Goals, Humility & Respect

Reposting here what was originally a two-part note on my facebook timeline on 9 and 10 September 2013.

After reading my facebook update last Friday, a few of my fb friends asked, ‘what was it about the khutbah (sermon) that brought me to tears?’ Did the khatib mention something that reminded me of my late wife Aishah?’ No, that was not the case, but let me explain.  

First-of-all, I have to admit, I didn’t really know who the khatib, Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan, was before last week. I did view one of his talks on youtube some time ago. That talk was ok but it didn’t impress me that much for me to search for more. Last Friday however, at the IIUM masjid, he gave a khutbah I honestly believe to be one of the best I’ve ever heard.

The khutbah was essentially a call to reflect, ‘why am I a Muslim?’ A rather common topic really but the questions he posed and the analogies he gave really struck a chord with me for they are exactly the issues I have been grappling with lately.

Ustadh Nouman began by asking ‘what is your ideal?’ For some, it’s about having a nice house and a nice car. For others, it’s about respect and recognition, while for some others, it could well be all about fame, money and glory.

My ideal or goal in life has always been to help and to serve. Ideally, I would want to do something where I am able to personally and directly help others. During my brief stint at UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), I started as programme assistant. I worked mainly in the office perusing documents and drafting project proposals; something that bored the life out of me.

Later, as a TP (temporary protection) screener, I was asked to interview people applying for refugee status. I had to talk to them and listen to their personal stories. I was a TP screener for only two months, but those two months remain among the best and most satisfying times in my entire working life.  

Someone asked me recently, what would I want my son to be when he grows up? “A nurse”, that was the answer that came instantly to my mind. This was around the time when my late neighbour was first hospitalised. At first, he was at the main ward but when his condition worsened, he was transferred to intensive care.
 
All the nurses I saw at the hospital were women. I know that is not something to be surprised about. What surprised me though is a sudden realisation that there is a serious need for every hospital to have male nurses; for several reasons.

For instance, I observed at both the ward and ICU, there were more male patients than there were females. Some of these patients were really ill. They needed help for almost everything. Some of them however, physically were quite big and tall, whereas the female nurses were physically smaller and of shorter height.

Don’t get me wrong, those nurses I saw, despite their physical disadvantage, were indeed very skilful and professional but I just wondered whether being cared for by a male nurse would perhaps make those male patients feel more comfortable?

Being a nurse is not easy. The job requires one to be patient, compassionate and firmly grounded; qualities commonly stereotyped with women. A man however, have those qualities too, hence, should not have a problem performing the role of a nurse.

I certainly will not be pressuring my son to become a nurse. That itself is not my goal. My goal is to raise him in such a way that he shall never consider the idea of becoming a nurse something repugnant. Indeed I would love it for him to consider it desirable for the unique opportunities it will give him to personally serve and help others.

And this was essentially the point Ustadh Nouman tried to put across. The ideal or goal for every Muslim is not cars, fame and money. The goal is to serve Allah and to serve others in this world. There is nothing wrong about wanting to be rich and famous. But to be rich by itself is not the goal. It is a means to attain a higher goal.

Ustadh Nouman said many great things last Friday, but there was one I find particularly mind-boggling. He said, “the ultimate reminder to those who would serve Allah's din (is), don't think highly of yourself; (and) don't think you are better than the people you are trying to serve."

I grew-up during the time when self-improvement books were extremely popular. Early in my youth, I read numerous books by various motivation ‘gurus’ like Anthony Robbins, Stephen Covey, Zig Ziglair and Dale Carnegie. Indeed there is a lot to be gained from their books and it would be stupid of me to deny the positive effects they’ve had in the lives of many.

I have this feeling however, that reading too much into them may lead to a few unintended negative consequences. These consequences include an exaggerated sense of self-worth, delusions of grandeur, arrogance, and a lack of respect for the abilities of others.

While conventional approaches to motivation are driven by self-centred concepts like self-worth and self-esteem, motivation in Islam, as indicated by Ustadh Nouman; embraces a rather different philosophy. It starts from a clear understanding on the purpose of our creation and the responsibility it entails; and the need to carry out those responsibilities with sincerity and humility.

Sincerity and humility however, are values that are difficult to define and impossible to measure. We may claim that we are sincere and humble but how do we know really that we have those attributes?

I am blessed by Allah with great memory; episodic memory especially. I observe more, and talk and mingle less. Throughout my life, I have seen how people change. I have seen how a two-letter-prefix can change a person’s attitude and personality. I have seen too how a piece of metal on a ribbon can heighten a person’s sense of importance and sense of entitlement.

It’s hard however, to be too critical of all this because they are part of the reality of today’s society; a society where you need to promote and push yourself to the limelight in order to succeed. The challenge then is to know how to remain, on one hand, sincere and humble, and on the other, ambitious and determined.

Continuous self-reflection is what we all need. We need to do something too that helps keep our feet firmly on the ground, and ensure our children are nurtured to do so as well. However, as much as I try now as a parent to mould my children’s character and instil certain values into them, there will be a point in their lives where my influence on them will weaken and disappear. From thereon, they will have to make their own choices. The only thing I can do is to ensure they have the necessary spiritual and analytical tools to make the right choices.

Hence, Ustadh Nouman’s advice to not think highly of ourselves is most apt. It correlates with another of his advice that as Muslims, we should not be easily satisfied. That Malaysia is a country currently blessed with economic success and a peaceful society is not an excuse for us to rest on our laurels. We should always think about what we can do more.

We have responsibilities both to ourselves and to the society. As Ustadh Nouman explains, if you are aware of injustices, corruption and other wrongdoings in the society, it is your duty as a Muslim to speak-up and do something about it. It is not enough to say ‘somebody will do it’. Instead, ask yourself, ‘why is that somebody not you?’

Ustadh Nouman closes his khutbah with a beautiful reminder on the importance of respect; another issue I've been struggling with. I’ve been trying to teach my children never to use words like Keling, Bangla, Indon, Awang Hitam and other derogatory terms when referring to others; a monumental task really in the face of overwhelming usage and indifference in the society. But I will keep on trying.

Ustadh Nouman explains that a Muslim should show respect and never assume he is better than a non-Muslim. If indeed you think you are better than your non-Muslim friend, think about what would happen if tomorrow that friend embraces Islam. He will have his slate wiped clean and would instantly be, in the eyes of Allah, a better person than you.

I believe the key towards genuine respect is a genuine sense of humility. Humility is the shield that protects us from spiritual diseases of ujub (vanity) and kibr (sense of superiority). A person who is conscious of his humble existence would be mindful about not wanting to hurt the feelings of others. And he will show respect to all regardless of gender, status, race, creed and nationality.

Allahu’alam.

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...

Muslim first...

In the two weeks that my three children and I recently stayed in Lanzhou (hometown of my late Chinese wife), my four-year-old daughter took bath only twice - on the day we arrived, and on the morning before we left. That, for most people in China, is quite normal. Not so for people here in Malaysia. We take a bath at least twice a day. Hence, to not do so for more than a week is quite unthinkable.

I've been to 12 foreign countries so far in my life. Not that many really, but in most of these visits, I stayed together with the locals; stayed in their homes, ate their food and followed their routines. Two weeks in Islamabad, I wore salwar kameez and ate chapati almost everyday. 15 months in Finland, I ate boiled potatoes every day and ate rice only once or twice a week. Wherever I was, as much as possible, I've tried to follow the culture of my host.

I can't say however that I was successful all the time. When I visited Lanzhou the first time, a week after Aishah and I were married, my late father-in-law (may Allah bless his soul) asked me what I would like to eat. I told him I will eat whatever he eats. Having noodles and green tea everyday was not a problem, but try as I did, there were a few things my stomach just could not take.

For example, what my father-in-law often had for breakfast was a bowl of tea, a special kind of tea which when added with milk, it turns pink. He would then add some salt and put small pieces of bread into it. The pink tea therefore is like a soup and he would drink the whole bowl clean. I tried doing the same a few times but was never able to finish the whole bowl.

Beyond food, certain things can be quite challenging, I certainly needed some getting-used-to using toilet paper in many countries, and till today I only use public toilets in China if I really, really have to.

But when it comes to observing my duties as a Muslim, performing my daily prayers and all, I've learned and managed to adjust. For example, it's not easy to find a surau or a musolla in many Western countries. But as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, the whole earth is a masjid. A prayer or solat can be performed anywhere where the ground is clean. And I have done so, in secluded corners of airports and train stations, in lecture halls, libraries and supermarkets, and once, in a guest room in a church.  

When it comes to adjusting to variances in the practices among Muslims from different mazahib, I've managed that rather well too. For, if I had insisted being a Shafi'i while praying in a Hanafi congregation like in a Turkish masjid in Berlin or in masajid all over China, I would be causing others some unnecessary discomfort. Just imagine for example, if I insisted following the Shafi'i way reciting 'ameen' loudly; when others don't, right after the imam recited Surat Al-Fatihah ? I will only be disturbing others in their prayers.

Not everyone agrees though with such adjustments. To some, you should remain loyal to your cultural practices no matter where you are, and whether you do so or not depends on how you deal with your own social identity complexities.

Each one of us has multiple social identities. There are based on among others our religious, ethnic and national affiliations. In that order, I am for example a Muslim, a Malay, and a Malaysian. Each of these identities is important in different circumstances. But overall, when it comes to general principles in life, the guide is provided by a specific social identity that a person considers dearest and most important.

And to that, my thoughts are clear. I am, have been and will always be a Muslim first. Because of that, I've had no problem eating anything as long as it is halal. Because of that too, I have never compelled my wife (Allahyarham) and daughters to wear a telekung when they perform solat. I have never too, ingrained in the minds of my children that Malay food or Malay culture is superior to others.

I love Malay food, of course. I still believe gulai tempoyak ikan patin is the best dish in the world but as I once told an aunt in Lanzhou who asked me "which food is better, Chinese food or Malay food?"; I said, "in China, Chinese food is better, in Malaysia, Malay food is better." :)

A decade ago, when I received the scholarship offer to study in Joensuu, Finland, the first thing I inquired was whether there was a Muslim community in the town. It never crossed my mind to ask whether there were any Malaysians there. As it turned out, there weren't any Malaysians living there but I wasn't perturbed. The Muslim community of Joensuu, which comprised of about only 200 people, became my friends, and the 20 or so brothers who were regular attendees to the small local masjid became my family members.

Obviously, the common understanding amongst many Malay Muslims in Malaysia is that since a Malay is defined by the country's constitution as a Muslim, whether a person defines himself either a Malay or a Muslim first does not really matter. That, I respectfully disagree.

How we define ourselves has its implications not only on the way we conduct our personal lives, but also on our views and attitudes on cross-cultural relations and politics. And that is a thesis that I wish to discuss and explore more in my book insha Allah. :)   

"true, fair and transparent"?

When my elder daughter was in Standard One, she scored full marks for both Bahasa Malaysia and English in the end-of-the-year exam. She was certainly very happy and proud of her achievements. When she brought home the exam papers, I went thru them and noticed that in both, she had actually made a few mistakes. I pointed them out to my daughter and told her to show them to her teachers the next day. She initially thought I wasn't serious but when I insisted, she became very sad and began to cry. Understandably so since I was indeed asking her to voluntarily get her exam marks cut. Not an easy thing to do but she did eventually and that probably caused her a top-three ranking in her class.

And just a few months back during the school's sports day, my son was in an event in which you need to pass water balloons to your teammates by throwing it to the person behind you. In the middle of the event, I noticed my son had unintentionally moved a few steps back from his initial standing spot, closing the distance between him and his teammate, thus, gaining a certain advantage over other competing teams. I told my son to move forward a few steps to erase that advantage. That disrupted his team's momentum, and they finished last in the race. 

As a father, I am far from perfect, but I have always tried to instill certain values to my children, values that I believe are essential for their development as Muslims and as members of the human race. I want them to compete. I want them to win and achieve things, but I want them to win them the right way. Not through cheating and not even by having any undue advantage.

This isn't something new. This is the same principle observed by Malay warriors in the past. In any duel, if you are holding a keris and your opponent does not, you get him a keris, only then you may fight. Killing an opponent who is unarmed is a cowardice act and you'll be labelled a coward for the rest of your life.

Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. That's life. As a Liverpool fan, I'm quite used to losing. It's bad enough the club has not won the league since 1990, it's worse when you see your greatest rival continue to win it year in year out. But I can accept that because the Devil we know has been winning them fair and square with eleven players starting every single match, with one referee, two linesmen, one ball, and a level playing field; the same facts I keep reminding my son every time either of his favourite teams; Harimau Malaya, Selangor or Arsenal, loses a game.   

Early this morning, soon after the Elections Commission officially declared Barisan Nasional the winner of Malaysia's 13th General Election, the BN leader and incumbent Prime Minister wrote this on twitter: "This election was true, fair and transparent. I hope the opposition accepts the result with an open heart."

First-of-all, congratulations Sir for your victory. But please help me understand what do you mean by "true, fair and transparent"? Because, I'm beginning to think, all this while, I've been teaching my kids the wrong things.

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...

Farewell Tribute to a 'Friend'

I went to Subang Jaya last week and went to Subang Parade, a place I frequented a lot during my teenage years. Back in those days, this was the biggest and coolest shopping mall in the Klang Valley. That remained for about a decade or so before other more gigantic malls like Sunway Pyramid and Megamall were opened. My last visit to Subang Parade was a couple of years back and at the time, the place looked run down. But now, after some extensive interior renovation work, the place is glowing and packed again with visitors.

I certainly have some fondness for Subang Parade but the place that I am more attached to is the building next to it. It is splashed in orange these days (the corporate colour of its new owners) but as recently as two months ago, it was all-white except for the iconic double arrow symbol of red, white and blue. This was Carrefour Subang Jaya, the first Carrefour store and hypermarket in Malaysia.

I have always enjoyed shopping for groceries. As a young boy, I often accompanied my mother to the local pasar malam and pasar tani. Then, when the first Giant Supermarket opened in Kelana Jaya, we went for our groceries quite often there too.

But shopping at Carrefour Subang Jaya was something else. The store in Subang Jaya was just a single-storey building when it opened in 1994 but it was bright and looked so spacious. The items on display were of such great variety, and the way they organised and arranged them was just splendid and that really matters for an OCD borderline case like me.

All these years, even after other and bigger hypermarkets has sprung all over, Carrefour remained the place I would go to if time permits. My late wife was fond of Carrefour too. So fond of it she was, it was the first place she wanted to go to immediately after her confinement when our twins were born nine years ago. When we moved to Taman Melati, the Carrefour store in Wangsa Maju became our favourite shopping place even though the Giant Hypermarket in Batu Caves is perhaps nearer to where we live.

Our fondness for Carrefour is not entirely sentimental. It is also due to a few of its practical qualities, which for me, other hypermarkets; try as they might, they simply do not have.

The first is the systematic and practical arrangement of items. In some Giant stores, the bread section is located next to the poultry and fish section, which I personally find rather disconcerting because when I'm buying bread, especially fresh bread, I want to smell the aroma of freshly baked bread. At Carrefour, the bread section is normally at one end. Next to it are the cakes and cookies section, then the cooked/packed food, and then the fruits and vegetables, and finally the poultry and fish section at the other end.

And speaking of bread, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Carrefour had the best bread in town. Just take the potato bread as an example. Other hypermarkets make them too but potato bread from Carrefour was just a class above. Others tend to overcook it or make it too soft and too fluffy. Carrefour however had it all just nice. It had the perfect tender.

Another aspect I believe Carrefour triumphed over all its rivals is its spacious aisles. Others tend to crowd the aisles with promotional and discounted items. As a result, customers face great difficulty to move their shopping carts especially during busy shopping hours. Carrefour stores however, had most of the time kept the main aisles empty. Hence, it's easier and more convenient for customers to move around with their baskets and carts.

I do concede though when it comes to pricing, Carrefour is not the best especially when compared to Tesco. You can certainly buy many things cheaper at Tesco, perhaps even at Giant. But both my late wife and I agreed that although many things are cheaper in Tesco, we still prefer to shop at Carrefour because every time we shop at Tesco, we end up buying more and at times unnecessary things. The cheap pricing is very seductive but potentially detrimental especially when you end up buying things too large in quantity and things that you don't actually need.  

So, as far as my shopping experience is concern, the time I've spent at Carrefour will forever have a special place in my heart. It pains me to witness the current 'orange invasion' in all its previous premises. But I do understand that sometimes in life, we have to make tough and painful decisions. Farewell my 'friend' and thank you for the services you had rendered us throughout the years. Au revoir!  

Satu hari di taman permainan...

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 19 January 2013 di bawah tajuk 'Budak diherdik dengan panggilan 'keling bodoh')

Beberapa minggu yang lalu, saya telah membawa anak-anak ke taman permainan berhampiran tempat tinggal kami. Taman permainan itu agak luas. Di satu sudut, terdapat alatan permainan kanak-kanak – gelungsur, buaian, jongkang-jongket dan sebagainya – manakala di satu sudut lain terdapat tanah lapang yang walaupun tidak begitu luas, cukup untuk kanak-kanak lelaki bermain bolasepak.

Saya memang minat bolasepak dan suka melihat telatah kanak-kanak cuba mempamerkan skil masing-masing. Tatkala asyik memerhatikan mereka, saya baru sedar dalam kumpulan budak-budak lelaki sekitar 20 orang itu, terdapat seorang budak lelaki berbangsa India. Yang lain semuanya budak-budak Melayu.

Situasi sebegitu bukanlah ganjil sebenarnya. Memang kawasan perumahan itu majoriti penduduknya orang-orang Melayu. Yang ganjil dan amat memeranjatkan saya adalah sikap budak-budak Melayu terhadap budak India tunggal itu. Hampir kesemua mereka memanggilnya “budak keling”. Bila dia tersilap tendang, diherdik pula dengan panggilan “keling bodoh”. Budak India itu walau bagaimanapun, tetap bersemangat mahu terus bermain. Malangnya dia dipinggirkan. Tidak ada yang mahu menghantar bola kepadanya. Dia cuba juga mengejar sedaya-upaya namun terus dibuli budak-budak yang lain. Tidak cukup dengan itu, tidak putus-putus dia diherdik dengan kata-kata kesat dan menghina.

Budak-budak lelaki yang saya perhatikan hari itu semuanya masih kecil. Pada amatan saya, semuanya berumur bawah 15 tahun. Kerana itulah saya terperanjat dengan sikap mereka terutamanya kata-kata kesat yang keluar daripada mulut mereka. Persoalannya, bagaimana mereka mampu bersikap sedemikian?

Dalam bidang sosiologi, setiap kelakuan manusia dikaji berdasarkan rangkaian interaksi antara agensi-agensi masyarakat daripada yang paling kecil hingga yang paling besar. Individu itu sendiri adalah agensi yang paling kecil, diikuti dengan ibubapanya, adik-beradik, sanak-saudara, jiran-jiran, guru-guru, tokoh-tokoh dan idola masyarakat, dan akhirnya sesebuah masyarakat itu sendiri secara am.

Sukar untuk kita tentukan adakah budak-budak Melayu yang saya ceritakan di atas, sikap dan kelakuan menghina yang mereka tunjukkan itu adalah hasil pengaruh ibubapa atau ahli-ahli keluarga terdekat. Itu hanya boleh ditentukan melalui kajian mikro psikologi personaliti dan psikologi sosial. Namun kita boleh melihat kepada beberapa contoh kelakuan dan sikap di kalangan tokoh-tokoh masyarakat yang jikapun tidak banyak, pasti ada memberi pengaruh dan kesan.

Pada tahun 2007, ketika menghadiri sebuah program bersama pelajar-pelajar Malaysia di California, Amerika Syarikat, seorang menteri kabinet berbangsa Melayu telah dilaporkan mengeluarkan beberapa ungkapan yang dianggap menghina seorang pelajar berbangsa India. Dalam ucapannya, beliau menerangkan bagaimana pihak penjajah British membawa buruh India ke Tanah Melayu. Seraya berkata demikian, beliau memandang tepat ke arah seorang pelajar India di dalam dewan tersebut lalu berkata “that’s how we got Indians in Malaysia” (“kerana itulah di Malaysia ada orang-orang India”).

Kemudian, pada tahun 2010, timbul pula laporan bagaimana seorang pengetua sekolah menengah kebangsaan di Johor, ketika berucap dalam perhimpunan khas sempena perayaan Hari Kemerdekaan, dengan lantang berkata pelajar-pelajar Cina tidak diperlukan di sekolah itu. Dicanang beliau agar pelajar-pelajar Cina berpindah ke sekolah Cina atau pulang sahaja ke negara Cina. Kepada pelajar-pelajar India beragama Hindu pula beliau berkata, tali sembahyang yang dipakai di lengan dan di leher mereka umpama tali yang dipakai seekor anjing!

Dua contoh di atas adalah contoh kelakuan dan manifesti sikap yang ditonjolkan secara terbuka di khalayak ramai. Bayangkan apakah kata-kata yang mereka hemburkan dalam percakapan harian bersama ahli-ahli keluarga dan rakan-rakan? Pengetua sekolah menengah itu misalnya, kalau begitulah sikap beliau ketika berucap dalam perhimpunan, bayangkan sikap beliau ketika berbual bersama guru-guru (yang majoritinya berbangsa Melayu) atau ketika memarahi pelajar-pelajar berbangsa Cina dan India di pejabatnya? Bayangkan juga bagaimana sikap beliau ini boleh mempengaruhi guru-guru lain yang masih muda dan pelajar-pelajar Melayu di sekolah berkenaan?

Merujuk kembali kepada kerangka sosiologi yang diterangkan tadi, tidak adil sebenarnya untuk kita menyalahkan individu-individu seperti pengetua sekolah ini semata-mata. Sikap dan kelakuan mereka juga dipengaruhi suasana atau individu-individu yang lebih besar kedudukannya dalam masyarakat. Dalam konteks negara kita, mereka yang paling berpengaruh dan yang paling besar hebahan kata-kata mereka adalah pemimpin-pemimpin politik kerajaan.

Polemik bangsa dan agama memang sudah sebati dengan politik di Malaysia. Agak menyedihkan namun tidak dapat dielakkan. Setiap parti dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang mewakili bangsa-bangsa tertentu semuanya mahu tampil garang mempertahankan hak masing-masing. UMNO dan PERKASA misalnya, tidak putus-putus berteriak memberi amaran agar jangan ada yang berani mempertikaikan hak-hak orang Melayu. Diiringi pula dengan liputan meluas media arus perdana dan akhbar-akhbar tempatan.

Selalunya pihak yang diberi amaran itu memang tidak disebut dengan jelas. Namun, siapa lagi ianya ditujukan jika tidak kepada orang-orang bukan Melayu di negara kita. Teringat saya bagaimana beberapa kenalan berbangsa Cina mengeluh apabila anak-anak mereka yang bersekolah di sekolah kebangsaan takut untuk ke sekolah setelah terdengar ucapan-ucapan yang disampaikan dalam Perhimpunan Agung UMNO yang disiarkan secara langsung di televisyen.

Mungkin pemimpin-pemimpin politik ini tidak sedar kesan perbuatan dan kata-kata mereka. Mereka menakut-nakutkan orang-orang bukan Melayu, dan kesannya lahirlah perasaan marah yang menyebabkan mereka tidak mahu lagi mengundi mana-mana parti dan individu yang bersama dengan UMNO dan Barisan Nasional.

Dari sudut yang lain pula, kesan kata-kata keras ini menyebabkan ramai orang-orang Melayu daripada segenap lapisan masyarakat menjadi sombong dan hilang rasa hormat terhadap bangsa-bangsa yang lain. Apa sahaja yang dilakukan pemimpin-pemimpin akan dijadikan teladan. Maka, ramai tidak lagi berasa segan menghina dan melemparkan kata-kata keras terhadap bangsa-bangsa lain kerana rasionalnya, “kalau pemimpin politik boleh, mengapa kita tidak boleh?”

Budak-budak lelaki Melayu yang saya perhatikan di taman permainan beberapa minggu yang lalu itu adalah salah satu hasil daripada rantaian interaksi pemimpin dan masyarakat ini. Adakah ini sikap bangsa Melayu yang ingin dipupuk pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO, PERKASA dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan Melayu yang lain?

Bukanlah tujuan artikel ini untuk menghentam orang-orang Melayu semata-mata. Sifat prejudis ada pada semua bangsa. Sebagai seorang yang berkemahiran sedikit berbahasa Cina, saya tahu bagaimana sebahagian orang-orang Cina menghina dan mempersendakan orang-orang Melayu. Namun, dalam konteks negara kita, orang-orang Melayu sebagai kumpulan majoriti lebih bertanggungjawab menunjukkan teladan yang baik. Tambahan pula, kita orang-orang Melayu beragama Islam dan ajaran Islam itu mengajar kita saling hormat-menghormati, bukan menabur dan menyemai perasaan benci.

What I hate about politics...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"None of you believes till..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tanzil - Quran Navigator

Tanzil - Quran Navigator

To Toe or Not To Toe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond "What If?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vegetable Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...vegetable

The Logical Song
Songwriters: Davies, R; Hodgson, R;

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees
Well they'd be singing so happily
Joyfully, playfully watching me

But then they send me away
To teach me how to be sensible
Logical, responsible, practical
And then they showed me a world
Where I could be so dependable
Clinical, intellectual, cynical

There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep for such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am

I say, "Now what would you say for they calling you a radical
Liberal, fanatical, criminal?"
Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable

At night when all the world's asleep
The questions run so deep for such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am
Who I am, who I am, who I am...

[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/supertramp-lyrics/the-logical-song-lyrics.html ]

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.