SEEING IT MY WAY (Malaysiakini.com) 

M. Bakri Musa 

What strikes me on this latest Raja Petra saga is that the public officials involved were all Malays.  Their behaviors besmirch the good name of my race and culture.  Contrary to their conviction and assertion, they are not the defenders of Malay honor; they are the desecrators of Malay honor.

            Charging Raja Petra Kamarudin as well as author Syed Akbar Ali under the Sedition Act for what they had posted on the Internet is less a crude attempt at intimidating bloggers but more a sinister shadow play (wayang kulit) with many hidden hands each trying to make its puppets move in a particular way in order to convey its threatening message.  It is also a blatant abuse of the criminal justice system.

            While the government may wish it to be otherwise, this crass manipulation of prosecutorial power would not make citizens refrain from using this new medium, nor will it infringe on its freedom.  The Internet is now well beyond the control of any authority, least of all a corrupt and incompetent Third World government.

            More significantly, this latest spectacle reflects two unsavory and destructive traits that are fast becoming the norm among our leaders and public servants.

            One is their small mindedness and the other, their contemptible habit of misusing government assets for personal gains.  The first attribute is closely associated with incompetence; the second, corruption.  This pairing is lethal; it will destroy our society very quickly.

            There is one other observation which while abundantly clear, is rarely stated openly.  As the leadership and public service in Malaysia are increasingly under Malay control, these two odious traits (corruption and incompetence) are now viewed as an integral part of the Malay persona and culture.  This is what makes me angry, as it should every Malaysian, Malays especially.

Small Minds At Work

First were the UMNO Youth members who lodged the police report.  You can bet that they are all either on the public payroll or dependent upon government dole and contracts.  If only they had a better comprehension of the English language, they would agree with millions of Raja Petra readers that there was nothing seditious in the said article.

            Similarly, the police officers who raided Raja Petra’s home and grabbed his laptop never bothered to question those UMNO Youth leaders what was so seditious about the article.  If the police had posed this most elementary preliminary inquiry, they would more than likely discover that those UMNO blokes had not read the piece, or if they did, they did not understand a word of it.

            These police officers were not low-level sergeant types but ASPs and DSPs.  They, like UMNO Youth members and many of the present generation of “educated” Malays, are English illiterate, thanks to our abominable UMNO-inspired education system.

            As for the prosecutors and other lawyers in the Attorney General’s office who signed on to proceed with the case, as well as the presiding judge, well, that is what happens when you “massage” the scores of the Bar examinations.

            If only the police had told those UMNO Youth members to grow up, or if the prosecutors and others in the Attorney-General’s office had exercised their independent judgment that Raja Petra was no threat to public security, the nation would have been spared this spectacle.  More importantly, those police officers could then focus on solving the numerous unsolved murders, while our prosecutors could go after corrupt officials.  There is no shortage of both.

            As for the judge, if only she had exercised a modicum of diligence and read the allegedly seditious article, she would have thrown the case out.  If she had any sense of judgment, she would have dispensed with the bail and released Raja Petra on his own recognizance.  Did she really believe that he would flee?

            That judge obviously did not have the courage of her colleague, High Court Judge Hishamuddin Yunus.  In May 2001, this brave judge ordered the release of two ISA detainees on a writ of habeas corpus application when it was shown that the police officers were cavalier in carrying out their duties.  The judge went on and fearlessly declared that Parliament should review and either scrap or amend the ISA so as to reduce its potential for abuse.

            I did not expect the judge in Raja Petra’s case to lift her judicial robe and look beyond her bench, as one Judge Syed Aidid Abdullah did.  Enough that she would do it like Judge Hishamudin, in the course of her deliberation and written judgment.

            Syed Aidid was the judge who in 1996 wrote a letter to the Attorney-General alleging specific instances of corruption, abuse of power, and judicial misconduct among his colleagues on the bench.  The Attorney-General of the time dismissed it as surat layang (poison pen letter), which reflected more on his competence and integrity.  Syed Aidid was forced to resign; perhaps that was the lesson.

            No wonder none of the senior public officials involved in Raja Petra’s case paused to reflect on their actions, or do anything other than what they have been instructed to do.  They all dutifully carried out what was asked of them, robot-like, without thinking.

            In a commentary after his release, Raja Petra wrote of his decision to let his wife post bail.  He was initially determined to stay in jail until his trial to expose the rot in the system.  What made him change his mind were the words of his jailors.

            Of all the public servants, those jailors were the only ones who went beyond their prescribed duties and used their brains.  They convinced Raja Petra that he would be more useful to our nation by being outside of prison than inside.

            They were also concerned about his safety as well as that of the other prisoners.  In their wisdom, the officials had detained Raja Petra in the same prison where the accused murderers of Altantuya were held.  Again, wisdom and common sense elude our public officials!

            It is ironic that of all our public officials, only the jailors were capable of independent judgment.  One would have thought that this would be second nature for those in “higher” positions.

Abuse of Public Property

 Malaysia-Today had posted many more damaging and yes, even seditious and libelous commentaries involving personalities more powerful than Najib Razak, yet the authorities had not responded in like manner.

            There was the earlier “visit” by the police after Raja Petra made highly uncomplimentary comments on the Yang Di Pertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan.  It was just a “visit” with the usual routine seizure of Raja Petra’s computer.  Well, at least one of the police officer’s home now has a computer!

            Malaysia-Today did not spare Prime Minister Abdullah either, with its series on UN’s “Iraq Oil For Food” corruption scandal.  Then there was the highly damaging series on the “world’s richest unemployed” (to borrow Lim Kit Siang’s inimitable phrase), the Khairy Chronicles, and the equally damning expose on the “double Muhammad,” the former Mentri Besar of Selangor who was caught at an Australian airport with millions in cash in his back pocket.  In none of these instances did the police react.

            If Najib felt that he was being libeled, he should have hired his own lawyers and bear his own legal fees.  Instead, the criminal justice system was being abused for this dirty job, for free at least to Najib.

           Sadly, treating expensive government resources as their personal assets is fast becoming a pattern among our leaders, from using the fleet of luxurious corporate jets for their political campaigns, to “privatizing” choice government-linked companies to “sell” to their cronies and families.

            There are many hidden hands and concealed causes in this latest convoluted shadow play.  They would all be instantly exposed if only someone would flip the light switch on.  Thus the fury provoked by Raja Petra’s initial lighting of a small candle.  Rest assured that this man has his hands right on the main light switch.  Keep reading!

            Individuals like Raja Petra, as well as Judge Hishamuddin Yunus, Syed Aidid and Raja Petra’s jailors, rekindle my faith.  We have eagles in our midst, but it is difficult for them to soar surrounded as they are by turkeys.  To put it in a local metaphor, it is hard for a kucing belang to show its stripes when surrounded by kucing kurap (scruffy cats).

            We have to get rid of these kucing kurap so our kucing belang could do their work in getting rid of the rats infesting our society.  We cannot remain silent as that would only encourage these kucing kurap.

            I join others in denouncing this brute behavior of the Abdullah administration.  Raja Petra suffered with dignity while detained under the ISA.  This latest clumsy act will not in the least dint this patriot’s resolve to bringing greater freedom to Malaysia.

            To Raja Petra Kamarudin, Judge Hishamuddin Yunus, Syed Aidid, and all the kucing belang in our midst, I salute you!  Hunt down ‘dem rats!

Share This

Small Minds At Work

I preempt my usual Wednesday excerpting of my book, Towards A Competitive Malaysia, this week for this special, indeed extraordinary, posting.  Many have heard of the abominable news that Malaysia-Today.net editor Raja Petra Kamarudin was charged under the equally despicable Sedition Act.  Equally incomprehensible was that the judge imposed a bail of RM 5000 instead of letting him out on his own recognizance while awaiting trial.  Did the court think that Raja Petra would abscond? 

            More reason-defying was the decision to proceed with the charge in the first place.  Did anyone in the police department, the public prosecutor’s office, and the Attorney-General’s office actually read the allegedly seditious piece by Raja Petra?  Even allowing for the abysmal English competency of our public officials, they would not have found anything seditious or even offensive in the said article.

            The only thing offensive was the behavior of our leaders as alluded to by Raja Petra in that article, and just in case we missed that point, they went ahead to demonstrate this fact by subsequently charging him!

            Although friends and supporters of Raja Petra (and also himself) would have no difficulty in posting the bail, nonetheless he opted for a public donations campaign of a very minimal if not symbolic amount of not more than RM1.00 per person.  In less than 24-hours, his family has posted a message on Malaysia-Today that they have secured enough to post bond and that the excess would be donated to charity.  (See posting below.)

            Additionally, I am posting below a piece by Din Merican (with permission) on the same matter.

            I join thousands of Malaysians in denouncing this brute chimp-like behavior of the Abdullah administration in trying to intimidate this great Malaysian.  For a man who had suffered with dignity for years under the ISA, this latest clumsy act by Abdullah will not in the least dint Raja Petra’s resolve or commitment to bringing greater freedom to Malaysians.

            Raja Petra, I salute you.  Give ‘dem bastards hell!  M. Bakri Musa

Message from MT’s Team: 5.30pm 6th May 2008

We would like to CALL OFF the donation campaign as we already collected enough fund to at least bail out our dearest YM RPK. It is the matter of RPK principle, and collecting excess wouldn’t be appreciated by him. As stated aerlier, all excess will be given to charitable home/center, and RPK or his family will make known of the statement from time to time. Thank you MALAYSIAN for supporting MALAYSIA TODAY!

Thank You for Your Compassion and Generosity

May 6, 2008

Din Merican

It is tough on Puan Marina Lee Abdullah-Petra and her children when Raja Petra Kamarudin goes to jail in Sungei Buloh for refusing bail.  This is because he felt that the whole episode leading to his incarceration was a set-up (see video by malaysiakini.tv) by certain elements in UMNO who were looking for a pretext to “get” him.

            Those of us who are his friends and associates in the blogger community know that he is a rather uncompromising man on issues of principle. He wrote with such passion and conviction, without fear or favour. Yet few people know that Raja Petra comes from a proud aristocratic family in Selangor. His grandfather is the late Tun Raja Uda, former Governor of Penang and a distinguished civil servant with ties to the Selangor Royal Family.

            His Royal Highness The Sultan of Selangor is, in fact, Raja Petra’s cousin. On that score alone, I would have expected that our master blogger would be treated with the usual courtesy and respect, befitting his status as a member of a very distinguished Royal Family. Not so, I am afraid.

            The police’s treatment of him, on the other hand, is crass and raises serious concerns about proper manners and common courtesy. After all, he is innocent unless proven guilty. So we hope that while in Sungei Buloh he will be treated with dignity. He is a decent citizen who believes in the dignity of man, freedom and justice, someone who happens not to agree with certain leaders in the present government.

            I am pleased — and so is the Raja Petra family — that Malaysians and sympathisers abroad responded with compassion and generosity to our hurriedly launched campaign for Raja Petra. The local component of the donation (of RM1.00 per person) totalled RM24,500. That means 24,500 Malaysians of goodwill at very short notice responded to our campaign. More people were forthcoming but Puan Marina decided to end the campaign.

            For all that, I thank you for helping out at one of Raja Petra’s most trying times. Although he has been through many challenges including being an ISA alumnus in the past, he is proud to know that we Malaysians are supportive of his efforts to promote democracy, justice and free media.

            Fellow Malaysians, you have shown that we are a caring people and as Malaysians we are ready for change. We have very low tolerance for encroachment of our fundamental liberties. There is, therefore, room for optimism, although a lot of hard work lies ahead, as we together try to rebuild our much maligned society.

Share This

I preempt my usual Wednesday excerpting of my book, Towards A Competitive Malaysia, this week for this special, indeed extraordinary, posting.  Many have heard of the abominable news that Malaysia-Today.net editor Raja Petra Kamarudin was charged under the equally despicable Sedition Act.  Equally incomprehensible was that the judge imposed a bail of RM 5000 instead of letting him out on his own recognizance while awaiting trial.  Did the court think that Raja Petra would abscond? 

            More reason-defying was the decision to proceed with the charge in the first place.  Did anyone in the police department, the public prosecutor’s office, and the Attorney-General’s office actually read the allegedly seditious piece by Raja Petra?  Even allowing for the abysmal English competency of our public officials, they would not have found anything seditious or even offensive in the said article.

            The only thing offensive was the behavior of our leaders as alluded to by Raja Petra in that article, and just in case we missed that point, they went ahead to demonstrate this fact by subsequently charging him!

            Although friends and supporters of Raja Petra (and also himself) would have no difficulty in posting the bail, nonetheless he opted for a public donations campaign of a very minimal if not symbolic amount of not more than RM1.00 per person.  In less than 24-hours, his family has posted a message on Malaysia-Today that they have secured enough to post bond and that the excess would be donated to charity.  (See posting below.)

            Additionally, I am posting below a piece by Din Merican (with permission) on the same matter.

            I join thousands of Malaysians in denouncing this brute chimp-like behavior of the Abdullah administration in trying to intimidate this great Malaysian.  For a man who had suffered with dignity for years under the ISA, this latest clumsy act by Abdullah will not in the least dint Raja Petra’s resolve or commitment to bringing greater freedom to Malaysians.

            Raja Petra, I salute you.  Give ‘dem bastards hell!

Message from MT’s Team: 5.30pm 6th May 2008

 
We would like to CALL OFF the donation campaign as we already collected enough fund to at least bail out our dearest YM RPK. It is the matter of RPK principle, and collecting excess wouldn’t be appreciated by him. As stated aerlier, all excess will be given to charitable home/center, and RPK or his family will make known of the statement from time to time. Thank you MALAYSIAN for supporting MALAYSIA TODAY! 

Thank You for Your Compassion and Generosity

May 6, 2008

Din Merican

 
It is tough on Puan Marina Lee Abdullah-Petra and her children when Raja Petra Kamarudin goes to jail in Sungei Buloh for refusing bail.  This is because he felt that the whole episode leading to his incarceration was a set-up (see video by malaysiakini.tv) by certain elements in UMNO who were looking for a pretext to “get” him.

            Those of us who are his friends and associates in the blogger community know that he is a rather uncompromising man on issues of principle. He wrote with such passion and conviction, without fear or favour. Yet few people know that Raja Petra comes from a proud aristocratic family in Selangor. His grandfather is the late Tun Raja Uda, former Governor of Penang and a distinguished civil servant with ties to the Selangor Royal Family.

            His Royal Highness The Sultan of Selangor is, in fact, Raja Petra’s cousin. On that score alone, I would have expected that our master blogger would be treated with the usual courtesy and respect, befitting his status as a member of a very distinguished Royal Family. Not so, I am afraid.

            The police’s treatment of him, on the other hand, is crass and raises serious concerns about proper manners and common courtesy. After all, he is innocent unless proven guilty. So we hope that while in Sungei Buloh he will be treated with dignity. He is a decent citizen who believes in the dignity of man, freedom and justice, someone who happens not to agree with certain leaders in the present government.

            I am pleased — and so is the Raja Petra family — that Malaysians and sympathisers abroad responded with compassion and generosity to our hurriedly launched campaign for Raja Petra. The local component of the donation (of RM1.00 per person) totalled RM24,500. That means 24,500 Malaysians of goodwill at very short notice responded to our campaign. More people were forthcoming but Puan Marina decided to end the campaign.

            For all that, I thank you for helping out at one of Raja Petra’s most trying times. Although he has been through many challenges including being an ISA alumnus in the past, he is proud to know that we Malaysians are supportive of his efforts to promote democracy, justice and free media.

            Fellow Malaysians, you have shown that we are a caring people and as Malaysians we are ready for change. We have very low tolerance for encroachment of our fundamental liberties. There is, therefore, room for optimism, although a lot of hard work lies ahead, as we together try to rebuild our much maligned society.

Share This

The greatest legacy the leader of a nation could bequeath would be freedom from an oppressive government.  This realization comes to me when I compare Malaysia’s experience during the 1997 economic crisis to America’s current struggle with its massive debt mess.

            The differences in reactions and consequences are attributable to one salient factor:  Unlike Malaysians, Americans do not fear and are not dependent upon their government.  Americans have a healthy skepticism towards their leaders and government, an attribute generally lacking among Malaysians.

            With Malaysia in 1997 there was a general crisis of confidence, with widespread gloom and doom permeating the skyscrapers in Kuala Lumpur as well as the suraus in Ulu Kelantan, and from the Prime Minister to the village penghulu.  It also precipitated a deep and ugly split in the leadership that resulted in riots and ugly street demonstrations.  The ringgit – the very symbol of our sovereignty – was devalued.

            Like Malaysia then, America is today plagued with a mountain of debt on a scale a universe beyond what Malaysia suffered.  The American dollar is also being debased, not by the government however as with Malaysia, but by the more powerful force of the marketplace.

            The American tribulation is even greater, as the leadership – in particular President Bush – is viewed as ineffective and irrelevant.  America is additionally burdened with an expensive and bloody war.  Yet for all that, there are no riots or widespread doom and gloom.  When Americans are disenchanted with their president or government, they throng the voting booths in record numbers to vote for a change.

Our Inherent Freedom

In Islam, a ruler is denied “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.”  Meaning, freedom from oppression is not a gift bestowed by the ruler upon the ruled, rather the natural state.  Or to put it in the language of the Quran, the will of Allah!  Citizens would consent to giving away those rights to the ruler only upon a demonstrated need for the greater good.

            Many a leader, evil and benevolent, have used this rationale to take away these precious rights away from citizens.  Even otherwise civilized societies are not immune to this seduction, as evidenced by the easy passage of the Patriots Act in America.  Citizens have only themselves to blame if they were to grease the path towards their own enslavement.

            Government oppresses less through sheer size and more through exercising unchecked powers.  Scandinavian countries have large governments, yet their people are not oppressed or threatened.  These governments get voted in repeatedly.

            They use their might not to oppress citizens but to emancipate them.  The police force is used (rightly) for discouraging and apprehending criminals, not for spying on innocent citizens or harassing political dissenters.  Public funds are used to build daycare centers and affordable housing, not detention camps and police barracks.

            The Indian government is also large, though in terms of absolute budget size it is smaller than most of the Scandinavian countries.  Yet the Indian government remains oppressive and intrusive in the lives of its citizens, caricatured by the ubiquitous “Permit Rajs.”

            By modern standards, Stalin and Mao Zeedung had access to more limited resources and far primitive instruments of controls, yet they were able to maintain a tight grip on their people, even long after those leaders were dead.

            A repressive government led by well-intentioned and capable leaders can achieve wonders in improving the lives of their citizens, as seen with Singapore.  Even when the leaders were less well intentioned and less capable, they could still do remarkable things, as with Indonesia’s Suharto.

            Nonetheless oppression is still oppression no matter how seemingly sophisticated the guises and excuses.  Singapore effectively controls its citizens through inane and intrusive rules as well as punitive laws like its libel statutes.  South Korea’s General Park justified his on the pretext of economic efficiency and national security.  It worked only temporarily in South Korea; it will be the same with Singapore.  Sooner or later citizens’ yearning for freedom will emerge.  Once the flame of freedom is lighted, it can be doused only temporarily.

Let Your People Be!

In America, when someone says, “I am from the government, and I am here to help you!” it would be treated as a line from an unoriginal comedian.  In Malaysia, it would be taken as a solemn promise, even though it is rarely fulfilled.  This reflects the control the government exerts over Malaysians, or more charitably, the citizens’ faith (misplaced) in their government.

            In America, Ronald Reagan became the most popular modern president by promising to “take the government off citizens’ backs!”  In Malaysia, whenever citizens’ groups meet over a problem, their resolutions would inevitably begin with, “The government must do this and that!”  That reflects an ingrained dependency syndrome.

            It was not always so.  There was a time when citizens especially Malays would never trust the government.  It was easy then as it was a colonial one, manned by people of a different race and skin color.

            Rulers exert their grip on citizens primarily through fear a la Saddam and Stalin, or rewards a la Singapore.  Both are effective; the second however is more enduring as citizens could delude themselves into believing that they are doing the state’s bidding on their own volition.

            Thus through a carefully crafted system of rewards, Singapore quickly reduced its birth rate.  It was so successful that the government is now desperate to reverse course!  Singapore’s positive reinforcements prove more effective than China’s odious and punitive laws.

            There is a third route, cara halus (subtle way), unique to Malay culture where rulers exerts a emotional hold on their subjects through a collective sense of terhutang budi (debt of gratitude).  It is predicated upon the cultural belief encapsulated in the saying, Hutang budi di bawa mati (we bring our debt of gratitude to our grave).  Malays would willingly put themselves (and their children) into endless servitude to the sultan in return for some perceived favors, sought or unsought.  Such controls, reinforced by cultural norms, are even more powerful.

            UMNO leaders play on these collective cultural guilt trips when they continually harp on their pivotal role in Merdeka and Ketuanan Melayu.  “Be grateful!”  “Kacang lupakan kulit” (Pea forgetting its pod); “Melayu Mudah Lupa!” (Malays forget easily!); these are the phrases bandied about to emotionally enslave Malays.  This communal guilt trip is just as enslaving as Stalin’s harsh police state.

            For added insurance, the UMNO government also uses fear through such oppressive laws as the ISA, as well as rewards of massive patronages via the New Economic Policy.  Hence the strong grip the UMNO government has on Malays especially.

            As long as citizens are not liberated and emancipated, they will never realize their full potential.  Their creativity will forever be stifled; their talent stunted.  The best that they could achieve would be total obedience, otherwise known as servitude.

            More dangerously, such citizens would go berserk once that control is suddenly gone or destroyed.  Long reduced to human robots, they are unable to think or act independently.  Today’s Iraq is a tragic reminder of this reality.  This fate awaits all closed societies.

            If that were to happen to Malaysia, it would be the greatest tragedy, for both ruler and ruled.

Share This

Farish A Noor

(From www.othermalaysia.org.  With permission)

April 10, 2008)

 
As the dust settles in the wake of the recent elections in Malaysia, many political observers are questioning whether the coalition of opposition parties, who are ever so close to gaining an upper hand in the Parliament, are actually about to come to power for the first time.  In the midst of this intense speculation, some cynical voices are raising doubts about whether the opposition coalition can actually get together as a cohesive political alliance and present themselves as a viable alternative to the now increasingly decrepit and redundant National Front (BN) coalition.

            The reason for this apparent uncertainty lies in the composition of the opposition front at the moment.  Dominated for the first time by the People’s Justice Party (PKR), the two other major component parties happen to be the secular-democratic Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Islamist party (PAS).  Now that this opposition coalition seems poised to take over the country, the question is being asked:  Can the Islamists of PAS work with their secular-leftist comrades of the DAP and abandon their long-cherished goal of creating an Islamic state in Malaysia?

            One is struck by such a question as it is loaded from the outset.  It presupposes a certain fixity of discourse and modality on the part of Islamist parties like PAS which apparently (or so it seems to be suggested) is not present in other parties; but why should we assume such a thing?

            For a start, a quick look at the track record of all Islamist parties worldwide will show that they have all evolved and adapted to the needs and interests of politics, just like any other party.  While it is true that religious-based parties (be they Islamist, Christian or Hindu) have as their fundamental ideology an interpretation of their respective religions seen through the lens of politics, it is precisely this marriage of power and faith that leads to the adaptation of religion for political ends.  (Of course this is also the reason why religious conservatives and purists do not relish the politicization of religion, as it leads to the instrumental use of faith for political goals – but that is another story altogether.)

            Looking at the rise and fall of religious-based parties worldwide, we can see how many of them have indeed compromised for the sake of politics.  The Hindu right-wing BJP party of India, for instance, clamored for a Hindu state and foregrounded the exclusive demands of Hindus primarily as long as it was out of power.  But during its brief spell in government, even the BJP was forced in the end to adapt to the realities of multi-religious India and made enormous concessions to win over the support of Indian Muslims and Christians.

            Likewise, many Islamist parties and movements in the Arab world have also made the same sort of important and symbolic concessions to non-Muslims in their bid for power.  Even movements like Hamas and Hizbullah have opened the channels of dialogue with Christians and other faith communities, cognizant of the fact that there can be no real and sustainable path to power without pragmatic compromise and adaptation.

            Admittedly Malaysia’s Islamist party PAS has made some electoral blunders in the past.  But PAS also has a progressive past it can and should be proud of, as when the party was led by its most progressive leader Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmy in the 1960s.  PAS was then widely seen as a left-leaning Islamist party due to its strong anti-colonial stand, its support of the trade union movement, and its willingness to support the Malayan Communist party in its struggle against British colonialism.  If PAS could have been so forward thinking earlier, then what is stopping it from being progressive today?

            The fact remains that the ruling National Front coalition (BN) in Malaysia today is on its last legs, and fifty years of race-based communalist and divisive politics has finally taken its toll on the country.  Malaysia and Malaysians have voted for change and it looks as if the time for that change is drawing closer.  Judging by PAS’s pragmatic record and successes in the past, the Islamist party may yet surprise the skeptics by adapting its Islamist politics to suit the needs and aspirations of the younger generation of Malaysian voters who voted for the party – not because they want to see an Islamic state in Malaysia, rather to signal the coming of a new Malaysian politics at last.  PAS should heed these signs and prepare itself for the new era of Malaysian politics to come.  After all, it survived five decades of repression by the colonial government and then the Malaysian government, so why couldn’t it adapt yet again?

Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

Share This

Chapter  8:   Culture Counts (Cont’d)

Concept Versus Content

Economists consider Homo economicus to be rational, always carefully measuring his moves to effect “maximal utility.” As succinctly stated by Landsburg in his The Armchair Economist, “People respond to incentives; the rest is commentary.” Economists claim that their laws are truly “scientific,” blind to race, gender, or culture. While economic concepts may be universal, its contents vary with culture. What is viewed as incentive in one culture may be a distinct disincentive in another.

Consider the clumsy British attempts to encourage Malays to save. The more the colonialists increased the savings rates, the less likely Malays were to save. The Brits concluded the only way they could:  Malays did not respond to modern economic incentives!

It took the genius of an indigenous economist to discover that, on the contrary, Malays, like others, respond to economic incentives. In his careful study, Ungku Aziz discovered that Malays were indeed diligent savers; the only problem was that they did not trust formal institutions like banks, especially those owned by foreigners. Worse, being Muslims, they considered interest sinful, equating it to usury. While the British thought that they were offering generous incentives by increasing the interest rates, to the Malays those were invitations to a life of sin. Those sneaky white devils!

Ungku Aziz went further with his insight. He established Tabong Haji, a mutual fund-like institution that collects and invests funds in Islamic-approved ventures. He declared the returns as faedah (dividends), not interests. To make the venture even more appealing, he astutely named it Tabong Haji, Pilgrims Fund, thus tying it with the Islamic theme, fully aware that it would sell with Muslim Malays. He was right. Today Tabong Haji is the largest mutual fund in Southeast Asia with over three million subscribers, a monumental legacy to the brilliance of an individual who could discern the difference between concept and content.

That British fiasco reminded me of the novice scientist who was conducting experiments on what made grasshoppers jump. Every time he clapped his hands and shouted, “Jump!” the critters would jump. Then he modified the experiment (changed one variable, to put it scientifically) and cut off their hind limbs. Then he repeated his command, and this time the insects did not jump. His conclusion? Cutting the hind limbs made the insects deaf. Right experiment, right data, but wrong conclusion! Nothing wrong with the scientific method, but everything wrong with the scientist!

Apart from differentiating between concept and content, there is the more important matter that what we offer as incentives would profoundly affect not only the responses, but also the responders. Offer honey, we get bees; rotten meat, maggots.

Under provisions of the NEP, publicly-listed companies are required to sell a significant portion of their shares to Malays, often at generously discounted prices in an attempt to increase Malay participation in that sector. Unfortunately, the lucky recipients are selected not by the companies or their investment bankers, rather by Ministry of Trade officials. Consequently those closest to the minister, like her son-in-law, would receive the bounty. Because politicians and bureaucrats make the decisions, they would naturally attract their own kind, meaning rent seekers and other economic parasites. It should not surprise anyone that a generation later, the only “capitalists” Malays have are of this variety.

When we encourage pseudo entrepreneurs we necessarily discourage the genuine variety. In business the phrase is, throwing good money after bad. In this case, pseudo capitalists chasing out the genuine ones. Malay farmers have an apt metaphor. When we let lallang (a tenacious weed) grow, it would choke out the good crops. Subsiding rent seekers and “ersatz capitalists” is akin to membajakan lallang (fertilizing weeds).

Another consideration is that while we may get the right responses and responders, the consequences are not what had been anticipated. America offers incentives to build cars with safety features like airbags and seat belts. Yes, driver fatalities dropped markedly but now pedestrian fatalities shot up. Motorists, realizing that their cars are now safer, drive recklessly causing deaths and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists. Unintended consequences!

Right after independence, the government wanted to emphasize Malay language, fearing that it would disappear and be overwhelmed by English. Novel incentives were introduced like extra bonuses if you were fluent in Malay. It was very successful, but there were unanticipated consequences. A generation later, Malaysians (especially Malays) are English illiterate. As English is the language of commerce and science, the loss was greatly magnified. Now the government is belatedly trying to remedy this, and finding it tough.

The government could use some of the techniques it used so successfully in encouraging the use of Malay, like giving bonuses and promotions only to those proficient in English. I am certain that the government is aware of the value of such incentives but is hesitant to use them because that would favor non-Malays. They are aware of the importance of English and are not easily swayed by the language nationalists.

The government is repeating the same colossal mistake a generation later in another way. Obsessed with trying to burnish its Islamic credentials, the government vastly expanded Islamic schools and establishments. The unintended consequence is that today’s young Malays want to be an imam or qadhi (Muslim judge) only, and the nation’s law, medical, and engineering schools are again desperately short of Malays.

Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, no doubt invoking the authoritarian powers of some ancient Chinese emperor, had his own brand of social engineering. Conscious of the limited landmass of that tiny republic, and fearing that his fellow citizens would breed with abandon, Lee imposed strict birth controls, with incentives like tax breaks and choice of schools for the children of those who complied, and severe punishment for those who dared challenge the order. He was too successful; today he and his successors are desperately trying to reverse course.

Have they learned their lesson? Far from it, they are still onto their next pet social engineering scheme, this time setting up “cupid clubs” to encourage their citizens to get married! Never mind that Lee Kuan Yew could not even get his own daughter hitched. These leaders never learn. The law of unintended consequences remains operative and universal.

Next:  Progress and Wealth Creation

Share This

It is tempting – and comforting – to blame everyone for the failure of Prime Minister Abdullah’s leadership, or to take the other extreme and heap the blame entirely on the hapless man.

Both approaches would be inadequate if not wrong. The corollary to “everyone is at fault” is that no one is. That would be a collective “cop out,” an abrogation of personal responsibility. Even if it were that rare instance where everyone is indeed responsible, there would still be the different degrees of culpability that would have to be acknowledged.

Blaming Abdullah entirely would also be inadequate. If nothing else, that would reveal the glaring inadequacies of the system, like its lack of checks and balances.

When a Turkish Airline jet crashed over Paris in 1974 because its cargo door blew out, the blame was not put entirely on the sloppy mechanic – although his negligence was clearly the triggering event – rather on the design flaws that would not indicate when doors were not properly secured. Firing the poor mechanic (though that was done) would not prevent future similar accidents, but improving the design with better indicator lights did.

An insight of modern “failure analysis” is that catastrophes are often not the result of a single major error, rather the cumulative effects of a series of minor mistakes each compounding the other until a critical stress point is reached when the whole thing would blow up. We are all familiar with the story of losing the war for the want of a nut.

Triggering Event

We could usefully use these approaches to analyze Abdullah’s failure. The triggering event (the sloppy mechanic as it were) was Mahathir’s selection of Abdullah back in 1998. Had Mahathir not done this, we would have been spared this disaster.

Malaysia however cannot be at the mercy of the mistake of any one person. Besides, blaming Mahathir alone would also not pass the philosophical test on the meaning of causation. We might as well blame Abdullah’s mother if we were to pursue this line of logic, for had she not given birth to him, we would have been spared this debacle. We could go even earlier and blame Abdullah’s father for the conception. There would be no end to the line of blame.

Certainly Mahathir should have been more prudent and sought wider counsel in selecting his deputy. He should have had the courage to break party tradition and go beyond the sitting vice presidents in selecting his successor.

While Mahathir was clearly the triggering factor, I would apportion only 10 percent of the blame on him.

The Man Himself

When Abdullah was selected to assume the highest office in the land, he should have taken that responsibility seriously. This was not, as in the tradition of the civil service from which he came, “just another promotion.” Granted, the man lacks introspective instinct, nonetheless he should have at least contemplated his abilities and limitations.

When the distinguished editor Howard Raines was appointed to head the influential New York Times, he knew that he lacked executive experience. Consequently he enrolled in a brief graduate business program. When Tengku Razaleigh was approached by then Prime Minister Hussein Onn to be his deputy, the Tengku politely declined. He felt he could contribute more by being other than a Deputy Prime Minister. Mark of wisdom and self confidence!

When Hussein Onn felt that leading the country was way over his head, he did the honorable thing: He resigned. Wise man!

Abdullah clearly lacks executive talent and economic nous; he owes it to himself and the nation to remedy those deficits. He could have had the services of the best minds, if only he had been prudent in selecting his advisors.

For these reasons I would apportion a greater blame – 20 percent – to Abdullah.

Editors, Pundits, Abdullah’s Advisors as Culprits

Just as Abdullah has a duty to select competent advisors, they too owe a duty to him and the nation in properly advising him. They are advisors and counselors, not courtiers and cheerleaders. Abdullah has his wife and family members to do that for him. My admonition also goes to Abdullah’s other official advisors like his ministers and UMNO Supreme Council members.

This duty to advise extends beyond those with appropriately designated titles. Editors and journalists as well as intellectuals and pundits, whom society has implicitly imposed a similar obligation, also have a sacred duty and a greater obligation to the public in serving as checks and balances on the leadership.

Veteran news anchor Walter Cronkite’s critical comments on the Vietnam War were instrumental in President Johnson not seeking a second term. Had Malaysian editors and journalists acted less like lap dogs, Abdullah would not have dared stray far.

It is hilarious to see these editors of the mainstream media now clumsily trying to correct themselves. They are finding that ingrained habits are hard to break, especially bad ones.

If our editors had a fraction of the fearlessness of Raja Petra, and intellectuals an iota of the integrity of Azmi Sharom, we are more likely to get honest competent leaders, and keep them that way once they are in power.

Academics like Shamsul AB who are on the public payroll and pundits like Johan Jaafar who earn fat public pensions have a public duty not to debase themselves to be the administration’s sycophants. They have to remain true to their vocation.

These folks as well as those boys on the infamous “fourth floor” must therefore shoulder their responsibility for Abdullah’s failings. I would apportion 30 percent of the blame to them.

We Deserve Our Leaders

Abdullah would not be the leader he is without his followers – us – acquiescing to or permitting it. Had Malaysians not given Abdullah that overwhelming mandate in 2004 and instead adopted a more skeptical “Show me first!” attitude, his ego would not have been so inflated. He would have a more realistic assessment of his capabilities; it also would have chastened his advisors.

Malaysians had plenty of opportunities to remind Abdullah of his shortcomings prior to the recent general election. The last was the Ijok state by-election. The excesses of UMNO operatives during this last general election grew out of voters’ tolerance of earlier shenanigans.

We are responsible for the leaders we get. We must scrutinize our leaders’ promises; we must hold these leaders accountable. If we fail to do that, then we have only ourselves to blame for their straying. For these reasons I would apportion 40 percent of the blame on Malaysian voters.

While Mahathir’s culpability is a miniscule 10 percent, nonetheless he has freely admitted to it. More importantly, he is trying his best to rectify it. Malaysians too are becoming more circumspect and taking their voting responsibilities seriously, as demonstrated by this recent election results.

As for Abdullah, he has accepted responsibility alright, but that is all he has done. He continues blaming others – party saboteurs, Anwar, Mahathir – everybody but himself. As for his advisors, pundits, editors and intellectuals, they have remained uncharacteristically silent. They have yet to acknowledge much less rectify their mistakes.

The foregoing is not an accounting exercise rather a suggestion on how we should treat our leaders in future. The burden is particularly high for voters who are also commentators, editors, and intellectuals.

Share This

Farish A. Noor

While the simplistic thesis put forward by Samuel Huntington in his work The Clash of Civilizations reads like a paltry script from a bad movie, it has to be said that bad scripts are often the most believable and effective.  It was Huntington who predicted that in the wake of the Cold War a new sort of conflict would arise, namely one configured along cultural-civilizational differences between the developed Western world and the mysterious, exotic and threatening East.

            The two cultural blocs that were said to be the future adversaries to the West were the Muslim world and China, respectively.  In the case of the former, it was opined by Huntington that with the demise of Communism, the potential threat of Islam would be realized sooner or later for the simple reason that Islam and the West shared ‘bloody frontiers’ that were marked by centuries of conflict.  This thesis, however, is patently false to anyone who has even the slightest idea of the history of Islam and the non-Muslim world, for the fact is that the frontiers of the Muslim world are not marked by violence nor stained by blood, but rather remain porous horizons marked by the eclectic culture of Islamic mysticism or Sufism:  From Southeast Asia to China, from Africa to Europe, the furthest frontiers of the Muslim world are precisely where mysticism and the Muslim practice of inter-cultural dialogue and cultural cross-fertilization flourished the most.

            Related to Huntington’s fear of Islam was his fear of China, dubbed the ‘sleeping giant’ by Napoleon more than a century ago and which till today has yet to truly realize and demonstrate its full economic potential.  Huntington’s crude thesis argued that in time the West would have to realize that non-negotiable cultural differences exist between the Western world and the Orient, and that these cultural differences would ultimately serve as the catalyst for an all-out confrontation between the West and China.

            As the world stands on the brink of a global recession and as we witness what may soon become a global food and resource crisis, the lens of Western policy-makers and media analysts are already looking eastwards to locate the new ‘threat’ to the global order, namely China.

            It is with this thought in mind that we reflect on the rather curious assortment of media tit-bits that have been served to us lately.  In a space of a month, the international media has focused on the internal and external developments in China of late.  Needless to say, the human rights record of China – not only in its dealings with Tibet but also internally in terms of its treatment of local dissidents – leaves much to be desired.  China was and remains an authoritarian state with a brutal policing apparatus that works to ensure that the regime remains in power at all costs, regardless of the loss of basic freedoms and civil liberties to its people.

            But having said that, it should also be remembered that the Chinese government is not the only despotic regime on the planet at the moment.  Nor should we forget that the Western governments have been willing and able to work with many equally brutal regimes the world over, from the despots of the Arab states to the dictatorships in Latin America and Africa.  So why single out China for now?  And if China’s record is something to be looked at closely, we might as well take some time out to look at America’s own human rights record in dealing with the detainees in Guantanamo Bay as well.

            The latest craze seems to be the focus on China’s economic dealings with Africa and how Chinese companies have been investing in the development of natural resources and infrastructure in the African continent.  Several reports in the international media – including the BBC and CNN – have painted the picture of an aggressive China moving into the African continent to suck its resources dry and to secure monopolies in areas such as oil and gas.

            Yet it has to be remembered that in the wake of the Second Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, it was America that took the lead in the race to re-establish its presence in the African continent.  Fearful of the prospect that the oil and gas reserves in the Arab-Muslim world were being depleted too fast, and that Arab oil and gas will run out for good in less than two decades, American and other Western oil and gas companies have begun to turn to Africa as another source of vital resources for their industrialized economies.  Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan the Washington-based African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) was set up to promote American oil and gas company interests in Africa.  Already many of these companies have secured for themselves lasting monopolies in African countries like Nigeria.

            So is all this talk of an ‘aggressive China’ moving into Africa simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that American oil and gas companies are already there, exploiting the natural resources of Africa to serve their own domestic industrial needs?  And if China is to expand and develop its economy, then surely it also needs to secure a steady supply of vital resources such as oil, gas and steel?

            This, then, appears to be the real reason and agenda behind the spate of China-bashing that we are seeing in the international media today.  For if the governments of the West are really concerned about the standard of human rights in China at present, they would do just as well to apply the same standards to themselves and to their strategic allies in the Arab world, Africa and Asia.  For now however, this hypocrisy of the highest level will continue as long as the international community remains blissfully ignorant of the real geo-political maneuverings that are taking place in this latest media skirmish between the West and China.  A global economic crisis is in the making, as well as a global race for rapidly depleting resources.  The media campaign to demonize China today is just the opening round to what will surely be a long-term conflict whose human costs will be borne by the rest of humanity as well.

 
Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

Share This

I am saddened to hear of the sudden death of Rustam Sani today, April 22, 2008. In Rustam we had a true patriot, one whose love for the country is pure. It is so because it came from the head as well as the heart. It is patriotism unadulterated by the pursuit of material wealth, public adulation, or political power. A genuine intellectual, he was not one to frame his ideas to fit the fashion of the day.

He recognized early the heavy duty and responsibility of being a patriot. His was not one consumed with endless exhortations. As the son of a renown nationalist, Rustam must have been immersed in the patriotic fervor and fiery speeches of his late father, Ahmad Boestaman. Yet at a very young age he knew that the new independent Malaysia would need leaders who not only love the country but also be well equipped with the necessary skills and intellect to lead it.

Consequently he focused on his school work fully aware that he was among the fortunate few among the youngsters to have the privilege of attending school. From his local sekolah attap (village school) in Behrang Ulu and the Methodist School Tanjong Malim, he went on to the University of Malaya via Victoria Institution. From there it was on to graduate work at Kent and Reading in Britain, and later, Yale.

He was a scholar as well as a practitioner of politics. His intellectual accomplishment was never diminished by his political involvement. He had penned more academic papers and popular commentaries as well as books than many fulltime academics. It was only yesterday that I read his latest (and alas his last) posting on his blog. Rustam was in his usual sharp element; that posting was a trenchant commentary on Mahathir’s interview on BBC’s Hard Talk. Rustam was also to have launched his latest books, Failed Nation? Concerns of a Malaysian Nationalist, and Social Roots of the Malay Left, later this month. Imagine two books!

As an academic, Rustam molded thousands of young minds. That may be his greatest though not easily visible legacy. Rustam may not have been successful in electoral politics, nonetheless his contributions to the nation dwarf those of “successful” political leaders.

Rustam is survived by his wife Rohani, son Azrani and daughter Ariani, as well as daughter-in-law Ku Salha and granddaughter Arissa. My condolences and prayers go to them in this moment of sadness. May Allah shower His blessings and Mercy on this great Malaysian patriot and intellect.

M. Bakri Misa

Share This

Johore UMNO leaders had apparently told Prime Minister Abdullah that he must have a succession plan that is “structured, smooth and speedy.” This three “S” strategy missed targeting the biggest ass of all, Abdullah himself.  The initiative had more to do with saving Abdullah’s “face” than with solving the grave problems confronting the party.

            If UMNO members and leaders were serious, they would focus on getting this harsh and unadulterated message straight to Abdullah:  He is unfit to lead the party and country.  He has clearly demonstrated this through his deeds (or lack of them) and words.  The man is a habitual liar; he cannot separate fact from fiction and distinguish reality from fantasy.

            Abdullah’s idea of taking responsibility for his party’s electoral debacle is merely to utter that statement.  He has no inkling of what it means to accept responsibility.

            Abdullah’s pleading that he is needed to “revive” the party is laughable and self serving.  If he could not pilot his ship of state competently when it was calm, there is no hope that he would be any more capable when it is now stormy, and threatening to get even more so every day.  Abdullah is the problem, and a very huge one at that.  Consequently his moving out would be a big part of the solution.  It would not solve everything of course, but it would remove a major impediment.

            His “leadership” has been nothing more than endless sloganeering (Work with me, not for me!”), like the leader caricatured in Shahnon Ahmad’s short story, “Ungkapan” (Sloganeering).

            Having grown accustomed to the perks and trappings of his office, Abdullah will not leave voluntarily, much less gracefully.  He has to be literally dragged out.  Subtleties and hints will not work on this man.  He is too dumb to read the signals.  He is also insulated, surrounded by courtiers ever willing to spin bad news.

Only Three Exit Strategies

There are only three ways to get rid of Abdullah.  One is for him to be successfully challenged as party leader in the upcoming UMNO General Assembly in December.  Two, would be for a sufficient number of the ruling coalition members to vote with the opposition in a “no confidence” motion in Parliament.  And three of course, would be through divine intervention, not inappropriate for a man who is never shy in parading his piety and religiosity.

            Knowing the onerous obstacles placed in UMNO towards challengers, the first option is unlikely.  Granted, Tengku Razaleigh – the only one to have come out publicly to challenge Abdullah – is a formidable challenger.  More daunting however, is the cultural inertia of Malays, especially those in UMNO.  They have yet to learn the essential lesson that challenges and competitions are healthy, not acts of treason or betrayal.

            The second path is more realistic.  The political resurgence of Anwar is real.  Far from being the “Anwar who?” of a few years ago, he is now increasingly viewed not only as the de facto leader of the opposition (even though he is not yet in Parliament) but rightly as Prime Minister-in-waiting.

            Anwar will be able to contest a parliamentary seat once his statutory prohibition ends on April 14, 2008.  A vacant seat will surely come up soon as Malaysia has a good track record of MPs dying in office or getting caught in some scandalous acts and thus having to resign.  More likely though would be for one of the current PKR MPs to resign, not to pave the way for Anwar (though that would be the convenient and acceptable excuse) but because the job is not as glamorous or challenging as it is made out to be.  Many PKR MPs are successful, young and honest professionals; their “elevation” to the “Yang Berhormat” (Your Honorable) status cuts deeply into their income and career prospects.

            As for divine intervention, that is beyond my purview.  However many a leader had used “medical” reasons as a convenient face-saving cover for resigning.  Abdullah could always blame his hemorrhoids or narcolepsy (a pathologic tendency to doze off).

Abdullah Is The Problem

When Abdullah assumed office nearly five years ago, I was one of the few who were not enthused about his leadership potential.  My conclusion was based on reviewing his performance as a minister.  I predicted then that by the time Abdullah leaves office, Malaysians would be counting their blessings if he had not screwed up the country too much, and that the best we could hope for was for him to maintain the status quo.

            Alas, I was wrong.  I had not counted on the maturity and resilience of Malaysians in overcoming Abdullah’s gross incompetence.  Malaysians are also incredibly generous as demonstrated by their giving him a rousing endorsement in the 2004 election in the hope that it would give him the necessary boost and confidence to lead.  Unfortunately that too could not override his basic ineptness.

            In their collective wisdom, in this recent election Malaysians decided that it was not necessary to deal a crippling blow, only enough punch that would leave Abdullah and UMNO reeling, and in the process trigger an implosion in an already corrupt and dysfunctional organization.

            Equally remarkable, Malaysians also demonstrated that they are capable of executing peaceful political change.  There was not even a hint of civil disorder following Barisan’s loss of five states.  Compare that to 1969 and the horror that followed when the ruling coalition lost only one state.

            To be sure, had the election been conducted free and fair, with no stuffed postal ballots and with the use of indelible ink to prevent fraudulent voting, the ultimate message would have been delivered, and Abdullah and his ilk would have been kicked out.

            Perhaps it was better this way.  For had the Barisan Nasional been voted out, there would have been a dangerous political vacuum as none of the opposition parties could form a government.  Their loose coalition, the Pakatan Rakyat (Citizens’ Alliance) had yet to be ratified.  Now having sensed that power is within their grasp, the opposition parties are ready and willing to sink their differences for a common cause.

            Meanwhile UMNO and its coalition partners are galloping fast towards their collective demise.  Their course is irreversible.

            Thankfully my earlier dire prediction on Abdullah was misplaced.  Abdullah has not destroyed Malaysia, only UMNO and Barisan Nasional.  Malaysians can all count their blessings for his legacy not being any worse.

Share This