Malaysiakini.com April 8, 2008

In his novel Gadis Pantai (“The Girl From The Coast”), Pramoedya Ananta Toer revealed a quaint custom in ancient Malay culture.  That is where the lord of the kampong upon reaching adulthood would grab the prettiest village virgin to be his “practise wife.”  Then when he becomes sufficiently well honed in his “husbandly” skills or when he gets bored with her, he would toss her out like a piece of soiled rag.  He with his now enhanced skills would go on to marry a lady of “proper” background.

            I believe that Fate has gifted Malaysians with a “practise leader” in the person of Abdullah Badawi.  He is so inept, so spineless, and so lacking in ability to make decisions that he practically invites scorn and contempt.  Or in Tengku Razaleigh’s words, Abdullah showed a “stunning ineptness in managing … straightforward functions of government.”  Today, in the kedai kopi (coffeehouses) even taxi drivers are not hesitant in ridiculing Abdullah.

            Granted, some of the criticisms leveled at Abdullah are crude and clumsy, but then so would the village nobleman’s initial experiences with his “practise wife.”  The concern is less with finesse and artistry, more with getting it done!  With time and practice, rest assured things would only get better!

            Once Malaysians have become accustomed to being critical of Abdullah and are unafraid to criticize or even challenge him, then we would toss Abdullah out, as the village nobleman would of his “practise wife.”  Malaysians would then be ready for a proper leader.

Consequences of Uncritical Citizenry

Fate has blessed Malaysia with capable leaders in the past.  There was Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Father of Independence, who successfully led us out of colonial rule without shedding a drop of blood.  However, as Malaysians had not yet learned to be good followers, we were not sufficiently critical of him.  Thus he got carried away with being the “world’s happiest prime minister” while letting problems fester away until they blew up in his and our collective faces.

            He was succeeded by the able Tun Razak, but his life was tragically cut short by cancer.  As such he was spared from being spoiled by an adoring and uncritical populace.  His reputation remains intact and unblemished.

            His successor Hussein Onn may not have been the most capable but at least he knew his limitations.  He was wise enough to voluntarily relinquish his position.  He also took his oath of office seriously.  Thus he was meticulous and unusually astute in the choice of his successor.

            In Dr. Mahathir Malaysians had a leader of exceptional brilliance, unorthodox convictions, and courageous innovations.  He transformed Malaysia.  Like any other mortal, he too had his share of mistakes.  Unfortunately his uncritical and unabashedly adoring followers were equally blind to his mistakes thus preventing him from recognizing and rectifying them.

            Had Malaysians generally and UMNO members specifically been more critical of Mahathir in his choice of a successor for example, the nation would have been spared the current political muddle.

            This uncritical and sheep-to-shepherd dynamics also characterize other Asian and Third World societies.  Indonesia was blessed with the charismatic and brilliant Sukarno.  He united those polyglot islands into a cohesive nation while bravely taking on the Dutch colonialists at the same time.  China has its Mao.  However, as their uncritical followers did not rein in their leaders’ initial excesses, those leaders got carried away.

Making Malaysians More Critical

Malaysians are excessively deferential to their leaders, rarely challenging or even criticizing them.  Our leaders are always clad in the finest fashion even when all they have on is a piece of tattered, stained loincloth.  The relationship is akin to that of a flock of sheep and its shepherd, of blind obedience.

            That may be fine for a flock of docile sheep but it is hardly the recipe for a progressive society.  Nor is it the recipe for a competitive society, or at least one that would merit the adjective “modern.”  In such a society, leaders must be held accountable, and followers in turn must not hesitate to hold their leaders to exacting standards.  This reciprocal relationship means that followers must be willing and not fearful to criticize and challenge their leaders.  That is the best way to ensure accountability.  It would also discourage these leaders from being led astray by their blind ambition or abusing the trust we grant them.

            Without being unduly Pollyannaish, the only way to make sense of the current political mess is to believe that this is part of a divine design, of Fate providing Malaysians with a “practise leader” in order to better prepare us for a real leader in our future.

            There are two towering personalities in the horizon that fit my characterization of a real leader:  Anwar Ibrahim and Tengku Razaleigh.  In their previous incarnations, these two had their share of fawning followers who egged them on to make unwise decisions.  For Anwar, it led to his imprudently challenging Mahathir.  He (and us) knows only too well the disastrous consequences of that fateful decision.  Tengku Razaleigh, again at the behest of his admiring supporters, left UMNO briefly to form the Semangat Party.

            The problem is not with Anwar or Ku Li challenging Mahathir, rather that we as a society have yet to deal with or learn the art of challenges and criticisms.  Our standard response then was either to split the organization or riot in the streets.  Enter Abdullah as “practise leader;” now we have learned at least not to riot, a significant advancement.

            I believe that Anwar and Ku Li are now wiser.  They would be even better leaders if we let them be, meaning that we should not let our guards down lest they would be tempted to be led astray by their uncritical admirers.

            On the personal side, I note a certain humility and magnanimity in both Anwar and Ku Li.  To them, the travails and weaknesses of Abdullah Badawi truly pain them.  To these two nationalists, challenging Abdullah is not a route for the fulfillment of their personal ambition, rather a patriot’s obligation.

            To young readers who may not yet quite grasp the “practise wife” concept, let me substitute a sports metaphor.  Abdullah is a convenient punching bag for Malaysians to practice on how we should learn to handle future leaders.  For now, his ineptness and incompetence make those lessons easy for us, though not for Abdullah.

            In Pram’s novel, the young nameless lady who is the nobleman’s “practise wife” returns to her village.  Only through her strength of character could she maintain her dignity and respect in her village.

            When Abdullah gets tossed out, as inevitably he would, lacking strength of character, the public scorn heaped upon him would be merciless.  Abdullah’s predictable humiliation would not arouse any pity from

 me, but his destroying what was once a fine Malay institution – UMNO – would.

            The only redeeming part to the whole ugly saga would be that Abdullah would also bring down with him the “practise pundits” and “practise editors” in the mainstream media, as well as the “practise academics” and “practise intellectuals” in our universities.

Farish A. Noor  

I am having a tough time writing this particular article as I am absolutely consumed by anger at the moment.  In fact, I am livid as I have never been for such a long time.

            The reason for this sudden rise in my blood pressure is that after a two-day seminar organised by the Institute for Islamic Understanding (IKIM) and the Shariah Judiciary Department of Malaysia, it was suggested by some of those who took part that “non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims (will) also be held liable” and that they too will be under threat of punishment (The Star, Proposal to Persecute Non-Muslims for Khalwat, 3 April 2008).  According to the report, “Syariah Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Asri Abdullah said the seminar had proposed that non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims should also be sentenced accordingly, but in the civil courts.”

            Furthermore the participants of the seminar also proposed “to impose heftier penalties – of up to four times the current penalties – on Muslims caught for khalwat, prostitution, consuming alcohol and involvement in gambling activities.”

            And what might these heftier penalties be?  According to the same report, “Ikim and the department were proposing that the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Amendment) 1984 be amended to impose stiffer penalties of RM1,000 fine, or five years’ jail or 12 strokes of the rotan for Syariah Lower Courts and RM20,000 fine, or 10years’ jail or 24 strokes of rotan for Syariah High Courts’. It then added that ‘there was also a proposal for Syariah judges to enforce whipping for these offences’ and that ‘another proposal calls for the establishment of a rehabilitation centre for those convicted of offences related to morals and faith such as prostitution and effeminate men, and enforcement of Section 54 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act (Act 559) to set up such centres.”

            So this, apparently, is what the great minds of IKIM and the religious departments have been cooking up and intending to serve to us, the Malaysian public, all along.  While Muslims are angry about the portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the film ‘Fitna’ by the right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, one is left with the question:  As long as Muslim leaders and intellectuals remain stuck in their morass of outdated conservative thinking, would it not remain the case that Islam is seen as a religious of violence?  How, pray tell, can scholars like me defend the image of Islam and Muslims when Muslim governments like ours allows such outlandish and dangerous ideas to spread, and harbour such proponents of conservative-fundamentalist Islam in the very same institutions that were meant to open up the minds of Muslims and lead us – and Malaysian society – to a more modern, progressive and liberated understanding of Islam and religion in general?

            The fact that such proposals could have been made at all speaks volumes about the state of Muslim thinking in Malaysia today.  Worse still is the total disconnect between reality and ideals, and the fact that some of these Muslim thinkers fail to see just how unjust, inhuman and dehumanising these proposed punishments are in the eyes of millions of other Malaysians and foreigners alike.  Whipping?  In this day and age?  And what would happen to the image of Malaysia as the so-called bastion of moderate Islam when the international media gets a glimpse of this non-so-moderate Islam at work?  Is Islam Hadari to be enforced by the whip today?

            The results of the recent general elections have shown that the Malaysian public has reached a level of political awareness and maturity that is unprecedented in our history.  It also points to an increasingly urbanised, well-connected, better-informed and more politically-conscious electorate that will not be satisfied with empty slogans of a more ‘moderate’ Islam and theme parks with crystal mosques.  Why, even in the ranks of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) there are more and more progressive voices who are calling for real economic and structural reform, and contemplating the possibility of creating a new social contract based on a welfare state model for all Malaysians.

            But it is in the ranks of UMNO and the UMNO-led institutions of the state that we see the mental quagmire of the elite at its worst.  IKIM and the Shariah Judiciary Department are both institutions that were created under the auspices of the UMNO-led government.  Yet the so-called reforms we have been presented are not intended to open up the minds of Muslims, but rather to add yet another layer of moral policing on Muslim society today.

            More worrying is the fact that now the scope of UMNO’s Islamization policy has extended to cover non-Muslims as well, and this can only be read as yet another attempt to impose Islamic legal and political hegemony on the non-Muslims of Malaysia.  How and why should a non-Muslim be taken to court for simply being in love with a Muslim?  And why, for that matter, should a Muslim be punished for simply loving a non-Muslim?  Furthermore the non-Muslim partner in such a relationship may not even regard it as wrong to simply be in love with another.  Yet the advocates of this reform are suggesting that he or she has committed a sin even if he or she has not done anything wrong according to his or her belief system.

            This in turn points to the slow erosion of respect for diversity and pluralism in Malaysia, where a group of Muslim communitarians do not seem realise the fact that Islam is simply one of many belief-systems in Malaysia and that the values of Islam may not be relevant to those who are not part of that faith community.  Yet by calling for these legal reforms, these sectarian leaders seem to be implying that what constitutes an offence for Muslims must also constitute an offence for others too.  How does this communitarian slant fit with the universalist and pluralist claims of Islam Hadari?

            That such a conference could have been held so close after UMNO’s disastrous showing at the recent elections would indicate that this UMNO-led government is totally bankrupt of ideas and can only shore up what little support it has left by playing the Islamic card and pandering to the gallery yet again.  Moral policing of any kind is just one further layer of policing on society, and this is fundamentally part and parcel of the state’s attempt to remain in power at all costs.  The net result would be the further control of Malaysian society as a whole and the costs will be borne by those Malaysians who are Malaysian-minded enough to see beyond race and religion, and to cross these cultural-religious frontiers by falling in love with others.  Instead it is those very Malaysian-Minded Malaysians who are under threat now, by laws and regulations that make it virtually impossible for us to love one another and live with one another.

            Finally, this is further proof that the so-called ‘moderate and progressive’ brand of Islam that was sold to us as ‘Islam Hadari’ was little more than another UMNO propaganda device; serving to placate the concerns of the international community while in fact serving only to extend the power and hegemony of the state at home. Should these reform measures come to pass, it is our duty to remind ourselves, our fellow Malaysians and the international community that what passes under the label of Islam Hadari is really a conservative brand of statist Islam that promotes imprisonment, detention, moral policing and whipping.  Let the cameras of the international media come to Malaysia to film the spectacle of Malaysians being arrested, detained in rehabilitation centres, whipped and injured for life by the morality police and religious authorities.  Let the whole world know that ‘Islam Hadari’ has never opened up the minds of Muslims.  Let us expose this lie once and for all, and the liars behind the lie as well.

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

Chapter:  8 Culture Counts (Cont’d)

Cultural Mutations and Cultural Engineering

In nature, genetic mutations occur spontaneously, but they can be induced through manipulating the environment or through chemicals and radiation. There is a similar cultural equivalent. Sudden changes in the physical or social environment, as in an unexpected calamity or arrival of a foreign power, could precipitate cultural changes. Following an earthquake the elders of an ancient society would gather around and wisely observe that what happened was God’s retribution for their errand and decadent ways. That often would be just the stimulus for them to mend their ways, for the better to be hoped. An example would be the acceleration of the Aceh peace talks following the Tsunami disaster. Not always, however. The elders could have easily decided that the angry Gods had to be appeased by sacrificing the tribe’s beautiful virgins. Were that to happen, the resulting cultural mutation would be negative. If nothing else it would ensure that subsequent generations would be ugly, the culture having depleted its stock of pretty would-be mothers.

Cultural mutations can also be triggered by changes in leadership. An enlightened prince could succeed his profligate father, or conversely, an otherwise benevolent king was not wise enough to override the cultural tradition of having the throne given to his first-born but wayward prince.

An example of a remarkable cultural transformation was that of the ancient Arabs with the arrival of Prophet Muhammad (May peace and the Blessings of Allah be upon Him!). Within a generation, a culture of female infanticide and justice based on an eye for an eye was emancipated. Like its genetic counterpart, cultural mutations too are unpredictable and often disastrous. For every prophet, there are others who would wreck untold damages upon their followers. Germany’s Hitler was a ready example.

Through the wonders of modern biogenetic engineering, scientists can effect genetic changes that are rapid and predictable. They can insert a desirable gene into a cell, and that cell will now produce whatever that gene instructs. This is how insulin is commercially produced today, with the human gene for insulin inserted to a bacterium that would then multiply, and the whole colony would now produce the hormone.

The cultural equivalent of biogenetic engineering would be the introduction of modern education. Earlier I alluded to the role of colonialism in effectively ending slavery in traditional Malay society. I am not glorifying colonialism, rather its unintended benefits, in particular the introduction of modern education and economic development to hitherto undeveloped societies. Those two elements in particular brought rapid cultural transformation.

Education opens up minds and liberates them, akin to removing the coconut shell from over a frog long trapped underneath it. Economic development brings its own cultural transformation. At its most elemental level, wealth is liberating. With it, the individual could travel widely (and thus become exposed to different people and cultures), buy more books and periodicals, and access modern communications like phones, the Internet and television. These are mind-broadening. Once you are exposed to the BBC and Al Jazeera, Malaysia’s RTM and TV Tiga no longer have quite the same hold on you.

The process of creating wealth is also transforming. Increasingly, wealth (at least the legitimate variety) is created through trade and knowledge. Today’s villagers know that their welfare depends on whether the Americans and Chinese are buying their rubber and palm oil. To these villagers, the Chinese and Americans are not some foreign devils or wannabe neocolonialists, but valued customers. That immediately puts a different perspective on the relationship.

Today’s transforming force is globalization. It would transform Malay culture more than colonization ever did, but without the ugly consequences. With globalization one is judged on one’s merit, regardless whether one is a Bumiputra or non-Bumiputra, son of a sultan or a villager, an UMNO supporter or PAS enthusiast. What counts is whether one can perform. Bumiputras, used to special privileges, fear that this would challenge their entrenched position. I argue the opposite. We should use special privileges to enhance our competitiveness so as to be better prepared for globalization, not to protect the status quo.

Today’s Malay society is more complex and diverse. In addition to the sultans and nobles, there are others—politicians, professionals, and businessmen—claiming the mantle of leadership. If the sultan were to fancy the prized racehorses belonging to one of his subjects, he had better be prepared to pay the market price. Nor would those children of former village peasants who are now doctors and lawyers look kindly were a sultan or bendahara (minister) stupid enough to snatch their daughters. Were a leader, sultan or otherwise, be stupid enough to do so, he would be slapped with criminal and civil suits right away. In the 1980s, one sultan-in-waiting, taking his symbolic role as commander-in-chief-to-be too seriously, slapped a soldier mercilessly, killing him. The crown prince was successfully prosecuted for attempted murder; nonetheless he subsequently went on to become sultan. Modernity coexisting with feudality; only in Malaysia!

Next:  Recent Malay Cultural Transformation