Archive for June, 2005

Get Varsity Leaders With Talent, Vision

Monday, June 27th, 2005

[Reprinted from The Sun Daily June 24, 2005]

Editorial lead: At present all university vice-chancellors are appointed by the minister. If he makes wise decisions, the universities and the nation would benefit. If his judgment were otherwise, the entire system would suffer.

MALAYSIAN public universities are grabbing the headlines lately, alas for all the wrong reasons. As the fate of an institution is determined largely by its leader, the recent death of Universiti Utara Malaysia’s (UUM) Vice-Chancellor provides the Minister of Higher Education an opportunity to re-examine how such leaders are selected.

At present all vice-chancellors are appointed by the minister. If he makes wise decisions, the universities and the nation would benefit. If his judgment is otherwise, the entire system would suffer. That our public universities are enjoying less than stellar reputation is directly the consequence of less than sensible earlier appointments.

In choosing UUM’s next vice-chancellor, I suggest one of the following options for the minister. One, hire a “head hunting” firm; two, appoint a selection committee with wide representation; or three, use the Delphi method to narrow the candidates.

The use of a search firm is straightforward. It will use its resources to scout for the right candidates. Many universities are opting for this, as it tends to broaden the search to outside of academia.

Local selection committees are the traditional route. The advantage is local input. Those committee members of academics, students and alumni know best what is needed for their institution. The finalists would be interviewed not only by the committee but also by the other major stakeholders (deans, senior academics) who would then apprise the committee of their views.

Note, both methods only make recommendations; the ultimate choice is still the minister’s.
If the minister wants to be personally engaged in the selection, then I would suggest the Delphi method. I would e-mail all the vice-chancellors (past and present), leading academics, student leaders, and major employers and ask them to list the four or five major problems facing our universities generally and UUM specifically. At the same time I would ask them to name four or five individuals other than themselves who would best manage those problems and lead UUM. Then I would interview the top four or five candidates.

During the interview, I would ask the finalists what they think are UUM’s major priorities and how they would solve them. I would also gauge the candidates’ general philosophy and yes, also political views. There is no point selecting someone who does not share your vision. On the other hand, appointing someone who shares your vision but is otherwise less than capable would be counter-productive as he or she would not be able to execute your vision.

The ideal candidate would be an accomplished and highly regarded scholar, has the necessary executive talent, and above all, shares your vision.

There are two further considerations. First, one does not need to belong to the same political party or be of the same race and nationality in order to share the same vision. So there is no need to limit the search to a particular race or nationality. This point bears emphasizing, for presently political considerations weigh heavily on such appointments, to the detriment of the institution.

Second, and far more important, it is much easier to convert someone who is otherwise competent but does not share your vision to your side than it is to make someone incompetent, competent. That the latter enthusiastically embraces your politics is no consolation.

All these methods have their limitations. Using a professional firm would shift the lobbying from the minister’s office to that of the firm. However, by selecting a company of known integrity and sterling reputation, you reduce this greatly. Local selection committees tend to perpetuate the status quo. At times an institution would be best served by a total outsider who would shake the existing structure in order to lead it to greater heights. Such candidates would not likely have warm receptions with local committees.

The Delphi technique, originally designed for forecasting trends, would also tend to select mainstream candidates. It is not likely to pick the one unique individual who may just have the right combination of contrarian insight and executive talent to lead the institution into a new direction. The Delphi method would miss the real trail blazers.
One thing is certain. Whatever the limitations of these techniques, they are far superior to the present method, whatever that may be.

Federal Minister Isa Samad Out!

Friday, June 24th, 2005

June 24, 2005

Dear Bakri:

Once touted by local political pundits and observers as the man to watch after his stunning victory in the last Party Elections, Tan Sri Isa Samad has fallen from grace following the guilty verdict by the UMNO Disciplinary Board yesterday. In the party’s election, he garnered the highest number of votes in the race for one of the posts of Vice President

He faced nine charges, all related to “money politics,” and was suspended for six years pending an appeal. Also suspended were his Political Secretary, M. Salim Sharif (for three years), Raub Division and Pahang ExCo member, Dato Shahiruddin Abdul Moin (also three years), and Pandan (KL) Division Deputy Chief Jamaluddin Ropa (two years), all on the same “money politics” charges.

In addition, Dato Shahrir Jalil, Lembah Pantai Division Chief and brother of Minister of Women Affairs Dato Shahrizat Jalil, was suspended for three years for contravening the party’s code of ethics during the same election. Our good friend, Dato Zaid Ibrahim, was also suspended for three years for his outburst against the Disciplinary Board. This may be a bit harsh on the face of it, I thought. He also received a warning over money politics, probably due to the lack of solid evidence to punish him.

It is tragic that Isa Samad, who entered politics by joining UMNO at the age of 23 in 1972, will see the end of his illustrious career with his supporters drifting away from him in droves seeking new patrons. Such is the nature of politics. A six-year suspension is like forever in politics. He has the right to appeal, but it would take a diehard optimist at this time to think that the UMNO Disciplinary Board, which comprises some of the well-known and respected Malay legal brains in our country, will reverse its guilty verdict. Would the UMNO President intervene in this matter, and grant Isa a reprieve? Not likely, in my view.

It is quite obvious to me that there is now an ongoing purge within UMNO to clean its image ahead of its July General Assembly. It is a fact that some UMNO top leaders and others down the line have been flouting the party rules in their quest for political power and the financial benefits associated with such power. Tun Mahathir unfortunately allowed this to get out of control.

The actions taken by the present UMNO leadership could not have come at a better time, given efforts by PAS to remake itself as a progressive and liberal party that would appeal to all Malaysians and with an agenda for clean, open and transparent Government. PAS is trying to steal Pak Lah’s agenda. UMNO’s latest move has stalled the pace of PAS resurgence momentarily.

How far down this cleansing exercise will go remains to be seen. At least one can say to the credit of Pak Lah that he has finally taken drastic action against elements within his party who engage in money politics. This house cleaning exercise will enable him, I hope, to be tough on corruption and abuses of power by those in positions of public trust. This is still rampant in our country. It will also strengthen his hand over the party, and enable him to put competent people who are not tainted by money politics in his team.

It would appear that a cabinet reshuffle is now imminent. My guess is that it will be after the July UMNO General Assembly and the MCA Party Elections in August, 2005. Let us hope Pak Lah will be able to put in place a cabinet that can truly support his agenda for the nation. This will be his second chance, having squandered the first. He must use it to leave his imprint of a clean and accountable government. He must have a team that we all can be truly proud of, and one which is ready to help him tackle the economic and social challenges facing our country today.

As you know, you and I have been very critical of his perceived inaction over the last twenty or so months. We may remain skeptical. At least Pak Lah has made a fresh beginning by first cleaning up UMNO and restoring its image as the foremost Malay national party. UMNO is the force behind the successful Barisan Nasional Government which has managed our country since Independence.


Din Merican
Dear Din:

Yes, I too read the news, but I am withholding the plaudits.

I am glad this Isa is out. Yes, Mahathir handpicked him as a promising star way back then. I did not share Mahathir’s enthusiasm then, and events have proved that my assessment is correct. Maybe Isa has been in power for too long and succumbed to the temptations of his office, like all the others. Or he thought that the loot was his due, this too is just like the others! His legacy in Negri Sembilan (NS) is nothing to shout about, or more correctly, simply nothing.

On a personal point, when Mahathir was considering Isa to be the chief minister of my state, there were two other top contenders. Both were my classmates at Tuanku Muhammad School, Kuala Pilah. Both were excellent, smart, and more importantly, politically adroit with the kampong folks. They had their ears to the ground. Either of the two would have been a great MB. Instead, Mahathir opted for Isa. Mark that down as another negative for Mahathir, his poor talent-spotting ability. I elaborated on this deficiency of Mahathir in my first book.

I was so excited by the prospect of my classmate becoming MB that I wrote him that I would return to Malaysia to help him out. That was how much faith I had in his talent and ability.

Pak Lah’s move is politically inspired and crooked, not shrewd. Remember when Isa received the highest number of votes, the pundits were saying that it was a rebuke to Pak Lah by the delegates. Isa is not viewed as being in Pak Lah’s camp. This is just another sly trick to ease Isa and others like him out. If Isa were to protest too much, then Pak Lah would threaten to refer him to the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA).

Where did Isa get all that money to buy the votes? Money politics is corruption, plain and simple. He should be referred to the ACA. Watch it, if Isa were to play his cards right, he may be rewarded with an ambassadorship to Fiji!

This is just another sly way for Pak Lah to remove those not in his camp in preparation for the UMNO election. I am sure Najib is not too pleased with this development.

While the process stinks (it smacks of selective prosecution), I approve of the result. What I worry is that Pak Lah will be tempted to use this crooked process on others and the result may not be to our liking.

Pak Lah is a former civil servant, slow and methodical. He is a firm believer in the incremental approach. It will not work. Malaysia needs “shock therapy” to shake UMNO and the nation to its core. Anything less will be viewed as weakness. Mahathir succeeded because he made a quick moves in the beginning. Pak Lah will never regain his momentum.

In short, I do not share your enthusiasm with this recent development. Pak Lah will have to show more. It will be more difficult because he started late, but I wish him; so should the nation.



Islamic State: More Readers’ Responses

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005

Hi Dr. Bakri:

I recently read your article, “The Path to A True Islamic State.” I had problems posting a respond through your website, so, I thought I would email you.

I am enthusiastic to learn that you are tackling this issue. I eagerly await your views in your new book. Until then your posting has actually raised more questions than answers with me. I find the ending in your article a bit “secular.”

“A nation mired in economic stagnation and its citizens in physical and moral degradation cannot be considered to be Islamic. Lift the yoke of poverty off our people, bring them light through superior education, and empower them by giving them their merdeka (liberty). This is the only path towards an Islamic state,” to quote you.

I am a bit raw on my knowledge of the Quran and Hadith to know what the appropriate response would be from Muslims to your article, especially to the way you have ended it. I guess I should not be ashamed to respond with what I have learned from Jesus the man, hopefully with ideas close enough to a Muslim, as I have learned Jesus too is considered a prophet in the Quran.

Two thoughts from the Gospel came to mind:

1. Luke 6:19-2120: Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
2121 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.

2. Matthew 11:29: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Comparing those two verses with your ending note, I find that yours seems a bit “secular” for an Islamic state, if I may use the word, since it uplifts the superiority of education, and ignored the possible fallacy in human wisdom. My first reaction in reading your ending note is that a Nazi is not necessarily lacking in education. This applies to today’s bin Laden also. Overconfidence in education is almost exactly the reason why religion still thrives amongst today’s elites. I could imagine many Muslims would also react the same way. I know you do not mean that, but the way you have ended your essay raised this doubt in my mind.

Dr. Bakri, I really hope you can be successful in realizing the potential you see in “that Islam can play in Malaysia and the region.” I hope you will not be out-Islam in the creation of an Islamic state. May the God of Abraham shed light to you in your book! May it indeed shine light in the words you will be putting down in your next book!

Weng Lee
Milpitas, CA.

Dear Weng Lee:

Thank you for responding to my essay. I will post your response to my website. I am still unsure whether to have free open comments on my website or have them filtered through me. I want to spare my website from trash and libelous material, so all postings come through me for now!

It is interesting that you quote the Gospel. Muslims today remind me of Christians of the Middle Ages in our attitude towards the poor, interests (or usury), and wealth. The poor shall inherit the earth as you quoted from the Gospel portrays a mindset that glorifies poverty.

Then came John Calvin with his novel interpretation. He said yes, God has predestined us. “Our fate is written in the book,” as we Muslims would say. But then, according to Calvin, He tips His hands. He would give us a preview on this earth those He favors.

Suddenly everyone worked very hard to be successful so they would be seen as being God’s chosen ones. If they were successful here on earth, they would be successful in the hereafter. Out of this new outlook emerged the famed Protestant work ethics. Poverty is no longer glorified, rather now it is seen as a sign of divine disfavor! Whether Calvin is right or wrong is immaterial but the consequences of his teaching is such that the world today is much better than before him. That is tribute enough!

Thank you for your prayers and best wishes for my next book.


Islamic State: Dr. Siti Mariah Comments

Sunday, June 19th, 2005

Letters are edited for purposes of brevity, clarity and liability.

Reprinted from
Tuesday June 14, 2007

“The basic question – Are these laws just? – is never asked. Hand amputation deprives a person the means to feed, clean and protect himself. Stoning to death is barbaric; even a rabid dog should be spared such a torture.

Nor are these laws fair. A non-Muslim caught stealing would be jailed; a Muslim, amputated. That would surely drive Muslims away from our faith.”

Dr. Bakri may be an expert in his field, but I am rather disappointed at his level of “expertise” in his own religion, assuming that he is a Muslim. I wonder whether he even bothered to read the Hukum Hudud draft thoroughly before making his opinion public.

Waja Steele
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Dr. Siti Mariah:

I read with sadness M Bakri’s article. There is lack of understanding of what Islamic laws and state is all about. You wrote as if in an Islamic state corruption, poverty, dishonesty, breach of trusts, economic stagnation, supression of liberties, ISA and other injustices are acceptable as long as hudud laws are implemented. In your understanding, this means the cutting off hands and stoning to death for adultery. Sadder still is when you said that “their justifications are nothing more than endless recitations of some Arabic texts interspersed liberally with Quranic quotations”. Please go back to the Quran and Sunnah. Verses and Hadiths regarding the punishment for stealing and adultery are very clearly stated.

Do you think that once the laws are passed, when someone is caught stealing, he or she would be immediately dragged to the town square and the hand chopped off? Of course that would be barbaric! Due process of law would have to take place. The witnesses, the evidences, the prosecution, the defence, the appeal and the whole wheel of justice would have to be implemented. Do you also imagine that all cases will be treated the same – with the hand choopped off – whether the stolen article is worthless or the victim robbed at gunpoint? You also choose to ignore that circumstances for stealing are also taken into consideration when passing the sentence. You conveniently forget that cutting off the hands is not the only punishment for stealing. There are jail sentences as well as fines and other punishments including remedial sentence that can also be employed by the court (this is called takzir, and we already have that in our laws).

Cutting off the hands is the severest form of punishment, and the conditions under which this will be applied are also stringent. The details of implementation are up to the lawmakers. This is where the consensus of the ulama (scholars in law, not the ustaz in the village who teaches tajwid or quranic renditions) come in! You think it is injustice to the thief but you forgot the victim and future victims. Where is the justice for the victim and community members who live in fear? Where is the justice to the victims who toil and sweat to earn an honest living? Islamic laws are meant to be a deterrent and to strike fear in the hearts of sinners-to-be. You also speak as if once the law is passed our streets would be filled with people with amputated arms and hands or wobbling around with no feet. Are you saying that a majority of our people are thieves? If that were the case, then there is something awfully wrong with our society. Imagine if there were one amputated thief who walks around and be seen by others, the message gets across – crime does not pay! Potetnial thieves would think a thousand times before choosing this easy way to make a living.

M Bakri, however, contradicts himself when he says, “non-Muslims at the time time of the prophet s.a.w. respected and obeyed the Medinah Compact not because the laws were Islamic, rather those laws were just to them as well as to Muslims.” So you agree that the non-Muslims then accept Islamic Laws because they were just! Mind you among the laws implemented then was the hudud laws that you claim to be unjust.

Your perceived concept of All-Merciful and All-Beneficient (Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim) is definitely not the same as that intended by the All-Mighty. If you think that the laws given by Allah s.w.t are unjust, what about heaven and hell? Are you saying that Allah ceased to be Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim because those who sinned will be punished in Hell? What about those unfortunate ones born with congenital deformities and diseases? What about those inflicted with incurable diseases? What about those who live in poverty and perpetual suppression? Since God is Al-Mighty, why didn’t He created this world and bestowed His creations with everything that they need? He could make all people nice, happy, good, etc. Then can only we say God is All-Merciful and All-Benevolent? Just because the Quran prescribed something that we perceive as “unjust” we say, “Oh this is not from God. How can it be? How can this come from the Creator who profess to be Merciful?” Allah s.w.t has 99 names describing His qualities. Please take a look at these names and you will understand better. If we go by your human logic , everything that God does becomes illogical! That is why believing in every single word of the Quran becomes an article of faith in Islam. A Muslim cannot reject even a single word, what more a verse from the Quran. If we do that we cease to become a Muslim in faith.

I heartily agree with M Bakri on Islam Hadhari! We have to embrace Islam in all aspects. We cannot pick and choose the so called “progressive” elements (stable economy, eradication of poverty, ensuring basic utilities to the rakyat, etc.) and leave “the non progressive” ones (must be the hudud, no drinking of alcohol, usury, adultery). We cannot ask people to do good things and at the same time encourage evil practices. Islam Hadhari is about contradictions in Islamic practice. Simplay having Muslims adminster the state does not it an Islamic state. Piety alone is not enough to run an Islamic state but piety (taqwa) is the guiding light for the leaders to be just and honest. It is piety that prevents one from corruption because even though one knows that the rakyat may not know about it, but God knows and takes into account of one’s conduct.

I thank you Dr Syed Alwi for suggesting that PAS members should read M Bakri’s article. I think the article is more relevant to UMNO members. The bulk of the article is actually directed at them. They are the people causing all these mess in our country. All the laws in this country were enacted and passed by the UMNO/BN. PAS/BA just wants to take the nation to the Islamic ideals and correct the injustices. Given the chance, all the things that M Bakri proposes – cleansing the society of corruption, ISA, eradication of poverty, all acts suppressing basic rights – are what we have in mind. With regards to Hudud laws, we are confident if sufficient education, discussions, explanations, correcting the weaknesses in existing enactments, etc, that in due time Malaysians will accept them.

Dr. Siti Mariah
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Dear Dr Siti Mariah:

If chopping off the hands of thieves and stoning of married adulterers are so difficult to implement, then why bother having them in the Penal Code in the first place? It makes no sense. We no longer subscribe to 10th century, Middle Eastern values, and I do not need to be hypocritical about religion. Some faith is good but too much of it is dangerous as the previous PAS leadership has abundantly demonstrated. My view of PAS is well known: Keep religion personal. You – Dr Siti Mariah – are free to believe whatever you want to, but do not dream of ever forcing down your beliefs on me! I will fight tooth and nail against that.


Dr Syed Alwi

My dear Dr. Syed Alwi:

Whatever gives you the idea that I can force my values and beliefs on you? I respect your beliefs and I expect you to do the same for me. The fact that we are engaging in democracy to forward our ideas, beliefs, struggles and values means that we do not plan to coerce rather to persuade. If the majority accepts, and I do not it see coming during my lifetime, then I have made it. If not, I have tried my best.

Why do we keep saying that the hudud laws are not implementable? We have not even tried it! Just because it is a “10th century idea from the Middle East” does not necessarily mean that it is not good or effective. Why are we so worked up about the hudud law? Even if we were adulterers, are we going to be that shameless to commit it in the open for four witnesses to see and describe it in court? Even if the laws were in place, it need not mean that there will be convictions as cases may not be admissible or qualify for prosecution under hudud laws. During the prophet’s.a.w time, the punishment was meted only to a few who confessed and repented and wanted the punishment in this world rather than the hereafter.

Man’s desires and behaviors have not changed since the time of Adam ,and will remain very much the same till doomsday. Only the Creator knows the real nature of His creations and the remedies for their maladies. For practicing Muslims, whether the law can be implemented or not is another story. There are many reasons that could qualify for the suspension of any specific law, rule and regulation in Islam. During the rule of Caliph Omar Al-Khattab, the hudud law for theft was suspended when economy was bad. But it was not abolished. What we would like to do is to implement God’s law (whose primary source is the Quran and Sunnah) as we believe in it and in its supreme ability to ensure that justice is done to the accused as well as to the victim. If I were to use your same reasoning that laws perceived not implementable should not be enacted, then would you agree with me that laws that are not effective should also be abolished? Can we now abolish the death sentence for drug addicts/distributors, jail sentence for stealing, fines and whipping for many offences as they are not effective in controlling these crimes. The crime rates are ever increasing. Why cannot we mere mortals submit to the supreme knowledge of God?

Anyway, why are we arguing about the small portion of that we disagree on? We have much more that we agree on like fighting corruption, restoring real democracy, abolishing ISA and other oppressive laws, and many more that M Bakri wrote about and which we all very well know about. Let us settle these mainstay issues first for the sake of our beloved nation, and once we have achieved them we can settle this nagging issue of hudud in a civil and democratic manner. None of the opposition parties can make it alone, and we know that. We cannot claim to be democratic if we cannot learn to respect each other’s ideology. Nor can we call for all parties to drop their ideology or belief as a prerequisite for cooperating and working together. That would be hypocrisy.

Dr. Siti Mariah

Din Merican’s comments on Islamic State

Thursday, June 16th, 2005

May 25, 2005

Dear Bakri:

Please see my comments below re: your Islamic State essay. My advice is not to get caught in this Islamization politics of UMNO and PAS.

You cannot be a “unifier” because of the nature of our politics, especially Malay politics due to the UMNO/PAS and KeADILan divide. We badly need a very strong leader who can put a stop to this politics of division and who can prepare us for the challenges of globalization. Religion is a form of escape because we are basically insecure and not ready to face the challenges of a secular world (that is, the real world, and we Malays must thrive in it).

To me it does not matter if you should sound divisive. The message is important and a strong one at that. We must not allow UMNO a free hand to make pronouncements without dialogue and debate with its coalition partners and members of civil society (NGOs like Sisters in Islam, Suaram, et. al).

We must encourage these sleeping partners in BN to wake up from their stupor and speak their minds. UMNO must listen to the NGOs before it is too late and we would have a repeat of May 13, 1969. Indian and other non-Muslim leaders in BN must also speak up now. How long do you think Malaysians can keep mum before they implode?

My second point is that there are already too many laws. The Badawi Administration is the epitome of bureaucratization. Malaysia is now run by committees and commissions. It is legislation after legislation and review after review, leading to utter confusion and loss of investor confidence. This will go on unless the PM is firm.

Abdullah Zin and Mashitah, two new politicians in the Prime Minister’s Department, are merely grandstanding ahead of the July UMNO General Assembly. They are not thinking of the country but their own popularity and political advantage. How do we deal with such types when you have a leader like Badawi?

My third point is that UMNO’s Islamization has gone astray; they are clueless and caught in their own game, with PAS gaining the upper hand. PAS is looking more liberal and tolerant, thus gaining the hearts and minds of not only the Malays but also disgruntled non-Muslims. This is dangerous because the PAS leopard does not change its spots.

Islamization has serious implications for our country and the region. Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew is concerned that Malaysia (he did not mention Indonesia!) might one day be ruled by Islamists. I hope he is wrong, but at the rate we are going, he may be right.

I think you should not focus on making just laws. We should have a moratorium on new laws and instead fix the problems of an already divisive nation. Unity is fundamental because we are a plural society. Go back to the Malaysian Constitution.

You should start your piece with your last paragraph, but do not mention Islamic state. We need good governance, and keep religion separate from politics. George Bush for example does not understand this when he embraced the Christian Right Movement. UMNO’s Islamization policy has failed because the party fell into a trap set by PAS in the 1980s. Anwar Ibrahim let UMNO down badly on this. He was not interested in the future of our country, only in power for himself.

We should become more liberal in dealing with social issues, with justice for all, including women and minorities. We should stop sucking up to the conservative ulamas. For God’s sake, we are in the 21st century.

Din Merican
June 12, 2005

Dear Bakri,

I was at The Starbucks Coffee House, AmCorp Mall, Petaling Jaya, this afternoon and overheard a conversation between four young Malaysians (a Chinese and three Indian university students). They were discussing your “Christian Clobber” article which appeared in today’s The Sun Daily.

They said that Dr. Bakri had an easy style of writing and conveyed his message simply, clearly and directly. “We students can understand him and see the drift of his arguments. He presented his views logically and sometimes in a very amusing way.” But the point was, they continued, that Dr. Bakri made a lot of sense!

“Islam is basically very simple, and it is the basis of the laws for Muslims. In Malaysia whatever the Fatwa Council and state religious departments do also affect us, and our relationship with our Muslim friends and their relationship with us. Our friends and classmates are so up tight now. Semua tak boleh.” [Everything is forbidden!]

They went on to talk about the Malaysian proclivity for labels, instead of real substance. They quoted Islam Hadhari as an example. “If, as Dr Bakri said, Islam is progressive, then this new label is not helping non-Muslims, and confusing the Muslims. Is this another sect like the now defunct group by a certain Ustaz Azahari?” they asked aloud.

Furthermore, they felt sorry for Malaysian Malays who were being told by their UMNO leaders, ulamaks, PAS politicians, Tablighs from Pakistan, Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia and other groups to “follow in their paths.”

All religions are about being moral, tolerant and doing good; but why, they asked, should the Malays be Muslims in a particular way? And if they do not conform, they would be branded as infidels, or worse, apostates.

Here I am reminded of Ziauddin Sardar’s book, Desperately Seeking Paradise, where the author related his experiences with the Tabligh Groups in the United Kingdom. Dr Sardar’s encounters were interesting as well as disturbing.

On corruption, they said, that the Badawi Government is not serious about it. The police will remain corrupt no matter what because the culture is deeply entrenched. The public will not come forward because they are not protected if the corrupt were exposed. Due process is time consuming, as in the Eria Chia corruption case. So they asked themselves a simple question: “If we wanted to cooperate, who do we report to?” They answered rhetorically: “To the Anti-Corruption Agency? That organization is a toothless tiger!!”

They came to the conclusion which is that “we can try to make laws, even just laws, but who is just and honest enough to enforce them. Everything can be fixed in Malaysia as long as you know who to deal with.”

This conversation which I overheard while sipping coffee tells me that the young generation is aware of the problems they face in modern Malaysia, but they are quite helpless to do anything about them.

Best regards,

Din Merican

June 8, 2005

Dear Din and Pat:

Thank you for both your kind comments. As usual, I find them very stimulating. Unfortunately you both confirm my worse suspicion of Malaysia. I had wished that I was wrong or misinformed!

I am now at a chapter entitled “Islam: Problem or Solution?” in my latest book. I am trying very hard to have a positive outlook and that what we have portrayed is not pre-ordained and that we can change things. With all the current development it is hard to be positive, but I am determined to find that ray of hope! Indeed I cover in my chapter the points you raised.

The reason non-Muslims are not partaking in this Islam debate is that they have concluded that although they would be impacted by the outcome, it would not be as much as liberal Malays. So they cop out and let the liberal Malays fight it out. Pat, you are the rare exception, as usual! Thank God! Most non-Malays are too scared to be tarred as “anti-Islam.” That would not be career enhancing!

However, the greatest loser in this unnecessary battle would be Islam and of course the Malay community. Islam is a great faith and had withstood far greater challenges like the Mongols. So I am not concerned. For Malays however, that is a different story.

However when I see the potential that Islam can play in Malaysia and the region, I get my adrenalin rushing again!

Din, I will finish the first draft of my book by year’s end, Insha’ Allah!


Path To Islamic State: Readers’ Responses

Tuesday, June 14th, 2005

Dear Dr. Bakri:

I read your essay. It is good. I would only qualify that the so-called Hudud laws is not anywhere near Quranic teachings. It is a misreading and actually a deviation from them.
Warm regards.

Kassim Ahmad

Dear people:

This is a good article which PAS people must read.

Dr Syed Alwi
(From – reprinted with permisision)

Dear Dr. Bakri Musa:

Yesterday I read your guest column in the Sun Daily newspaper on the path towards a true Islamic state. I congratulate you for an enlightening article. Hopefully, leaders in Malaysia, both in the Government and Opposition, Muslims and non-Muslims, will read, chew, ponder and act accordingly.

You mentioned JUST laws. Very true! Few could say that our laws are just or being implemented fairly. People everywhere in the world are crying for JUSTICE – fairness, if you like. Without promoting justice among all, injustice will be the consequence, and the innocent, helpless, uneducated, and defenseless will suffer.

Men who attain power tend to abuse it to satisfy their egoistic tendencies, and to trample on the disadvantaged and defenseless. History is strewn with such examples, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Man forgets himself once he is intoxicated with power. And then there are those who lust for power, using all sorts of trickery to obtain it. Once they attain power, they rule with an iron hand and will brook no opposition or resistance from the subjects. The people are subjected to all sorts of abuses. Some will run away and become refugees and seek political asylum; but many others suffer in silence, accepting injustice as their fate.

You said, “When corruption is tolerated and the religious police zealously prey on the young for holding hands or not wearing tudung, then the leaders have lost their moral compass.” How true! You have said it! The question is how to rectify and set the “compass” in the right direction? As I said, once leaders get into power, they forget themselves. They are drunk, literally!

There is a pathetic attitude of closing one eye and shutting the other, when corruption is rampant and nothing is done to stem it. No number of Institutes of Integrity will change the mind-set, unless some definitive ACTIONS follow pronouncements. The time has come when the preaching must stop and ACTION must follow. Without action no words will eradicate or minimize corruption.

Punishing young couples who are deeply in love for holding hands shows lack of insensitivity and smacks of intolerance. It also says that the raiding officials are very righteous. It is the same with wearing or not wearing a tudung. It is a personal decision. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that wearing tudung in desert areas is understandable because of the blowing sand.

I believe these officials should instead go after the drug addicts and try to rehabilitate them. These enforcement officers should go after the rapists, robbers and thieves. These are criminals worth going after. The reason these police officers do not go after these criminals is that they are tough nuts to crack. Those innocent young couples are easy target. As you said, our leaders have lost their moral compass. You have put it nicely!

Again, you have put it clearly when you said proponents of Islam Hadhari are putting the cart before the horse. Getting rid of poverty, giving education, reinforcing justice, and eradicating corruption are the burning issues and should have priority over the other trivial issues. We should tackle the URGENT and MOST IMPORTANT problems and issues FIRST. They touch the lives of very many people.

Yes, the Royal Commission Report on the Police is out. There are many important and BIG things to be tackled first. Going after the small bribes taken by the police and ignoring or taking lukewarm actions against the BIG looters is akin to barking up the wrong tree. Is enough being done to nab the big sharks? Taking firm action against the ikan bilis sends the wrong signal. Making examples of the small man is injustice in itself.

The International Perception Index on Corruption for Malaysia has worsened, not improved. Though it is just a perception, people do talk and judge accordingly. Transparency is an important issue here. Recently, our former PM asked for ALL the AP (Approved Permits) holders for importing cars to be made public. I understand there are well over 66,000 APs to import cars given out. Why should their names be kept under wraps? If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to hide. This is my view. If it causes embarrassment, so be it! Let them be embarrassed. It was also reported that the former PM was angry that his son’s name was mentioned. Why be unfair to him and to his son only? Reveal all the names; and check who received more than their fair share of this lucrative cake! Is it because of fear of political repercussions because some deserving ones did not get any AP license? If so, who is responsible for that? Here TRANSPARENCY is the issue; being OPEN is the criteria.

I understand that the national car (Proton) sales could be affected because of the influx of imported cars under APs. Well, where does the national interest lie? National interest demands that the nation must come first, well above self-interest, and also well above partisan interest. The “moral compass” is out of focus and should be set right, for the sake of the NATIONAL interest.

This is a test case of TRANSPARENCY. We cannot hide behind the curtain of the Official Secrets’ Act; and say it is top secret. Here national interest is involved. Here transparency is involved. Do we dare to be transparent in this and other instances?

If the list is not revealed, suspicion will be the order of the day. To kill it, OPENNESS is the only solution.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

S.H. Huang

Hello Bakri and Din:

You both make very good points, and thank you very much for sharing this with me. Din’s points especially resonate with me.

We must not allow UMNO a free hand to make pronouncements without dialogue and debate with its coalition partners and members of civil society (NGOs like Sisters in Islam, Suaram, et. al). We must encourage these sleeping partners in BN to wake up from their stupor and speak their minds. UMNO must listen to the NGOs before it is too late and we have a repeat of May 13, 1969. So, Indian and other non- Muslim leaders in BN must speak up now! How long do you think Malaysians can keep mum before they implode?

I am leaving in a few days for the PAS muktamar (convention) and to do research and fieldwork up there. I am thoroughly depressed; my research assistants and I attended a number of fora lately: “Bahaya Islam Liberal” (Dangers of Liberal Islam); before that, the more politely worded but similar sentiments with academic bigots, this time at UIA [Islamic University]. Preceding both we have the IKD forum organized with Mujahid Yusuf Rawa and Zainah Anwar.

Oh god! My own young research assistants are ready to emigrate – and they are Muslim Malays who enjoy the haven and heaven of Ketuanan Melayu! So things must be really scary. Yet no one speaks up! I did at the one meeting where I met you Din (but you left early, I thinks, at the break) when I said, “Don’t tell us non-Muslims to shut up, we have every right to speak about the Shari’a because it impacts us!” I described how, but right that night someone from the Muslim Professional’s Forum asked how to “get even” with me.

Take care, both you good gentlemen! I am trying to get over a bad bout of flu.

Pat M

Dear Dr Bakri:

I think this is excellent and I hope the Sun will publish it. I am sitting here in Melbourne trying to write my column for this week and am too depressed to think of anything. This past week Kelantan, the state that cannot protect its people from typhoid, has announced mandatory premarital HIV testing for all Muslim couples. (Note: this is a not a PAS initiative, it started in Johor and is spreading despite our attempts to counter it). It is unjust and leads to more injustices because of the stigma and discrimination attached to AIDS. To me this exemplifies the state we are in now, where state religious departments are making health policy, which is the purview of the Federal government, but the Health Ministry is impotent to do anything about it. The Minister does not want to do anything when it touches on Islam, so he is allowing non-professionals to do something that will affect the health of millions of Malaysians. With mandatory testing, all we will see is more HIV, not less, as people will go underground. Twelve years of work in the HIV field and this is what we have come to, because of politics more than anything.

I am getting Dr Shad Faruqi to write a paper on the continuing encroachment of state authorities, particularly the religious departments, on Federal powers, using the mandatory premarital HIV testing as an example. It is the backdoor Islamisation of the administration which our people are not even seeing.

Even Australia under a no-class bloke like Howard is getting to look more attractive than home at the moment.

Thanks and regards,


Dear Dr. Bakri Musa:

What a coincidence – you writing about Islamic Law and Islamic State. Attached is a brief on Hijacking of Islam by Aidid Safar. Very thought provoking but logical!

I am just beginning to read the book but I have attached a brief to whet your appetite. Hopefully I can finish reading the book soon.


Thanks Bakri. Very well put!


Dr. Bakri Musa:

Thank you for this spiritual piece.

Yes it should be that simple isn’t it? I do hate writing on Islam, laws, state, etc., and I said that oh so often to Steve Gan. But Muslims can be really strange. I sometimes do not know how we get to be this way.

I have liberal, socialist trained Muslim friends who said that non-Muslims should not get into the debate on Islam. Go figure!


Dear Dr. Bakri:

I am awed at the strength of the message you have brought in this article. You have put a voice to perhaps the silent majority in the country. What is the feedback so far? Lots of angry or supportive voices? How do you handle the negativity and threats (if any) to yourself? Is it easier because you are outside of the country?

Above all, thank you for sharing.

Take care and Salaam,


Thanks so much for the “Sun” article. Plenty of food for thought in this one, Bak.


Reprinted from
(Reprinted with permission)

US-based Malaysian Bakri Musa makes a common sense point for all to ponder: calling something Islamic does not make it so. For those who want an “Islamic state,” it is better for them to fight for the central idea of the religion, that is, justice! For without justice, a society cannot be said to be Islamic, democratic, Malaysian, compassionate, etc.

Now you can see where the fight for Islamic state/country by UMNO and PAS has misled Malaysians to. It is not a fight over spirituality/being true to the noble values of religion, but over the use of the Islamic tag in so far as to bring votes/political power. So who should be fooled?

From Anon comment #1:

This item is well thought out and I am surprised there have been no comments attached so far. Does it mean we all agree or are we all trained or brainwashed into not commenting on religious and sensitive topics. It is a sad truth of Malaysian attitudes.

Anon comment #2:

Well said, Mr. Musa! Politicians in this country have certainly learnt a major weakness of our people, that is, if you call a horse a dog at least 20 times, the horse WILL be a dog; in the minds of the majority, at least. A clever but irresponsible method of how these so-called politicians rise to the ranks of true leaders! Knowing that the Muslim society in this country are not prone to speaking up on religious topics for fear of being branded as blasphemous, these politicians have grabbed the opportunity to use this knowledge to control the mind and culture of the people. This strategy has been fully utilized by BN and the Opposition parties alike. Whether they realize it or not, this is the sorry state of affairs in Malaysia. To add to the already skewed wave, then there is the ISA in the background. It will be a long struggle to banish the use of religion to shut the people up as it is with the struggle to oust corruption from the realms of government service. No wonder Islam has lost a lot of respect in the world especially among non-Muslims when we have supposedly Muslim leaders forging the path through unIslamic methods to rule its people. These leaders wear the mask of Islam to beguile the people. Islam stands for human rights and freedom, and it takes a strong Islamic leader to free Malaysians from the chains of irresponsible politicians we have today.

Anon comment #3:

The problem with equating religion with truth is that it confuses both the believers and the non-believers. For believers, the truth is hijacked by the religion. Thus you have “we must do this because the holy book says so … and it must be true.” But the truth is, as Musa points out, is the truth, so the holly book uphold its truth! This difference in implications separates fanaticism and superstition from rational belief and objectivity.

For non-believers, they think that they cannot object to something held dear by the religious believers. For example, the wearing of tudung; this ignores the fact that the holy book never mentions the tudung, only the general principle and advice for moderation in attire, an advice which is sensible enough in any religion. The politically-inspired attire is made out to be a religious requirement, and non-believers are fooled into thinking that it comes from the religion. Between the tudung and the burqa, it is the human politicians who decide which is closer to the teachings of the holy book. So just treat and discuss it as such. Most non-Muslims will feel the topic is “too sensitive” as it pertains to religion. They forget that the central value of justice behind any religion.

So wake up!

Path To A True Islamic State

Sunday, June 12th, 2005

The Path Towards A True Islamic State

M. Bakri Musa
The Sun Daily (Malaysia) June 10, 2005

Christian cobblers do not make Christian shoes; they make good shoes, observed Martin Luther. Likewise, Islamic leaders do not craft Islamic laws, they craft just laws. An Islamic state is not one adorned with Islamic paraphernalia, rather one that is just.

Merely tagging laws as Islamic does not make them just (adil), let alone Islamic. The first imperative is that they be just. Killing is wrong not because the Quran says it is so; killing is wrong and that is why the Quran says it is wrong. The difference is not at all subtle.

Sparing philosophical waxing on the meaning of justice and being just, I will instead examine their antonyms. Injustice is like pornography, I know it when I see it, to borrow the phrase of an American jurist. There is no justice in depriving people of their freedom, nor is it just to keep them in bondage or abject poverty. Leaders who do or tolerate that cannot claim the mantle of
Islamic leadership.

Islamic laws like hudud provides for amputating the hand for thievery and
stoning to death for adultery. Their justifications are nothing more than endless recitations of some ancient Arabic texts interspersed liberally with Quranic quotations.

The basic question – Are these laws just? – is never asked. Hand amputation deprives a person the means to feed, clean and protect himself. Stoning to death is barbaric; even a rabid dog should be spared such a torture.

Nor are these laws fair. A non-Muslim caught stealing would be jailed; a Muslim, amputated. That would surely drive Muslims away from our faith.

These laws are not consistent with my concept of an All-Merciful, All-Beneficent Allah (Ar Rahman Ar Rahim).

Similarly, the closing of businesses and entertainment centers at times of the Muslim prayer would not be just to their non-Muslim owners and patrons. Non-Muslims at the time of the prophet s.a.w. respected and obeyed the Medinah Compact not because the laws were Islamic or that they were enforced by Muslims, rather those laws were just, to them as well as to Muslims.

Before enacting more Islamic laws we should first cleanse the present laws from “unIslamic” or unjust provisions. Is the Internal Security Act just?

When Muslim leaders ban books, it is not with the noble intention of protecting the minds of their followers, rather for the more sinister reasons of trying to control. Leaders, Muslims and non-Muslims, are not immune to abuse of power.

When corruption is tolerated and the religious police zealously prey on the young for holding hands or not wearing tudong instead, then the leaders have lost their moral compass.

There cannot be an Islamic state when we have rampant corruption, untrustworthy
institutions, and dishonest personnel. The recent Police Commission Report is a reminder of the ugly reality in Malaysia. The loot from corruption and breaches of trust is enormous compared to that of petty thievery. If the latter is punishable by amputation, then the former must surely be capital offences.

Ulamas must first fight corruption before they can even contemplate setting up an Islamic state.

Proponents of Islam Hadhari have it backwards; they are putting the cart before the horse. We need the Hadhari before the Islam. We need progress first: in alleviating poverty, enhancing education, enshrining liberty, and reducing corruption. Islam brought light (nur) to its believers during their Age of Darkness (Jahiliyah). The faith enlightened and emancipated its believers.

You cannot be an Islamic leader, no matter how exquisite your tajweed
(rendition of the Quran), if your people still die of typhoid because you cannot provide potable water and sewer system. You would be a great leader, Islamic and otherwise, if you could uplift them from the dehumanizing clutches of poverty through effective economic policies. Kemiskinan mendekuti kekufuran (Poverty invites impiety), goes an ancient Malay wisdom.

Our faith is progressive, inclusive, egalitarian, and above all, liberating. An Islamic leader embraces those principles; piety alone is not enough.

A nation mired in economic stagnation and its citizens in physical and moral degradation cannot be considered to be Islamic. Lift the yoke of poverty off our people, bring them light through superior education, and empower them by giving them their merdeka (liberty). This is the only path towards an Islamic state.

True Malaysian: More Readers’ Responses

Thursday, June 9th, 2005

On Being A True Malaysian: More Readers’ Responses

[Letters are arranged from the most recent]
Dear HC:

Ethnicity and religion are here to stay, but we have to find ways and means to seek common grounds for unity, and use diversity as our strength. To me nothing is more damaging and dangerous than this “us” versus “them” mindset, and using religion or any other means for differentiation. That benefits no one in Malaysia, except the politicians (in the short term to get elected and stay in power).
I often look back nostalgically to those days in 1950s and 1960s when I used to go, eat and sleep in the homes of my Chinese and Indian friends without fear of being “contaminated.” Their parents were always sensitive that I was a Muslim; they bought halal chicken and meat, and never cooked and served pork when I was their guest. I did not have to proclaim, “I am a Muslim,” as they understood and respected who I was.
My friends also used to stay at my place. There was plenty of mutual understanding and tolerance. We studied together, exchanged notes and had discussions. But my friends and I also competed in school, to be the best in our studies and in sports. We readily acknowledged who among us emerged as the champions.
Today we seem to be divided because wittingly or unwittingly, religion has become part of national politics. The British used our ethnicity to isolate us, under their “Divide and Rule” strategy, and kept us as separate communities with different economic functions. After 1969, Tun Razak emphasized national unity by making the eliminating the identification of race with economic function as one of the objectives of the NEP. Today, Malays are in business just as the Chinese and Indians. Of course, more work needs to be done to create a viable Bumiputra Industrial and Commercial Community, especially after the 1997-1998 economic crisis.
In the 1980s, the Malays were caught in the global resurgence of Islam, precipitated by the Iranian Revolution (1979). Islam became part of our politics, for which UMNO (Anwar Ibrahim in particular) and PAS ought to bear some responsibility. The MCA, MIC and other parties in the Barisan coalition were also responsible, for their apathy permitted these Islamists to exert major influence in our politics. Now we are in the era of contentious politics. That worries me a lot.
So I am wondering whether we have become entrapped by the “British trick” except we are using religion (since in the case of the Malays, Islam is synonymous with Malayness) to keep us apart. We should get back to Rukun Negara principles. Our education system should seek to promote integration, not assimilation). We need a sense of common destiny. This is vital.
I could be entirely wrong in my analysis. I welcome your take.
Best regards,
Din Merican

Hey friends (S, HC, O and S in particular):

I agree that the best way for us to have an informed discussion is to avoid making broad, unsubstantiated claims. As we all share a common goal in finding solutions to the pressing and contentious issues in Malaysia, let us proceed in a manner that seeks to promote better understanding of the issues without unnecessarily speculating.
While personal anecdotes and experiences might be helpful, we should be careful not to extrapolate and extend them to explain issues in their entirety.
As you mentioned, the twin prongs of the NEP were to reduce poverty and to eliminate the identification of race with economic function. We cannot deny that considerable progress has been made in terms of the second objective (compare the figures in 1957-1970 and 1970-2000):

Clerical & related occupations: 1970 2000
Malays 35.4% 56.8%
Chinese 45.9% 32.9%
Administrative and managerial occupations
Malays 24.1% 37%
Chinese 62.9% 52.3%

Another way of looking at employment shifts is to look at the proportion of Malays in various sectors. In 1970, 62.3% of Malays were involved in agriculture; in 2000, only 21.5%.
In terms of the first objective, progress has been made too (although some might argue that poverty levels were reduced because of economic growth rather than state policies, while others might dispute the poverty measurement method). The poverty level in 1970 was 49.3%; 1990, 7.5%; 2002, 5.1%.
We should perhaps focus on some of the negative consequences of NEP (rise in intra-ethnic disparities as opposed to inter-ethnic disparities, and the growing sense of entitlement) rather than the successes of the policy in achieving its stated objectives.
As for private sector employment, employers’ hiring standards are not based on qualifications alone. Chinese are often overrepresented in SMALLER companies because these companies frequently employ family members or recruit new trainees through informal channels on the basis of kinship. In certain companies, the socialization process is easier when workers of the same ethnic group are recruited, hence reinforcing the pattern of ethnic-based employment. In certain industries, knowledge of Mandarin and Chinese dialects is required to communicate with suppliers and clients, and educational qualifications are of less importance.
I do not necessarily believe, for the reasons mentioned above, that a fair national policy would reduce this clannishness. Historical and cultural barriers (we can thank the British) have created ethnically segmented markets that persist even as gaps in educational qualifications between ethnic groups are reduced.
Such sweeping generalizations as private sector employment being dominated by non-Bumiputra are ill-advised. Employment policies of LARGER non-Bumi corporations are monitored by the authorities and there are annual reports that have to be submitted detailing the ethnic composition of the workforce. Due to pragmatic considerations, positions at ALL levels have increasingly been filled by Malays over the years. It might interest you that in the finance industry for example, pressure from the central bank to increase Bumi employment at every level led to a competition for competent Bumi top management that “Bumiputera senior managers and technical professionals could command an economic rent of 20 to 50 per cent because of the short-term supply shortage” (Birks and Hamzah, 1988). This implies that the lack of Bumis at higher level positions is not due solely to discriminatory policies, which brings me to my next point, the claim that Malays do not secure significant professional positions in non-Bumi companies.
This can partly be explained by company policies where upward mobility is largely internal. In order to recoup the costs of training, companies prefer to limit hiring at mid-level positions and then allow employees to rise through the ranks. This strategy also helps prevent high turnover rates that could be to the company’s detriment.
A considerable number of Malays have only started to acquire industry skills recently (previously they were content with public sector employment due to the expansion of that sector in the 70s and early 80s – from 22 state-owned enterprises in 1960 to 1014 in 1985. They eventually collapsed due to inefficiency and massive losses. Thus they have limited role in preparing Malays for higher level employment in the private sector.
Let us examine the assertion that large non-Bumi corporations have been happily riding the tide of their own profitability at the expense of the poor and needy Bumiputras. How else should non-Bumi corporations respond to state policies that blatantly favor Bumis if these corporations do not collaborate with their Malay counterparts? Do you really think that the “poor and needy Bumiputras” would gain access to the contracts if those “Ali-Baba” partnerships were disbanded? Foreign firms would probably be the main beneficiaries of any reform (think about the Japanese firms who heavily profited from the Look East Policy in the 80s).
I am not denying that some people have excelled by overcoming whatever obstacles in their way. I am merely saying that similar to Bumiputera tycoons, most of the non-Bumi ones did not compete on a level playing field (as they received monopoly rights, concessions, subsidies, etc.), so they did not really make it “fair and square.”

Hello BO:

Good reply on the subject so far. It is not erroneous that Bumi participation in non-Bumi company is at the polar ends: mainly as directors or office/dispatch boys. This is decided on and dependent upon how much political connection or wealth that particular Bumi has. The rest of the Bumis … well, they just don’t (or very difficult) get significant positions in those companies.
Non-Bumi companies constitute the back bone of Malaysia’s economy. It is the law in Malaysia that non-Bumi companies hire Bumi staff (look at it as a scheme to teach them how to fish). From what we have seen, this law is being mocked by hiring Bumis only for lowly positions, while reserving managerial, professional and executive positions to non-Bumis. In short, S, if he is really from a kampung, with no wealth or political connection, will find it difficult, if not impossible to have a career in such company. Even if he made it pass the entry level, he will encounter a significant amount of discrimination in the workplace. (sorry, no PhD thesis to show you the data for this….but from personal experience and from those who has been there …)
Most Malays (those without wealth or connection) find refuge in companies like Renong, Proton, KLAS, MIMOS, etc.

Bravo B:

I almost gave up on myopic tunnel vision on the postings. They cannot even continue from or even digest a simple message from Bakri’s posting.
This is where I disagree with Bakri Musa – his assertion that the increase in the costs of projects is due to preferential policy. Bumiputras are not solely to be blamed for this; they do not have a strong grip of the core of the supply chain. The rent seekers among them (which constitute a minority), instead of taking the opportunity to build their business, take the easy route of being merely “proxies” to the non-Bumi companies, which in turn end up doing the bulk of the work and thus reap the bulk of the profit.
If one were to blame the poor and corrupt implementation of this NEP, one has to look at not just the government but also the non-Bumi large corporations that have been happily riding the tide of their own profitability at the expense of poor and needy Bumiputras.
This is just one example on how the Bumi policy has been turned around to benefit the non-Bumis. I have more to say about this issue, and several others, raised in these discussions, but I am to bogged down with work to do any writing. God willing, I will do so in the near future.


I think you could be misleading N by putting too much faith in the Malaysian private sector. You ought to be more critical about Malaysian private institutions; they too are heavily dependent on the government. Look at their moribund performance on the KLSE.
The quality of private universities here too is suspect. Malaysian universities, private or public, pale in comparison to Harvard, Stanford or Yale. To me, the ownership of a university is not relevant. I know of some state universities in the US that are as good, for example, Michigan and the University of California. It is the culture of the institution that matters to me.
We must be frank about the prevalent culture of mediocrity and conformity (bodekism) here in Malaysia. N deserves some help. He wants to come back; that is laudable, but he has some reservations. I have written him expressing a view which may sound unpatriotic.
On balance, N should stay in the US to get more experience before returning home. Nothing is more dangerous that a young man who is disillusioned with the system.
There have been numerous instances where brilliant scientists who answered our government’s call to return home and contribute; and they have been disappointed. I know a few who have come back and have now gone elsewhere including nearby Singapore. Dr. Bakri Musa too has similar experience (please read his book, The Malay Dilemma Revisited). Of course, there is no publicity in the press about the fate of Malaysian expats.
Din Merican

Dear S and HC:

It is erroneous to say that non-Bumi companies are willing to take Bumis only as drivers for the CEO unless you are trying to convince me that drivers make up 20-30percent of the workforce. In that case, almost every company staff member (including the tea lady and office boy) would be chauffeur-driven. Unlike traditional paternalistic family firms, most of the large organizations that you mentioned have Bumiputeras in high-level positions. Here are a few examples:

YTL directors: YB Dato’ (Dr) Yahya bin Ismail, YB Mej Jen (B) Dato Haron bin Mohd Taib, Syed Abdullah bin Syed Abd Kadir
Berjaya directors: Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Din, Dato Suleiman Bin Mohd Noor, Dato Hj Mohd Yusoff bin Jaafar, Mohd Zain bin Ahmad, Dato Mohd Annuar Bin Zaini
Genting deputy chairman: Tun Mohammed Hanif bin Omar

Many of the successful Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in Malaysia have not been immune to the system of political patronage. Over the years, it has become increasingly clear that a substantial number of non-Bumi tycoons have benefited from crony capitalism and inefficient rent-seeking behaviors.
Dear HC:

Our system can be better and fairer. To me, helping the Malays does not mean that we must deny other citizens the chance to enter university, or to sacrifice the quality of our education system. Both are not mutually exclusive. Malays need help, but they should never misuse the system and waste taxpayers’ money (non Malays too pay taxes and lots of it!!).
University education should be for those who can satisfy a set of academic criteria which must be applied as impartially as it is possible. In addition to the usual academic criteria, there must be a means test in the award of scholarships. The rich or well connected Malays, for example, must start paying for their children’s university education and not get a free ride because of their special status. Those who are given loans to further their education at university must pay back to free resources for others. That is the duty and commitment of the borrowers.
Academic brilliance is not the monopoly of any single race. There must be equal opportunity. America is a good example of upward mobility based on merit. People there have a chance to live the American dream through hard work and grit, as N C and Dr. Bakri Musa will tell you.
I am sure Dr. Bakri will respond to all the e-mails he has received on his True Malaysian article. I am glad that Dr Bakri has the courage to pen his thoughts on what is obviously a very contentious topic. You should visit his website
Best regards,
Din Merican

Dear All:
I believe one should take a look at the whole big picture, not only at the academic point of view (which is just a small part of the world) but from the business, trading and commerce perspectives.
First, the number of Bumiputera is more than non-Bumiputera, so obviously positions held or space allocated in the university to Bumiputera will definitely be more. Why is there injustice that if allocation is based on the race ratio? Look at the tycoons in business: Genting, Sunway Group, Thai Thong, timber tycoons, YTL group, property tycoons, all Chinese; while Maxis and Astro are Indian. I notice that none of these organizations willingly take a Malay or Bumiputera in their organization, except as a driver to the CEO. This is a fact. The managers in these organizations hire their own kind.
There are many Chinese tycoons even though they are not well educated, but they are tycoons nonetheless. My friend’s father-in-law is a timber tycoon, and my ex-secondary classmate married nephew of YTL Group and had her wedding at Marriot Hotel, a grand wedding. Some Malays just have their wedding by the roadside with tents.
These large non-Bumi organizations which dominate the economy should give a helping hand to those poorly-educated Bumiputeras, by hiring them, or perhaps sponsor them. The NEP is necessary to close the income gap between Bumis and non-Bumis. If the government does not do anything about it, it will only get worse. The whole nation cannot move forward and be a developed country because there are people who are left behind and be a drag on the economy. We have to see the big picture.
I am glad that you have a sense of belonging to Malaysia, and maybe you can use your doctorate to help the poor people in Malaysia and reduce the income gap and eventually abolish the NEP.

Dear N:

The key to returning home is to be in the private sector. How, I do not know. The private sector is vibrant back home.
Perhaps the way to reform higher education is through strengthening private institutions. Consider the fact that Stanford, as well as Harvard, Yale and most of the top institutions in the States are private. The key is to have private universities as well as research institutions that can get government funding.
Let us discuss how this would be possible.

Dear Dr. Bakri:
I would like to comment on your article. Your thesis is that non-Bumiputera (henceforth NB) do not “feel like true Malaysians” because they are denied special privileges. I believe this thinking is flawed.
I hope to return to my home country on finishing my doctorate here. I am not too concerned about the financial impact of returning (with at best an 80 percent pay differential even adjusted for cost-of-living disparity), nor the fact that I will not be able to do the kind of work that interests me because the industry in Malaysia is insufficiently developed for the kind of technical work I enjoy. What concerns me greatly is that I will not be able to contribute my skills and (mediocre) talent to the progress of our country. I fear the skin ceiling, of not being able to make an impact and be given significant responsibility commensurate with my abilities, thus invalidating my reason for returning.
I believe many NBs currently residing abroad share my apprehension. The roots of our concern lie not in policies that promote the advancement of Bumiputeras, instead in the propagation of policies and ideas that tout the idea of dominance (Kedaulatan/Ketuanan Melayu).
Let me start with an example in our local universities. We all know the famous Terrence Gomez and K.S. Jomo case. Let us disregard them for a moment and look at the organization of our most celebrated institution, University Malaya. Of 12 departments, there are only 2 NB deans, one Indian and one Chinese. Similar numbers persist for Assistant Deans and other academic positions. Such a trend exists for nearly every local public university. I do not believe that there is any NB Chancellors or Vice Chancellors of local public universities (I may be wrong).
I really struggle to believe that there is such a disparity in academic prowess and/or administrative ability that there is not more representative distribution of responsibilities. Does this race-based provision in our local public universities do anything to advance the lot of Bumiputeras? Some might argue that they serve the same function as the rise of the Bumiputera business technocrat in the 1990s, that of role-model and inspiration. Of course, I fail to see how this idea holds water. How does the appointment into an important academic position of someone with little research productivity save a doctorate from, say, Kalamazoo State, inspire the next generation of Bumiputera academicians?
The same argument applies to most of our local institutions. There are some who explain the lack of NB participation in the civil service and other non private-sector institutions as an example that NBs are not interested in serving the nation and are only concerned with making money. That argument disgusts me. I firmly believe that it is not the lack of patriotism that prevents NBs from pursuing such a career, it is the not unfounded conception that one would spend the rest of one’s life doing inconsequential work, not because of one’s ability or lack thereof, but because of policies that promote the idea of dominance, not equanimity.
My point is that we should be careful to appreciate the subtleties of these policies, a point you do not make in your article. We should also recognize that there are both explicit and implicit special privileges, and it is precisely the latter, and not the former, that the majority of the disenfranchised overseas Malaysians despise. I am all for policies, especially in education, that strive to better the lot of Bumiputeras. What I and others fear is the propagation of policies that promote Bumiputera dominance, and that will alienate non-Bumiputeras and prevents them from being true Malaysians. Your article mentions that we should not let others determine our identity as Malaysians. How can we not when these policies have sunk so deeply into our national psyche that they are now not merely edicts, but a culture?
You mentioned that those of us who attend elite institutions or who are otherwise successful despite nongovernmental help, have successfully breached policies of special privileges and thus should not be concerned about these policies as we never needed them anyway (if I read you correctly). As mentioned, we are not immune to the effects of special privileges even though we have thrived despite of it.
Let me end by saying that I do not and never have believed, that Malays want this idea of a rightful dominance. Instead it is a dangerous idea espoused by a few in power and we must not allow it to thrive.
My other point is more personal. Like many others, I have been fortunate to receive substantial financial support from American institutions for my education. When all is said and done, I estimate that the total amount I will have received is in excess of US$400,000. I should owe a far greater debt, and feel more attachment to America for the opportunities which I have been privileged to enjoy, as well as the opportunities which will hopefully await me upon graduation. Yet I irrationally feel, at my heart’s core, a strong attachment to my home country, an infatuation with her and her people that persuades me to sacrifice much in the future in a vainglorious attempt to bring about some good in the country of my birth. However this desire will be for naught if I am convinced that I cannot bring about any progress, and share in the future of my country, despite my best efforts, because of the color of my skin. I believe I am not alone in this, and that many of our country’s best feel the same way. It is this that disillusion, not the 5 percent discount in the purchase of a house given to Bumiputra buyers.

Sdr Bakri,

I was on medical leave for a while after my eye surgery. It went well and I am now recovering fast. Of course I still stick to old rules like avoiding certain foods and to take my beta-carotene tablets, and Chinese medication. I can tell you that I am having my sight back. Thanks to modern technology, but above all, to Almighty God.
I read your article with interest. I have been away from home for about 20 years. I share some, if not all of your views. We have our own complexes: superior, inferior, or other. One thing I do not agree is that someone would forget his or her childhood language. This is something built in, psychologists or linguists will tell you that it is intrinsic, within you. It is not something I will forget even if I live in a remote world for a very long time, I may forget certain technical words, but I will never forget my language. I completely disagree with your Chinese fan.
I have studied 911 events and talked with Americans on the subject. I would reserve my comments, but the “cave man” is incapable of orchestrating such an event as 911. It was just too complex; it required the cooperation of so many departments and organizations. My own conclusion is contrary to the official story, so our cave man is not the culprit even though I am not a conspiracy theory maniac.
When I was in UK 30 years ago, I was approached by an English man who said to me that we Malays were so privileged. He had been fed that propaganda by many Malaysian Chinese. I asked him what was the ratio of Malay and Chinese students abroad before the NEP? Of course he did not know. Well, it was 1:5 or so in favor of the Chinese.
We all have our own little experiences. Now I am back home I cannot accept this notion of whether you are a “true” or “not true” Malaysian. There is no such thing anyway. Just be a Malaysian, that is all, do not distinguish people by the word “true.” I am a Malaysian alright, there is no “true” in it. Just like we have problems with some members of the Islamic Party (PAS) who say that their Islam is the true Islam, so they are true Muslims, others are not “true” Muslims. Come on, only God can say that.
I am now studying into another big subject of my interest, Kundalini.
So, all the best to you and your family, keep up the good work.
Best regards. Wassalam. Note: If you were to Americanize your name, you should use Moses Baker!

Din Merican’s Review of Mahbubani’s book

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

Dear Brothers Mushahid and Bakri:

I have just finished reading Kishore Mahbubani’s Beyond The Age of
(Cambridge, Mass: PublicAffairs, 2005). Although I would
dispute the use of the word “Innocence” when it is used with regard
to US Foreign Policy, I like his overall message.

It is, in my view, an excellent personal tour de force on foreign
policy befitting his standing as one of Singapore’s outstanding
diplomats. Well written in simple and direct English (I did not have
to use the Oxford Dictionary at all) and carefully researched, Kishore
is at his subtle best, balancing the need to be politically proper,
and the need to honestly state his position on US relations with the
rest of the world.

His chapter on “America and Islam” is one of the best I have seen
written and read by a non-Muslim intellectual-scholar on the state of
US relations with the Islamic World. I fully endorse his view that the
US must cultivate relations with the moderate and liberal Islamic
states on a long term basis. Condi Rice should take heed.

Modern and moderate Muslims, and I quote him (page 73)”as follows:

…”want their societies to be economically and politically compatible
with the West [US and Europe, I add], while remaining in social and
spiritual terms true to their Islamic heritage. In short, they want to
trigger both the equivalent of a renaissance and a rationalist
enlightened movement in the Islamic world. They would make ideal
partners with the West. But the West has not helped them. In stead the West has in recent decades helped those who suppress them”. America continues to support repressive regimes in the Middle East, for example.

Countries like Pakistan (it has been used and then ignored by the US too often), Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia have been somewhat marginalized because American interests have been diverted elsewhere in the pursuit of its narrow national interest as the remaining sole superpower. America will not broach any competitor. America must learn to be a reliable partner as this is the only way that trust can be built with the rest of the world.

I strongly recommend Kishore’s book to you. Regards, Din

True Malaysian: Readers’ Responses

Sunday, June 5th, 2005

On Being A True Malaysian: Readers’ Responses
[Note: Responses have been edited for clarity and brevity. MBM]

Dear Bakri:
It is a long article, but I will pose some questions.
I am curious at your statement on not extending these privileges to those of other races and restricting them only to poor Bumiputras. Most of the people I know advocate extending assistance to all in need regardless of race. They are not asking for “special privileges,” because they have seen the sinister outcome of nourishing a crutch mentality. If we remove race from all of our policies, that will go a long way to mitigate the animosity that exists among the different ethnic groups today. Note that Bumiputras will still benefit most under this new proposal, if you contend that they are the largest group of the underprivileged, and by corollary they would be the largest recipients of such assistance.
On the question of being able to speak Malay, is it mandatory to be able to speak it for one to be a Malaysian? It would be in your best interest to, but I am not sure that it is a requirement for your “Malaysian-ness.” Much like it is in your best interest to be able to speak Spanish and, alas also English, in California, but it is not mandatory. The question on the minds of many Chinese is, “What do I gain by studying Malay? Would it improve my chance of getting into school, of advancing in government institutions?” The sad fact is that most Chinese have been disillusioned by the reality, so many of them do not care much about studying the language. In no small measure this is a protest to the racial policies.

Dear Bakri:
I tend to agree with HC. I do not think that non-Bumis are asking for special privileges, just equal opportunity based of merits and economic background.

Dear Bakri:
That will only happen when race is no longer a consideration in Malaysia. Right now, I’ll just join you, arm in arm, in our dreams.

Dear Bakri:
I think we should also be truthful with ourselves. If “special privileges” is a term applied only to Bumiputras (pardon my ignorance but I cannot be sure that it applies only to them), then let us just face the truth head on and call it “racial discrimination.” I am too, for getting rid of race as a policy and simply providing more assistance to ALL under-privileged people, regardless of race. Then, whether you restrict or extend it is not my concern. The race card is the true Malaysian dilemma, and it need not be so. Underneath our skin, we are all equal in the eyes of God/Allah. I consider that I have Malaysian characteristics, for example, in the kinds of food I enjoy, but I have never considered myself a “true Malaysian” nor do I aspire to be one, whatever that means. I have often imagined what Malaysia would be like if we were all treated equally and fairly as simply Malaysians.
I will continue to pray for such a day to come. You may say that I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one.

Dear Bakri:
Quite the contrary, I think when Malaysia has reached the enlightened state of being race-blind, we can freely call ourselves Malaysian or Malaysian-XXX, whatever that suits your fancy. Until then, obliterating your ethnic background will not achieve anything positive, just look at how the Indonesian Chinese are being treated. They speak Indonesian, adopt Indonesian names, even convert to Islam, and what is the result? They are despised and persecuted more for losing their dignity. I say be proud of your heritage and stand up for your rights. The Jews were being persecuted for thousands of years, yet never backed down and forsake their heritage and identity. That’s courage and perseverance.
I am glad you stated your points clearly. Being Malaysian is a state of mind. I could be something else, even an American the way an immigrant Pole or Italian is, and it would not have made much difference to me as a person.
In today’s world, one’s nationality is increasingly irrelevant. But I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as being patriotic (which I define as being loyal to one’s country and being willing to put one’s life on the line in defense of the country). My stakes are in Malaysia and I will be loyal to and defend my country. All citizens should.
I am a mixed bag of racial blood (my mom was from Sri Lanka of Tamil descent, my Dad’s father was half Chinese, and my paternal grandmother was a Malay Bugis). I am Malay, my faith is Islam, and I am a Muslim. I have also been labeled a “Mamak.” That is not going to change either as far as I am concerned. Since I was born in Malaya, that made me a Malayan, and when Malaya became Malaysia in 1963, I was classified as a Malaysian, and now I carry a Malaysian passport. If I decide to live in Australia, after a while I can become an Australian. As a citizen of Australia I would defend her as any other Australian. And it would not make any difference as to who am I. I am still a Muslim and a Malay (and a Mamak too!!).
My daughter, 13, is French by nationality because of her French-Cambodian mother, although she was born in Singapore. I never objected to that, and have no regrets. Let us forget about labels. We should no longer worry what others label us, my dear friend.
Your father Allahyarham Pak Musa taught you to have an open mind because he could see the future, although he could not articulate (no one else could) what the 21st century would be like. But Pak Musa acted on his instincts. He molded you to be different and gave you the encouragement and courage to be different. What a difference that has made to you. You are good human being, a Malay, a Muslim, and a successful professional doctor and surgeon. Your Malaysian nationality has not prevented you from living your life the way you saw fit. Even if you were American, you are still a Malay and a Muslim.
Din Merican

Dear Bakri:
Basically, the question I would like to throw is: How far should we go with the ideal of a race-blind Malaysia?
Two things: We do not need one bland culture or identity to be race-blind; we can celebrate our differences without being prejudiced of one another. That is the sociology textbook definition of NOT being racist. Affirmative action should be abolished not for the sake of the non-Bumis but for the sake of the people who are receiving it. This is only according to the philosophy of teaching the hungry how to fish instead of simply giving them a fish. This has been Dr. Mahathir’s dilemma for a long time. Those waiting for a handout from the government will never learn to be competitive.
Please keep in mind that this is not a problem of one race or culture, it is simply a folly of human behavior. Ironically, I had to leave Malaysia to really begin loving it. You never know what you have till it’s gone!

Dear Dr. Bakri:

Thank you for sharing that. I believe that I am a “child of the universe….” Asking who is more Malaysian is just like asking who is more Muslim. We can also ask: Are you a “true” Malay? We are just born that way.
There have been times when I felt ashamed to be Malay. At times I even wished that I was a mixture of say, Chinese! I would probably have been fairer, cleverer, luckier and better off. But having entered the fifth decade of being “me,” I have no choice but to accept me for being who I am: a Malay, a Malaysian, and a Muslim.
As for my children, I can only hope that they will become even better citizens, having had the advantage of living in several parts of the UK, Ireland and elsewhere. My eldest daughter, K, was born in Cairo 27 years ago, but she is Malay, 100 percent! She married a kampong boy and is expecting a baby sometime in September, God Willing! My eldest son, A, had decided since he was a little boy that he will someday marry a “rich” woman. I do not think race or even nationality has any bearing. My youngest son, AA, aspires to be a neurosurgeon and thinks he will one day marry a “Mat Salleh” lady. My daughter, A, is getting engaged next month to her “Best friend” who looks 90 percent Chinese. His father is a Sabahan-Chinese Muslim convert. They are both reading Medicine in the UK. Oh, my number four, H, has been going steady with his high school sweetheart of Javanese origin.
Back in 1993 when we had to return to Malaysia for good, we were so unhappy. So who can rightly say that you are not a “true” Malaysian? Isn’t there the whole wide world to live and work? If you were not a Malaysian, I do not think that you would even bother to write regularly about our homeland. You have published your very own books. How many of us have done that? We all here are the katak bawah tempurong (frog beneath a coconut shell) while you with your brilliant ideas and suggestions are out there. You perceive things differently. It would not have been the case if you were living here permanently. In your heart, you are STILL a Malaysian, and always will be.
P.S: I saw some people cutting down the rambutan trees at your late parent’s house recently.

Dear Bakri:

My ideal Malaysia is exactly what the Tourism Department is trying to sell, “Malaysia, the True Asia,” where the different cultures are celebrated. Let Malaysia forms its own identity by way of natural evolution, not with artificial and arbitrary dictation from any group of people.

Dear Dr. Bakri Musa:

Interesting article! Here are my thoughts.
On the question of nationality or religion there can be no leeway, either you are a Muslim or you are not; likewise, either you are a Malaysian or you are not. There is no such category as a better Muslim or true Malaysian. What constitutes a better Muslim or a true Malaysian? As long as you subscribe to the five pillars of Islam, then you are a Muslim. Likewise, as long as you carry a Malaysian Identity Card or passport, then you are a Malaysian.
To me the question is best answered by the individual. Am I a Malaysian or am I not? The test is how you feel about your identity. Some are embarrassed to admit that they are Malaysians or Muslims, thus arises the issue of being a true Malaysian or Muslim. If the person carries a Malaysian passport but does not consider himself or herself a true Malaysian, then what nationality is that person? If the person does not feel that he or she is a true Malaysian then I suggest he or she should give up his or her Malaysian citizenship and apply to be the citizen of the country that he or she feels best suited or where he or she can be proud to be identified with.
The other issue is rights versus privileges. All Malaysians have the same rights except some are accorded certain privileges. Not having these privileges does not make a person any less of a Malaysian. To vote and live in Malaysia is a right to all Malaysians; these cannot be withdrawn. Privileges can be withdrawn at any time. The dissatisfaction over privileges will not happen if they are accorded to those deserving and not to those well connected. Take the example of scholarships given to children of ministers. They can well afford the fees and tuition. This is an abuse of the privileges. More importantly such abuses deprive the more deserving students of a chance.
Then there is the issue of implementation. The government needs to clearly delineate the policies of its various departments. We have JPA giving out scholarships and we also have MARA doing the same. We should clearly define that JPA gives scholarships to all deserving Malaysians and let MARA handle only the Malays or Bumiputras. MARA should be like the Bureau of Indian Affairs if you want to take it that far. When you have two government agencies duplicating their efforts then there will be more waste and inefficiency. JPA should offer scholarships based on the population ratio and let MARA take up the slack for Bumiputras or Malays.
To date few have questioned the efforts of MARA to alleviate the economic status of Malays and Bumiputras. Malaysians have accepted the role of MARA in the advancement of Malays and Bumiputras. MARA on the other hand needs to focus on activities that best meet these objectives and refrain from others that are not productive in the furthering those objectives. Currently we have enough colleges under MARA to accommodate Malays in higher education. MARA also needs to realize that there should be meritocracy in accepting Malays for its colleges as well. Not all Malays are college material, and not all Malays need college education. Some are more suited for farming; others are more interested in technical skills and vocational studies. Not everyone should get a degree. When our car breaks down, do we get an automotive engineer to fix it or do we get a mechanic?
Admissions to MARA colleges also flawed. Selection criteria need to be changed and should be based on need rather than demographics. There are more deserving Malays from the rural areas that are deprived of an opportunity to further themselves. I have personally met and interviewed them.
On the subject of merit, top ranking colleges and universities in the US have no problem getting the top SAT and GPA scorers for their freshman class. But through my experience as International Student Advisor and Director of Student Services, these universities would like to have diversity of talent and leadership qualities from their freshman class. The universities know they can deliver a sound education, so the question for them is what can the applicant brings to the campus apart from their academic scores. Usually the Director of Admissions will have the applicant write a short essay on why he/she should be accepted and what skills or special qualities he/she will bring to campus.
Being a Malaysian and living in the US does not make me any less Malaysian. Otherwise why do I pay so much attention to what is going on in Malaysia? Residency does not determine my nationality or my patriotism. I chose the US for both economic reason as well as educational opportunities for my children.
Yes there is a price to pay. Just like you, I have been labeled Melayuka or Malay American. There is a certain amount of envy among Malays but if given the chance, they too will be the first to grab the opportunity to live in the US. There is the other issue of “Malayism” that holds Malays back from venturing abroad en mass, and that is the kampong mentality, the adat and pepatah, and the false sense of security in numbers.
I remember my uncles and aunties saying “Kau nak pergi duduk di Amerika? Macam mana kalau sakit pening? Siapa nak jaga kau?” [You want to live in America? Who is going to take care of you when you are sick?”] My answer is Allah. Allah will take care of me, but under my breath I say that in the US there are hospitals to take of the sick people. Even in Malaysia when we are sick, do our relatives care for us?
This topic is interesting and I can talk or write forever but suffice to say that living in LA has not made me any less of a Malaysian or Muslim.
Wassalam and best regards,