By Mohamed Sidek Ahmad

(Paper presented at a two-day seminar honoring the late legal giant Ahmad Ibrahim, sponsored by the Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) held on August 21-22 at Kuala Lumpur:  “Ahmad Ibrahim : Pemikiran Dan Sumbangan Ilmiah”  (Ahmad Ibrahim:  His Thoughts and Academic Contributions)

(Posted with kind permission of the author.)

(Second of Two Parts)

[Note:  I had intended to post every Tuesday a series of essays honoring the late Ahmad Ibrahim presented at the above seminar.  However after giving me its initial permission to do so, IKIM decided to withdraw it.  This second part, published with permission of the author, concludes what would have been a series.  MBM]

Contributions to Malaysia and Singapore

            Indeed Allahyarham was no ordinary man; his achievements legendary.  His academic excellence is well known.  He worked in almost every facet of the legal profession and was an expert in all fields of law.

            He loved both Malaysia and Singapore.  He never abandoned the country of his birth.  He returned frequently to offer his academic services and advice, and to keep in touch with family and friends.  He of course had many memories of Singapore.

            He was part of the Singapore delegation that negotiated Singapore’s entry into Malaysia, and later Singapore’s independence in 1965.  He also drafted the water treaty with Malaysia on behalf of Singapore.  And of course he could never forget the famous Natra Case where Maria Hertogh was returned to her natural parents after a custody battle.

            Questions had always been asked as to why he left Singapore and migrated to Malaysia, and whether it was because of conflict with Lee Kuan Yew, or some other reasons.  We will never know why.  But privately he said that he had no quarrel with Lee Kuan Yew and that they still talked to each other.

            Upon his death the Singapore government sent an official letter to my mother, expressing deep sorrow over the loss of someone who had contributed so much to Singapore.

            Representatives from the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura attended the funeral.  Posthumously, my father was honored as one of the 10 “Tokoh Melayu/Islam” in Singapore.  His photograph and biography are on permanent display at the Perkampungan Melayu at Geylang Serai as well as at the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura’s offices.

            Several mosques in Singapore including that country’s main mosque Masjid Sultan held Jenazah Ghaib (funeral in absentia) prayers for him.

Great Piety and Personal Discipline

            Ahmad Ibrahim was a deeply religious man.  When living in Singapore it was his habit to go to the Baalwi Mosque every Thursday evening.  This was a practice he carried over to Malaysia when he moved here where he would attend the rhatib held at private homes in rotations.

            From my own observation, he would wake up every morning before fajr prayers to perform the Tahajud prayer.  He always performed the five daily prayers on time.  Most UIA students at the old Petaling Jaya campus will remember my father as being the first to arrive at the mosque for the fajr prayers.  He generally worked seven days a week.

            Before setting out for the office every day, he would recite the Surah Al Waqiah and a few other surahs.  He did this without fail.  He read from a kitab that is very old, yellowish, and tattered, which according to my grandmother, he had been reading since he was young.  Strangely and also sadly until today we are unable to locate that kitab.  It seems to have disappeared with his death.

            My father would come home for lunch every day to eat my mother’s cooking.  No matter where he worked he would always return home for lunch.  But that is not to say we never eat out.  We often went out for dinners, especially when we were celebrating a family member’s birthday or other occasions.

            Allahyarham enjoyed eating and had no pantang concerning any food.  Many asked me about his diet and how he managed to stay healthy.  Everyone knows he had taken virtually no medical leave.  Well, there is no special diet that he followed.  Breakfast was usually tea with eggs and toast, except on Sunday when it was roti canai, nasi lemak etc.

            Lunch and dinner were usually curry with mutton.  Despite eating mutton almost daily, he actually had low blood pressure!  He also always ate honey, dates, milk, and juices.

            My father never placed much importance on money or luxury.  He was a simple man.  When he died his personal car was an old Nissan.  He never owned more than one pair of shoes at a time.  He never wanted to owe anyone any money.  He bought everything in cash and avoided debt.  Even properties were bought in cash.  Most of his money was kept in non-interest bearing current account.

            For all the immense talent he had, he did not die a very rich man by today’s standard.  He was never the director of any company.  To him there were many other things more important than wealth.

            He practiced a strict code of personal conduct when it came to using company resources.  He was scrupulous in ensuring that there would be no commingling of professional and personal affairs and assets, even if this led to duplications of resources.  This meant having two cars and two drivers, an extravagance to some people but a matter of principle to him.  The official driver and car allocated were used only for official and work-related purposes.  He had his own car and driver for personal use.  The official car was parked not at home but at the office. For personal purposes, such as going to the mosque, weddings, shopping or going on holiday, the personal driver and personal car were used.

            My father made it a point to attend weddings when invited but would often remark he would rather be invited to the akad nikah ceremony than the bersanding as is the norm.

            He was always very positive in his attitude and thinking.  He never wished for anything bad to happen, and always told us not to wish for bad things and never say or think we were sick and never to look at the negative side of things.  Yet I had never seen him read any motivational books or seen any in the library.

            Ahmad Ibrahim was also an avid sportsman in his younger days, playing football and badminton.  He liked to watch football on TV, especially the English League.  He was a supporter of Liverpool.

            Major decisions were never made hastily.  He always said he needed to sleep on it before coming to a decision.

            Allahyarham was very much influenced by many thinkers and scholars.  One such scholar is Muhammad Iqbal, particularly the book “Reconstruction of Religious Thought”.  When I was in London he wrote to me saying this book was one of the first book he read while living in England as a student.  It was fitting that the Government of Pakistan awarded him the Allama Muhammad Iqbal Medal in 1979.

            Being in the legal profession like my father exposed me to many of his former students; all have stories of him.  There are too many for me to detail but one stands out in my mind.  This concerns a former law student of University Malaya who was just an average student.  He asked my father for a letter of recommendation for his application to join a law firm, a request my father was happy to oblige.  That former student used the letter to apply for a job at one of the biggest law firms in Kuala Lumpur, which at that time took in only the brilliant students.  He was accepted and was later told that he got the job solely on the strength of the reference letter from Prof Ahmad Ibrahim.  His former course mates were all surprised he managed to secure the reference letter.  Even the former student too was surprised, and when he asked my father about it one day, he was told simply:  “Because you needed it!”

            Before I end my speech I would like to quote a cliché. Being one however does not make it any less true:  Behind every successful man is a woman.  This is so in the case of my mother, Salma Binte Mohamed Tahir, who had given my father constant support and companionship for the 57 years they were together.  Only the family knows how loving a couple they were.

            She was a wonderful wife to him.  She always deferred to him, allowed him to make all the decisions, and was always supportive and never contradictory.  She was able to run the household successfully and concocted for him many excellent meals that enabled him to focus and devote his time on the contributions he had made to the religion and the nation.

            She was of course a fantastic mother to us, her children.  Salma Binte Mohamed Tahir passed away on 17 March this year.  May Allah forgive them both and shower blessings and have mercy on their souls.

Thank you!

[First posted on Malaysia-Today.net on September 2, 2007]

While still savoring the euphoria of the 50^th Merdeka celebration, this thought comes to mind:  If I were a non-Muslim Malaysian, I would be fervently rooting for an Islamic State of Malaysia (ISM).  This may sound irrational, but bear with me as I elaborate.

First and foremost, I would become a hero among Malaysian Muslims.  They are a significant number, in fact the majority at 60 percent.  Even those with the dullest political instinct will readily appreciate that in a democracy, when the majority treats you as a hero, you are definitely bound for greater heights.

Second, with 60 percent of the population consumed with religion, it would leave the other 40 percent who are non-Muslims to service the worldly needs of the “pious” ones.  Imagine the economic bonanza from the enlarged market and reduced competition!

Third, in an Islamic State, the charging of interests (ribaa) would be haram (not permissible).  Muslims would not be allowed to partake in economic activities involving the charging of interests.  As modern capitalism is built upon credit (the flip side of loan interests), this would effectively leave the entire capitalistic market, in particular finance, to non-Muslims.  Again, another bonanza!

Economic Bonanza of An Islamic State

Imagine if I were a banker.  I would have to offer interest-free deposits in deference to Islamic sensitivity.  To entice them I would make sure that my customers would be treated like royalty, offering them complimentary teh tarik and roti canai every time they make their deposit.  I would also provide space in the lobby for them to pray, anything to attract them and their interest-free deposits.  My marketing ploy would be:  “We keep your money pure and secure!”  The bank’s investment returns from the free deposits would more than recoup the costs of the prayer space as well as the complimentary tea and roti.

I would of course not be able to charge borrowers interests.  That should pose minimal problem as I could recoup by charging up-front administrative and other fees.  Unlike interests where the lender would have to collect them over the term of the loan, these fees are collected up-front when the loan is disbursed.  That is a big boost to the cash flow.

Islamic banking is now so lucrative such that even “un-Islamic” institutions like Citibank and HSBC are rushing to enter the sector.  Rest assured they are doing so not because they are enamored with Islamic finance principles rather there are hefty profits to be made and a ready market.  Anything with the Islamic imprimatur sells with Muslims!

There are other “minor” advantages to an Islamic state like having the entire gambling and hospitality industry (they serve alcohol!) in non-Muslim hands.  Now only if the ulamas would make cigarettes haram!

The Muslim world laments the fact that modern finance and banking are in Jewish hands.  That did not happen by accident, the special talent of the Jewish people, or through the will of God.  Rather through the quirks of history, medieval Christians (like Muslims today) believed that the charging of interests was sinful.  No Christians could partake in such activities.  Consequently by default, those activities fell to the Jews.  Centuries later, they have enhanced their skills.

Today, with enlightened interpretations of the Scriptures through the works of such reformers as John Calvin, partaking in loans and the charging of interests are no longer viewed as sinful.  On the contrary, they are seen as legitimate rewards of economic enterprises and as incentives to save.  Now the Christians are also dominant in banking and finance.  Even the Vatican has its own banks.

Equality of Believers

The only differentiating criteria in an Islamic state would be your faith:  believers versus non-believers.  Concepts of race, culture, ethnicity, or nationality are alien in Islam.  Thus with ISM, there cannot be differentiation between Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras.  That should warm the hearts of non-Bumiputras, if the earlier mentioned economic considerations are not already appealing enough.

Yes, there will be differentiation between Muslims and non-Muslims.  It cannot be too overt or discriminatory, as that would risk the civilized world’s condemnation and consequent economic and other sanctions.  Even Australia and South Africa, despite their much greater resources, could not sustain their blatantly racist White Australia and Apartheid policies respectively.

An Islamic state would follow the dictates of the Quran, meaning, meaning there would be no place for corruption or the Internal Security Act.  Hooray for that!

If non-Muslims were smart enough they would spend their cash not in bribing corrupt Malay leaders but donating that money to building mosques and madrasahs.  They may not get their contracts or datukship but they would have earned the even more valuable community’s goodwill.  The money used to corrupt the officials and leaders creates no “socially redeeming value.”  It would make them even more corrupt; next time around they would demand even more.  Worse, those bribers would end up being viewed by the masses as enemies of the people; not a good position to be in.

Expanding Chinese Schools

Extending my argument, if ardent advocates of Chinese schools were really smart, they would recruit teachers from China to teach Islamic Studies in their schools.  Then watch Malay parents flock to enroll their children.  To sweeten the pot, these schools could dedicate a classroom for use as the community surau, and then have their canteens refrain from serving pork and other non-halal items.  It would not kill those non-Muslim students to be deprived of their pork-laden snacks at recess; they could have their fill when they get home.  Follow my suggestions and watch PAS and UMNO outbidding each other in expanding Chinese schools!

Apart from increasing the usage of Mandarin, such moves are also generous gestures to the community by helping these young Malays become more employable in the private sector.

The Chinese community could also give bright young Malays scholarships to study in China.  When they return, they would sing heavenly praises of the Peoples Republic, quite apart from being fluent in Mandarin!  Learn from the colonialists; look at the unabashed Anglophiles among Malaysians.

With the obsession on religion as a consequent of ISM, Malays would be flocking to the madrasahs and the Islamic Studies faculties of local universities.  The competition for medical and other professional schools would thus be significantly reduced.

While Muslim students would have to take extra classes in Quran reading and hadith recitations to ensure for themselves a slot in heaven, non-Muslims could spend their time preparing for the USMLE and securing a position at an American hospital, or studying for their GRE (for graduate studies) or GMAT (for entry into MBA programs).  Or simply enroll in extra English classes to enhance their marketability.

As a Muslim I wholeheartedly support the concept of an Islamic state.  That should not surprise anyone; that statement however is not meaningful or even enlightening.  It is like asking whether you support law and order.  Of course you do!  No one is against the concept; it is the content that is at issue.  There is after all law and order even in North Korea.

If by an Islamic state we mean one based on the Quranic refrain of, “Command good and forbid evil,” then we – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – would agree.  If on the other hand the Islamic state were to be modeled along present-day Iran or Taliban Afghanistan, where women are denied education and the rule of law is what the clergy deems it to be, then even Muslims would demur.

Judging from the muddled statements from Imam Islam Hadhari Abdullah, even he does not know exactly what the term Islamic state would entail.  Thus I fail to understand the hysteria among Malaysians over such a nebulous concept.  Those in UMNO and PAS who are supportive of an Islamic state have yet to define exactly their vision.  There is a reason for that; they do not have a clue!

For Malays, ISM, both the Islam Hadhari variety as well as the PAS version, would be an unmitigated disaster.  It would deeply divide us, marginalize us economically, and going by the experience of Iran, push us away from our faith.

Chinese leaders (in the Barisan coalition as well as the opposition) view with deep consternation Malay leaders’ obsession with an Islamic state.  Instead of needlessly worrying about an undefined concept, these Chinese leaders should instead learn from their rich culture; they should understand that to every crisis is an opportunity.  The current obsession in Malaysia over the Islamic state is not a crisis, rather a unique, and I dare say, a potentially highly rewarding opportunity.

By Farish A. Noor

We are in hell by now.  No, we are not going to hell, but we are already there it seems.

Let me explain what I mean by this:  I happen to teach comparative religion and one of the things I have noticed while giving my lectures is how in every major religious system there seems to be consensus over what hell is meant to look like.  In the religious iconography of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists we see the same pictorial depiction of that infernal place.  In many of them the image of hell is that of a place of universal torment, with individuals suffering for eternity.  What is interesting to note in these images is the fact that the torment of each individual seems to be a very private suffering that is not shared by the others, for each is suffering on his or her own.

            Seen metaphorically, hell marks the breakdown of communication; the impossibility of reaching out to the other beside you, to communicate one’s own pain and anguish.  Hell is where all sense of collectivism is lost, where society breaks down, and where any form of mutual co-operation is rendered null and void by the individual suffering that is the lot of each of us.

            In that respect at least we seem to be in hell right now.  I write this after returning from a weekend lecture tour in Amsterdam where I caught a glimpse of the state of debate on Islam and Muslim migrants in the country, and the prognosis seems bleak.  This was not the Holland I left five years ago when I was based at the Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) in Leiden.  How could a country that I regarded as being the very epitome of the liberal spirit and unfettered conscience slide down the path of polarization so fast and to such an extreme?

            While in Holland I was with my comrades of the Left (of course) and we took a step back from the heated debate that was raging in the country.  On the one hand the Muslim minorities seem even more isolated, marginalized and liminal than ever before; and worst still it would appear as if some of them wanted to remain so.  The inflation of all the outward signs of piety were there, from the growing number of beards and burqas to the revival of what may be seen by some as expressions of an ‘authentic’ Islamic normativity that was sadly only as deep as the dress and behavior of the people who declared themselves to be orthodox Muslims.  Islam for many has been reduced to some costume party, as if one’s faith can be measured by the length of one’s beard or the cut of one’s hijab….

Then on the other hand there were right-wing Dutch politicians openly playing to the gallery and using the race and religion cards to score quick votes; going to the extent of publicly calling for the banning of the Quran and comparing the Prophet Muhammad to Hitler, and calling Islam a Fascist religion.  For them it seemed as if the only good Muslims were those who had left the religion and who were prepared to denounce their former creed as a fascist ideology.  The assumption reigned that Muslims are a homogenous bloc and that each Muslim was like some automaton, programmed, and determined solely and primarily by the Quran.

            In the midst of this bellicose chest-thumping and soapbox oratory, the more nuanced voices that were keen to emphasize the complexity of both Dutch and Muslim society were almost unheard.  In the wake of the brutal murder of the director Theo van Gogh, Dutch society is more polarized today than ever before.  I was struck by the urban semiotics that seemed to sum up the present impasse:  Walking past Dutch homes where everything inside was exposed to passers-by outside, I was struck by the fact that this seemed to be a society that was both open and yet closed in on itself.  Is there still one Holland today, or has the country disintegrated into a number of parallel universes, living next to each other but hardly communicating and not understanding each other?  That, perhaps, sums up the hell of modern life in this messed up postmodern world we live in.

            My lament is that of the left-leaning bridge-builder, who has been trying time and again to remind Muslims and non-Muslims alike that we are all part of the same human family living on this same planet and that for all of us to be taken seriously there has to be a demonstration of ethical universalism and consistency on our part.

            Muslims in the West cannot ever be taken seriously as long as we do not address the problems in our midst at the moment, ranging from the genuine demagogues and hate-mongers who have taken over our mosques to the baneful victimization complex that has devoured our young.  We are, all of us, Muslims in Europe and millions of us have come to settle here to be part of Europe’s secular-democratic and plural culture.  Though racism and prejudice remain constant factors that stand in the way of the social advancement of millions of Muslims in the West, we need to remember that the same forms of economic, structural, and institutional discrimination also affects millions of other poor Europeans as well.  Hence the need for Muslims to get out of their ghetto mindset, work with and within the tools of civil society and to empower themselves in that plural democratic space.  This means committing ourselves to the democratic reform project and discarding any superfluous illusions and myths of some ‘golden age’ of the past that never existed in the first place.

            On the other side of the equation I have also been trying to break down the collombarium of European self-consciousness and self-representation, and questioning the other equally fallacious myths that hinder the open-mindedness of Europeans themselves.  These include the myth of Europe’s mono-cultural past (for Europe was never mono-cultural in the first place), the myth of Europe’s self-generation (for Europe’s civilizational development really took off thanks to contact with other non-European cultures) and the notion of a unipolar world with the West as its center.

            Such bridge building is, it has to be said, a tiresome and laborious task that normally earns the bridge builder the scorn and contempt of right-wingers of both sides:  Muslim conservatives accuse us of being too liberal and secular, while Western conservatives label us apologists for Islam.  But the task of opening up the middle ground, complexifying the debate and emphasizing the blurred middle space is too important by this stage.  Muslims in Europe must remember that Europe is too complex, plural, and diverse to be reduced to right-wing Muslim-haters alone.  Have we forgotten that the biggest demonstrations against the war on Iraq took place here, in secular, non-religious Europe?  Have we forgotten that millions of non-Muslims in the West showed sympathy for the people of Iraq not because the latter were Muslims but in the name of universal human rights?

            Europeans too need to remember that those Muslims who live around the corner from them did not come from Saturn or Mars, but were and remain the constitutive “other” to the multicultural Europe of today.  While there are indeed conservative, sectarian, and bigoted Muslims among us, this is not a malady unique to Islam for Europe too has its share of secular bigots and racists.  A closer look at Muslims in the West will show us that they are, after all, perfectly ordinary people with ordinary lives and concerns. In fact, millions of them are so ordinary they are downright boring.

            Bringing together and tying together the ordinary strands that make up our shared community may not be a glamorous media event that will grab the headlines or make the news.  But it is one way to transcend the hell of everyday life of non-communication. Europe’s experiment with multiculturalism today is in dire need of direction and focus, and for that reason that multicultural project has to be taken up by all progressive forces that look forward to a future that is diverse, rich and plural and where the fulfillment of self-identity can be secured.  At present we are a long way from that, for it seems that our understanding of the other – and of ourselves – has sadly been reduced to two-dimensional cardboard stereotypes instead.  That would be a sad fate for Europe, and a sad epitaph to the Enlightenment project.

Dr. Farish A Noor is a political scientist and historian at the Zentrum Moderner Orient and guest Professor at Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University, Jogjakarta. He is also one of the founders of the research site www.othermalaysia.org.

Chapter 5:  Consequences of progress and Prosperity (Cont’d)

Physical Price of Progress

The most obvious physical consequences of growth are pollution and depletion of natural resources.5 Cars create pollution both when they are being manufactured and when they are being used. The mining of iron ore and the production of the needed steel are both highly polluting. Areas around Sudbury, Canada, and Duluth, Minnesota, where iron is mined, resemble the moonscape. In Montana, the landscape is irreparably scarred with huge holes miles in diameter and hundreds of feet deep from copper mining. The ground water too is contaminated. In Malaysia, there are mountains of garbage, polluted waters, and denuded forests with the attendant erosion.

Steel making foundries are the classic smokestack industry. With progress and improvements in technology, these industries are now considerably less polluting. Compare the old steel plants of China and America with the modern ones in Japan and South Korea.

Then there is the question of how long those iron ore and other resources would last, and what would we do when we run out of them. That is more hypothetical than a real problem. Long before we would reach that stage, the prices of these resources would have risen markedly and cheaper substitutes would hopefully have been found. Consider that “tin” cans are now made of aluminum.

This issue of resource depletion can be hyped out of proportion. During the energy shortage in the 1970s brought on by the Arab oil embargo, there was plenty of hysteria that the world would soon run out of energy. We still hear that paranoia today. This is clearly fanciful, for if we can believe Einstein’s famous formula, as long as there is mass, there will be energy.

The world is now on to recycling in a very big way. Progress means that we now have better and more effective means of recycling. Not only does this conserve resources, it also reduces pollution directly through reduced need for mining and lower energy consumption. Making a ton of aluminum through recycling takes only a tenth of the energy as producing it from ore.

Through advances in science, what were once considered nonrenewable resources are now no longer so. We no longer simply cut down the forests but replant them, thus ensuring a continuous supply of lumber. Through biogenetic engineering, what once took decades if not centuries for trees in nature to reach harvesting size, today it would take only a single decade or two.

The problems of pollution and others brought on by progress are best solved, ironically, through more progress. This might seem counterintuitive, but that is exactly what is happening. The air over Los Angeles is much cleaner than that of Mexico City. Likewise, the Hudson River in New York that flows through some of the most heavily populated and industrialized areas is much less polluted today, and certainly less so than the Klang River. The wealth and knowledge created through progress make problems like pollution that much more solvable.

Progress occurs in all spheres of human activities. We become better and more efficient at producing materials and machines that enhance as well as destroy our lives. Today’s killing machines are also much more lethal, precise, and devastating, as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mercilessly demonstrate.

Another consequence of progress is the figurative shrinking of the world. Images of events in closed societies (like China’s Tiananmen Square massacre) or in remote caves of Afghanistan are quickly beamed to the living rooms of the world.

The good news is that brutal dictators cannot readily hide; their crimes are easily recorded and traced. Saddam Hussein’s atrocities on the Kurds were well documented through readily available digital recording devices. On a smaller scale, the ubiquitous cell phone with its camera capability exposed the degrading practices of the Malaysian police, as exemplified by the recent “nude ear squatting” scandal. The bad news is that these new technologies are also highly intrusive, and unless controlled, could easily erode our precious privacy and civil liberties.

With the world getting smaller, we can no longer close our eyes to what is happening elsewhere. The whole globe is now one community, and as our Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) noted, when one part of the ummah (community) is suffering, the whole ummah suffers together. We can no longer ignore or pretend that it does not exist when we see tragedies taking place in remote Darfur and elsewhere.

Nor could the world ignore the sneezing and coughing among chicken breeders in China, for that malady could soon inflict the entire world, as we saw with the deadly SARS virus outbreak. With modern transportation and ease of travel, an outbreak of lethal disease in one corner of the globe can quickly spread. Progress has made us all closely interconnected; we are now truly members of the same global family.

That should be reason enough for us to care for what happens to our fellow human beings elsewhere, if for no other reason than for our own physical health and safety.

Next:  Social Price of Progress

The Personal Side Of Ahmad Ibrahim

By Mohamed Sidek Ahmad

(Paper presented at a two-day seminar honoring the late legal giant Ahmad Ibrahim (1916-1999), sponsored by the Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) held on August 21-22, 2007, at Kuala Lumpur:  “Ahmad Ibrahim : Pemikiran Dan Sumbangan Ilmiah”  (Ahmad Ibrahim:  His Thoughts and Academic Contributions)

(Posted with kind permission of the author and IKIM)

(First of Two Parts:  The second part will be posted next Tuesday)

[Note:  Beginning today and on subsequent Tuesdays, I will be posting papers presented at the above seminar.  The late Ahmad Ibrahim was truly a towering figure in Malaysia and Singapore.  I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the authors and to Wan Azhar of IKIM for permission to post these papers.  IKIM will be publishing the entire proceedings in a book due out early 2008. MBM]

I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of my family to thank IKIM (Institut Kafahaman Islam Malaysia) for remembering my late father, Allahyarham Ahmad Ibrahim, and for organizing this grand seminar.

            I stand here before you today not so much to laud his achievements and contributions – though they have been many – but to share with you a glimpse of the personal side and nature of the man behind that public persona. After all, as his son, it is this side of him that I know best.

            Born in Singapore but living his later years in Malaysia, Ahmad Ibrahim was a man of two worlds.  He loved and valued both.  However, it is indeed strange that when I read the accolades given to the late Tan Sri, I find that most of them relate to the contributions and achievements he made during his life in Malaysia.  Perhaps not many realize that he actually started living in Malaysia only after he retired from the civil service in Singapore.  Thus all his Malaysian achievements were after his “official” retirement.

            He certainly never forgot his roots.  In the days before his death, it was as if he sought to feel again his beginnings.  A month before his death, he paid a visit to Singapore, and on a Thursday evening he made his way to Masjid Baalwi, the famous mosque in Singapore that is also the mosque he attended often when living in Singapore.  As usual on Thursday evenings, there was a rhatib at the mosque.  Immediately upon reaching the mosque, many recognized him, and they treated him as a guest of honor.  After the rathib everyone came and shook his hands, proud to have a distinguished son of Singapore present at the mosque.

            The same thing happened the next day when he went for Friday prayers at the Masjid Sultan.  Many greeted him and shook his hands.  Little did anyone, both at the Masjid Baalwi and Masjid Sultan, know that it would be the last time they were to see him.  That was Allahyarham’s last trip to Singapore, and we now realized that it was actually his farewell trip to the land of his birth.

We were all not prepared for his death, for although he was 83, he still worked hard every day, harder than someone half his age.  He was extremely fit; during Ramadan he always prayed 20 rakaats Tarawih and 3 witr every evening in the mosque.  He continued this right until his last Ramadan.

            He hardly was ever sick, and even on the day of his death he was not suffering from any lingering illness.  He had gone to work as usual on that day and it was only after he returned home from work did he say he was not feeling well and that he wanted to see everyone in the family.  It was as if he had a premonition of what was to come, just like when he made that last trip to Singapore.

            Family members living in Kuala Lumpur arrived within a short time while those in Singapore began their journey.  While my brothers were driving up from Singapore they were delayed for some reason or other, and they phoned my father to tell him they would be arriving only at about 11.00PM.  I can still remember my father’s words on hearing this news:  “I will wait for you!”

            And he did!  When the last stragglers finally came in at 11.00PM, my father was so happy to see us all together.  He kept looking at everyone’s face and said he was sorry to have inconvenienced us by asking us to come to the house.

The end came not long after.  He went back to bed, telling us to do the same.  At 2.00AM that night, my mother gathered all of us together and said my father was not well.  My father had told her that his time was up and that he was dying.

            At about 2.30AM, 17 April 1999, on the first day of Muharram, my father hijrahed to the next world.  He died peacefully.

            His death was front-page news both in Malaysia and Singapore.  The newspapers paid tribute to him for his contributions in legal and academic fields of both countries.

Very Private Person

            My father was indeed unique as he was an expert in both English and Islamic laws.  This characteristic of his in having the best of both worlds was also manifested in other aspects of his life.  He wore a coat and tie, and topped this off with a songkok.  He also loved both eastern and western cuisine.

            For all his fame, Ahmad Ibrahim was a very private person who did not seek publicity; in fact he shunned it.  He very rarely gave press interviews.

            He had always kept his professional life separate from his personal.  This separation was strictly enforced.  In public he rarely talked about his family, to the extent that it gave rise to speculations and rumors surrounding his personal life.  There were questions whether he had a wife and family, or even whether he had multiple wives.  Well, let me put it on record here that Ahmad Ibrahim had ten children, and all of them from one wife!

            At home what was immediately clear about him was that he was a man of very high personal discipline, a trait he picked up from his equally disciplined medical doctor father, Dr Ibrahim Sheikh Ismail.  If at work people remembered him for his punctuality and his strict sense of time, it was the same at home.  Breakfast was precisely at 7.00AM, lunch at 1.00PM, and dinner at 8.00PM.  All in the family knew this and we had to be at the table on time for these meals.  He went to bed and got up at the same time every day, as far as I can remember.

            Meals were always eaten together at one large table.  This never changed, even after most of us were married and had our own children.  When we visited him at meal times, we all ate together, with extra chairs and tables added if necessary.  Those moments are etched in our memory.  Meal times were also for family discussions.  It was an opportunity for all to say their piece.  Topics discussed at the dinner table were varied, from politics to sports and from moral issues to television programs.  Though Allahyarham appeared to contribute little to the conversations, he always listened and laughed at the jokes we made.  When he did speak, it was usually very short and to the point.  Very effective!

            He loved to read, and we always had a library wherever we lived.  He had always been a bookworm, with a book never far away from his hands.  The house was always filled with books.  On his death, we brought back about 300 boxes of books from his office in UIA [University Islam Antarabangsa].  These and the books that were in the house were later donated to the UIA.

            His respect for books was very great; even old and torn books were kept and not thrown away.  He loved buying books.  Every time he went on an overseas trip he would bring back books.  He always kept abreast with the latest books and articles on law.  Once I bought him a book for his birthday, which I thought was the latest, only to be told that he had already read it.

            When it came to books he seemed to have a photographic memory in that he knew where exactly to look for a book in the library and which page of the book to refer to.

Next:  Contributions to Malaysia and Singapore

Unfit To Lead

(First posted on Malaysia-Today, August 27, 2007)

After nearly four years as Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has clearly demonstrated that he is not fit to lead the nation.  He does not have what it takes to hold the nation’s top post; he must be relieved of his office.

            The man is too incompetent to be even aware of his own incompetence.  His trademark answer to every serious query is a plaintive, “I dunno!”  There is not even a hint of embarrassment on his part, or the desire and curiosity to find out.  Truly revealing!

Consider this latest blunder:  As Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Abdullah is blissfully unaware of the RM5 billion blunder now unfolding at the Port Klang Free Zone project.  If he is not aware (much less on top) of that impending financial implosion, chances are he is unable to comprehend the wider and more treacherous economic ramifications.  Abdullah is instead riled up over some sophomoric rap rendition of the national anthem.  Small mind, trivial preoccupation!

His election promises of 2004 turned out to be nothing more than the typical politician’s empty words, a cruel hoax perpetrated upon trusting citizens.  For all his talk about greater transparency and combating corruption, it is nothing more than, to put it in the vernacular, “cock talk!”  Under his “leadership,” all these are now much worse.  His overly displayed public piety and religiosity are obviously for show only, as he is not fearful of Allah for having not kept his promises to the people.

He is consumed with the expensive trappings of his office, with luxury corporate jets ready to fly him and his family all over the globe.  It is amazing how fast this kampong imam from Kepala Batas, a backwater of modern Penang, is acquiring the extravagant taste of the jet set, all at public expense of course.

Those closest to him personally and politically are serving their selfish interests in indulging his fantasy, or more correctly, daydream.  The old man can hardly keep himself awake!

Unfortunately, it is the nation that is bearing the terrible consequences.  The longer he stays, the heavier will be the burden, and costlier the price.  We are now close to the point where the damages wrecked by this man would be irreversible.  We cannot risk such a fate; the time for action is now!

            This is a sobering thought, a definite damper on the current joyous mood in celebrating our 50^th anniversary of Merdeka.  Fortunately, despite Malaysia’s short history, the nation is sufficiently rooted in democratic principles and practices that it could effect leadership change without resorting to unconstitutional means.

There is little to learn from other Third World countries, with their predilection for assassinations, military coups, and other unsavory methods, in getting rid of ineffective leaders.  Those who grab power are by nature ruthless and not likely to give it up willingly.  Consequently, the end result is invariably much worse.  However, considering Abdullah’s current sorry ineptness, such a scene is difficult to imagine for Malaysia.

Malaysia once suspended its constitution, following the May 1969 riot.  That was in response to an emergency, when the dangers and damages were physical and thus readily comprehended by the citizens.  Consequently there was general consensus to a rule by decree.

Today’s dangers are more subtle and insidious, but the consequences could be even more catastrophic.  The nation is being lulled into irreversible mediocrity, condemned to perpetual third-rate status.

Another major factor to the acceptance of the 1969 Emergency Rule was that we knew who would be taking over:  the able and decisive Tun Razak.  Malaysians had faith in the man’s ability and integrity.  They were not wrong.  A few years later with law and order established, Razak re-instituted parliament and voluntarily gave up his dictatorial power.  To this day, his action remains the rare exception; the general rule is for dictators to cling on to power until they die naturally, get killed, or are ousted.

I also do not think it necessary to strain the constitution with, for example, the King exercising his power to remove the Prime Minister.  That would create a dangerous precedent.  Besides, Abdullah is just not worth a constitutional crisis.

Tips From the First World

While the Third World cannot offer us lessons on changing leaders orderly outside of elections, we can learn from the First World.  Even hitherto able leaders could be removed without compromising constitutional or democratic principles.  Britain’s Tony Blair is a recent example.

Blair led his Labor Party to three successive electoral victories.  Yet when he overreached and joined Bush in invading Iraq, a few of his ministers resigned in protest.  That in turn emboldened Blair’s challenger, Gordon Brown.

While former Prime Minister Mahathir admitted to making a colossal mistake in appointing Abdullah, Malaysia should not and cannot be held hostage to the mistake of one man.  There is no reason to be fatalistic or just sit back and suffer the consequences.  While Mahathir is trying hard to undo his mistake, the primary responsibility in ridding Abdullah ultimately falls on the citizens collectively, not on any one person no matter how eminent and influential he or she may be.

That said, a single individual – even one of no particular distinction – can often initiate and effect significant change.  Again referring to May 1969, it was one man who initiated the process that eventually led to Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman leaving.  The Tunku was a much-revered leader, the “Father of Independence,” yet the one man instrumental in Tunku’s downfall was a defeated government backbencher.

A defeated candidate normally would have little clout, yet there was Mahathir able to effect seismic changes in the nation’s leadership with his now famous letter to the Tunku demanding that he quit.

Easing Abdullah Out

The most effective way to disabuse Abdullah of his delusion and puncture his leadership fantasy would be for his ministers to have a vote of no confidence in him.  That would be dramatic, but unlikely to happen.  As some of his ministers are also leaders of the component parties, such an action could split the coalition and risk paying the ultimate price:  defeat at the general elections.

A more practical reason for this not happening is that his ministers are more followers than leaders.  There are no jantans in the cabinet, only jantan wannabes.  They were appointed not for their leadership qualities or executive talent but for their ability to grovel to and humor the leader of the day.

          Recently in an unprecedented move, the entire non-Muslim ministers except one (he was abroad at the time) wrote the Prime Minister to express their displeasure over the increasing Islamization of his administration.  They quickly backed down when UMNO hound dogs snarled back.  That again reflected the spinelessness of these ministers.

           Nonetheless their subtle message – they do not have confidence in Abdullah – was delivered.  The only problem was that everyone missed that too subtle a message.

As an aside, although I share their concerns I condemned those ministers’ action.  Far from challenging Abdullah, they merely exacerbated the Muslim/non-Muslim divide.  They would have been far more effective had they acted individually, and backed their words with actions, as with resigning and taking their party out of the coalition.  That would have startled Abdullah enough to wake him up.  His hound dogs in UMNO Youth would be too rattled to spring into action.  It might even embolden a few UMNO ministers to do their part and trigger a soft in-house coup.

Do not however, expect a Malaysian Gordon Brown, ready and able to take over.  Brown had proven himself formidable as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a more than worthy successor, while Abdullah’s deputy, Najib Razak, carries considerable political and personal baggage.  More than likely, the change process would also consume him.

When President Nixon was threatened with impeachment over the Watergate crisis, senior leaders of his party was able to persuade him to resign and thus spare the nation a constitutional crisis.  Unfortunately UMNO is bereft of senior leaders with stature.  Musa Hitam in theory would be a prime candidate, but since getting his Tunship, Musa is so beholden to Abdullah that he (Abdullah) can now do no wrong.

One leader (apart from Mahathir) who could tell Abdullah to his face would be Tengku Razaleigh.  However he would not be credible as his efforts would be viewed as self-serving:  to further his own ambition of becoming Prime Minister.

Alternatively, UMNO Supreme Council could express its lack of confidence in Abdullah.  With Abdullah no longer its leader, he would have to give up his office and UMNO would have to convene a leadership convention.  That would open wide the field and help ensure that the party would get a more capable and credible leader.

UMNO Supreme Council is a much larger and more independent body than the cabinet.  Except for the ten members appointed by and thus beholden to Abdullah, the others are voted directly by the members.  They are immune to his influence except in so far as promises of ministerial and other political appointments.  There would be enough members not beholden to him who could initiate a no-confidence vote.  Even if it fails, it may just rattle the old man that he may decide to spend more time with his new wife.

If all else fails, voters could always teach Abdullah a lesson.  If they were to give him and his party a severe thumping in the next election, that could precipitate an internal grumbling within UMNO enough to trigger an insurrection.

The next election however need not be held till May 2009.  By that time the country would have become irretrievably damaged under Abdullah’s leadership, or more correctly, lack of one.  Corruption would be so endemic and embedded such that the election itself would be meaningless; it would be effectively rigged.  At which stage Malaysia would join the ranks of Nigeria, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe, doomed to perpetual mediocrity.

It is thus urgent that we relieve Abdullah now of his job before it is too late.  We owe it to our children and grandchildren.

Malaysia and the Dilemma of Assimilation

(Part II)

By Farish A. Noor

And so it would appear that Malaysia is, after all, an Islamic state.

            This was the conclusion that many Malaysians have had to accept after the recent pronouncement on the part of the Prime Minister that the country has apparently been run and governed on Islamic lines all along; a startling revelation to say the least for most of us who were unaware of the fact that the arrests under the ISA, the crackdowns during Operation Lalang, Operation Kenari, the numerous declarations of Emergency, et al. were all done under the auspices of Muslim governance. And are we right to conclude that the innumerable corruption scandals, the weakening of the judiciary, the instances of blatant double-standards in the enforcement of the law, et al. were likewise exemplary moments of Islamic governance in action?

            The Prime Minister’s recent announcement must surely have come as a blow to those of us who have been calling for a return to the secular democratic foundations of the Malaysian Federation. But now it seems as if even the history of this country has been appropriated by the government, and written and re-written at whim to suit the agendas and interests of the powers that be. After half a century of existence and five decades of nation-building programs that have taken us nowhere fast, the goalposts have been moved once again. How can there be any significant, meaningful long-term development in the country when the very rules of the political game change again and again? And if the very foundational terms of political engagement in the country are being changed all the time, we need to ask why and for whose sake?

Assimilation and the Malay-Muslim Comfort Zone.

Lest we forget (and we need to be mindful of the fact that our nation’s history is being distorted and deformed as we speak) the Malayan (later Malaysian) constitution envisaged a multiracial and multi-religious nation-state held together by a secular democratic constitution that spelled out citizenship as one of the core values that equalizes all of us, as members and citizens of the same national community. It is on the basis of that shared universal citizenship that all of us are defined primarily as Malaysians and that as Malaysians we have a common status and standing before the law.

            No Malaysian has the right to stand above the law or break it at will; no Malaysian has the right to place himself or herself above other Malaysians, and no Malaysian should be treated unfairly in relation to others. Furthermore being Malaysian and claiming Malaysian citizenship also implies that Malaysia should be the primary object of our political loyalties: not race, not religion, not class or other sectarian or parochial interests. The universal character of citizenship entails a shared common responsibility and shared common rights that equalize all of us, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

            Yet the founding pact that brought the diverse communities of Malaya (later Malaysia) together has been eroded thanks in part to internal variable factors that none of the forefathers of the nation saw in the early 1950s:  The demographic increase of the Malay-Muslim community, coupled with the steady stream of outward immigration on the part on the other communities, has radically altered the racial balance of the country to the point where many of us – including politicians and pundits alike – speak of the ‘growing Malay bloc’ as if it was a solid, homogenous entity.

            Fear of upsetting the sensibilities of this ‘Malay bloc’ has led many of us to concede ground time and again to the ethno-nationalist demagogues who have presented themselves as the guardians of the Malay-Muslim interest, and who have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to also determine the bargaining position of that community. Thus the growing political clout of the Malay-Muslims (in terms of voters and votes) has been matched by an equally strident tenor in the political discourse of that community’s leaders, leading us to the shameful spectacles of keris-waving and hot-headed pyrotechnics we have been witness to over the past few years in particular.

            Aggravating the situation further was the coupling of Malay communitarian ethnic interests with the demands and concerns of religion, where Islam was brought into the picture and, in time, grafted on Malay identity as yet another exclusive element to define the contours of that community. The Islamization race that began in earnest from the early 1980s with former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir and his former Deputy Anwar Ibrahim merely added yet another layer of identity politics to an already complicated formula that was being strained at the seams.

            The tragedy of postcolonial Malaysia lies here. Since the late 1960s, the route to political power in the country seems to have been configured in the following terms: That only a Malay-Muslim can aspire to the highest office of the land and that the terms of his (and it is always his, never her) rise to power is determined in turn by how well he plays the race and religion card. The ambitious Young Turks of UMNO proved as much in their successful bid to oust the Tunku, and the trend was set. In the 1970s Anwar Ibrahim played very much the same role as he rose to public prominence before being co-opted to joining UMNO, and since then every leader of UMNO’s Youth wing has done the same. Are we surprised, therefore, to observe the disgraceful sight of kerises being waved in the air these days?

            Thus far the state of race politics in Malaysia seems to have been set by a cast-iron logic that seems insurmountable. But is it? Were there not instances to the contrary, when alternative viewpoints were put across by more accommodating leaders who thought in terms of the national interest?

            The answer to this question is yes. One such voice was that of Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmy, who was one of the earliest Malayan nationalists who not only fought against colonial rule but who also envisaged the creation of a Malaya that was open and fair to all communities. Dr. Burhanuddin was one of the members of the ‘Kaum Muda’ generation who later became one of the leaders of the PKMM (Malayan Nationalist Party), and later was made the President of PAS in 1956 (to 1970). Today many of us have all but forgotten the man and few Malaysians have bothered to look him up in the history books. Yet Dr. Burhanuddin stands alone, a singularly unique figure in the landscape of Malaysian politics, for his refusal to concede to racist sectarian and communitarian demands. Furthermore he did the unthinkable thing during his lifetime by de-racializing the concept of ‘Malay’ itself.

            In his writings like Asah Falsafah Kebangsaan Melayu (“The Foundation of Malay Nationalist Philosophy;” republished, 1963) and Perjuangan Kita: 17 Ogos 1945 hingga 17 Ogos 1946 (“Our Struggle: 17^th August 1945 to 17^th August 1946,” 1946), he stated that the goal of Malayan independence would have to be the development of a broad-based nationalism that embraces, rather than excludes, all the communities in the country. Dr. Burhanuddin went as far as calling for a ‘nasionalisme Melayu’ that defined a ‘Melayu’ as anyone who was born, lives in, and regards Malaya as his or her home. By doing so he had turned ‘Malayness’ from a racial category (invented by the colonial census) into a category of universal citizenship instead. Throughout much of his political career, Dr. Burhanuddin urged his supporters to accept citizenship as the basis of their political participation in the country, and warned of the dangers of ethno-nationalism and racialized politics. But sadly the man was detained during the years of Malaysia’s Konfrontasi (Confrontation) with Indonesia and died shortly after his release from the ISA later. Till today, there has not emerged a Malaysian leader from the Malay community who is able to match Dr. Burhanuddin’s commitment to an anti-racist and deracialized politics for the country. Instead, what we have is the opposite: a deliberate and sustained attempt to move the goalposts of the country further to the right and to impress upon the nation the sectarian demands of the Malay-Muslim community in particular, as understood and interpreted by the leaders of UMNO.

It is against this backdrop of an expanding Malay-Muslim comfort zone as defined by UMNO that the other communities of Malaysia are being told to integrate and assimilate. Before proceeding any further, let us debunk certain myths that have been lingering for too long already: For a start, it would be ridiculous to ask any Malaysian today to integrate any further as most of the non-Malay citizens of this country are in fact descendants of third, fourth if not fifth generation migrants who have long since become part and parcel of the Malaysian landscape. Yet as every communal crisis reaches its peak, the non-Malays are reminded that this is the fabled ‘Tanah Melayu’ and that they are ‘kaum pendatang’ who have to integrate and assimilate. But to what end and when does one finally qualify as a full citizen of Malaysia?

            I raise this question as a Malaysian who happens to live and work in Europe, where today the calls for integration are being made again, more often than not by right-wing racist demagogues who harp on and on about the need for foreigners to accept the mainstream of European life. But what if that mainstream also happens to be a racist one, where racialized discourse has become normalized and hegemonized and where foreigners are constantly being kept on the margins of society? And what if that European mainstream still cannot accept the reality of a multicultural Europe where racial, ethnic and religious pluralism are realities; and where other non-European religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are also now part of the European social landscape?

            The dilemma I face as a Malaysian Muslim in Europe is similar to that faced by non-Malays and non-Muslims in Malaysia today. How can the right-wing ethno-nationalists of the Malay-Muslim community expect others to assimilate to the mainstream culture of Malaysia when that very mainstream has been defined almost exclusively by the Malay-Muslims themselves? How can other communities find their place in Malaysia’s history when that history ignores and sidelines the vastly important role played by other communities in the development of Malaysia, as well as Malaysia’s pre-Islamic past and its multi-religious present? Malay right-wingers demand non-Malays and non-Muslims to become part of the nation, but the national imaginary has now been decidedly painted by a distinct, particular and exclusive Malay-Muslim brush. Where is the space for assimilation then?

            The root of the problem is the culture of racialized identity politics that reigns in the country till today, a throwback to the colonial era that was taken up with gusto by UMNO and the component parties of the ruling Barisan Nasional. As long as this culture of divisive politics prevails in the country, then the UMNO party will – despite its frothy liberal rhetoric at times – be an exclusive sectarian party enacting a politics that is divisive and communitarian.

            Fifty years after our independence, we still entertain the myth of a ‘Tanah Melayu’ that is a privileged homeland for some and not others. And as long as the UMNO party maintains this divisive approach to politics and sees the Malay-Muslims as its primary constituency, the situation is not likely to change for the better. We are nowhere closer to realizing the dream of a Malaysian Malaysia where citizenship is the common gift bestowed upon all her citizens. Instead the gift of a multicultural and multi-religious nation has been stolen from us, before our very eyes, by the very same ruling elites who claim to be the ‘leaders of all Malaysians’, while in their deeds they have shown that their commitment to plural democracy is only skin deep. What a shameful end to what could have been a beautiful story.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–>

Prof. Farish A. Noor is a historian and political scientist based at the Zentrum Moderner Orient in Berlin and affiliated professor to Universitas Muhamadiyah Surakarta and the Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University of Jogjakarta. He is also one of the founders of the research site:  www.othermalaysia.org