year can be sold back at tremendous profit to the government when developments are approved.

Such devious schemes are made possible by the structural violence we have in this country. I sincerely wish therefore that PERKASA in its noble efforts to fight and defend Malay rights and privileges, will not set its sights only on the non-Malays. Please set your targets on the numerous unscrupulous Malays who are greatly responsible for the structural violence against the exploited poor.

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...