Before last March 2008 elections, I urged Kepala Batas voters to perform a great national service by booting out Prime Minister Abdullah. That would have triggered a seismic shift in UMNO’s leadership. With its ban on contesting top posts effectively circumvented, the party would get to preview other potential candidates.

If Kepala Batas voters were to shy away from exercising that historic opportunity, I suggested that Malaysians could still teach Abdullah a lesson by substantially reducing his coalition’s victory. That would also trigger a challenge to his leadership, and we would have the same effect as with the first scenario.

Alas, Malaysians did teach Abdullah a hard lesson, but not hard enough. Besides, being a slow learner, Abdullah did not get the message. Now voters in Permatang Pauh, practically next door, will get a chance to deal Abdullah a third and final knock-out blow, one he would surely get.

This upcoming by-election will be more than just electing the area’s representative to Parliament. Permatang Pauh voters will get the unique opportunity to decide on behalf of entire Malaysia on who will lead our nation. It is as much an opportunity to vote for Anwar Ibrahim as it is against Abdullah Badawi, and to vote for Malaysia’s future – on whether she would progress to join the developed world or continue its present path to join the likes of Zimbabwe.

Anwar Versus Abdullah

In Abdullah we have a dull and apathetically detached leader who exploits the differences among us in order to remain in power. In Anwar we have a charismatic leader well regarded especially internationally. He nurtures our commonalities and challenges us to rise above our differences.

Abdullah’s “I am Prime Minister for all Malaysians” utterance rings hollow when he allows, nay encourages the racist taunting of UMNO Youth leaders. Again illustrative of his opportunistic and exploitative character, right after the March elections when his party’s position was threatened in many states, he initiated a series of secret meetings with the opposition PAS. In so doing he showed contempt for his Barisan coalition partners.

Abdullah was also insensitive, or more accurately contemptuous of the feelings of those non-Malays who voted for his Barisan candidates, UMNO and non-UMNO alike. The rewards he dangled must have been quite substantial to tempt the otherwise self-righteous PAS leaders to participate in those talks. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed in PAS; the futile discussions were aborted.

Anwar does not have as yet a formal leadership role. Yet as adviser to PKR he successfully created a viable coalition effective enough to deny Barisan its two-thirds majority in Parliament and dislodge it in five states, including such major ones as Perak, Penang, and Selangor.

It is a testament to his leadership skills that Anwar could forge an alliance comprising the DAP and PAS, two parties that represent the polar extremes of political views in Malaysia. Anwar was successful because he builds on their commonalities, their yearning for a clean, efficient and transparent government, one not blighted by cronyism and corruption.

It is also the wish of all Malaysians, whether they embrace “Malaysia for Malaysians” or the “Islamic State of Malaysia” political ideals. It should also be the theme and aspiration of any government.

I am also impressed with Anwar’s ability to attract many young talents. While UMNO had to content with such worn-out retreads like Ezam Noor, Anwar managed to attract many young educated individuals like Nik Nazmi and Sim Tze Tzin.

It reflects the priorities of Abdullah and more importantly, his lack of diligence as a leader, that on such important matters as our energy policy he remains blissfully detached except for making empty silly remarks. With rocketing oil prices threatening the global (and Malaysian) economies, Abdullah and his deputy Najib are content busying themselves that Saiful would swear on the Quran that he had been sodomized.

It is the height of obscenity to see this young man wearing his songkok and Baju Melayu, symbols of everything pure and pristine in our culture, entering the sanctity of the holy mosque in the heart of Malaysia to utter, “… telah memasukkan zakarnya ke dalam lubang dubur saya.”

All so clinical, and so well-timed politically! It would have been obscene even without the ugly smirk on Saiful’s face after he blurted his utterance. Thankfully, he spared us the lurid details. One’s fantasy can get quite vivid, especially when given some attention and encouragement. As for the frequency, he has yet to decide on that. He is waiting to see Anwar’s diary first!

With his hands above the Holy Quran, witnessed by the Imam and nationally televised, those crudities issued forth from his sullied mouth. Obviously the cleansing ablution he took only minutes earlier before entering the mosque was merely a ritual, and a meaningless one at that. Surely Saiful, and others beside him including and especially the pious Imam, realized that by just uttering those crudities he had effectively nullified his ablution. Yet there he was, piously declaring Allah hu Akhbar (God is Great!), and then proceeding to his prayers.

I cannot imagine a more despicable sight of desecration of our Holy Book. I would not stoop to this college dropout’s gutter level to even translate the obscenities coming forth from his soiled lips.

Someone had put a microphone on the young man so the world could hear his filthy utterance. How thoughtful! The event was broadcasted at prime time! I pity those parents who would have to explain to their young children on what had transpired.

Such are the priorities of this dysfunctional duo of Abdullah and Najib. And they want Permatang Pauh voters to endorse their leadership!

Contrast that with Anwar’s statesmanship. The day he forms the government, he declared, he would lower gasoline prices and release those prisoners of conscience held under the ISA. Regardless whether one agrees with his policies, there is no denying that Anwar has set his priorities and the national agenda right.

Respecting The Quran

I am appalled that many Malaysian Muslims are calling for Anwar to debase himself to the same sewer level as Saiful by swearing on the Quran. If the truth could be had so simplistically, we would not need the court system and extensive police force.

Those Muslims’ commitment to things Islamic does not extend however to their suggesting that the Sharia Court takes jurisdiction over this case. After all both participants are Muslims, and Anwar has already lodged a complaint to the religious department. Somehow at this particular instance and circumstance, those Muslims suddenly have more faith with our secular criminal justice system than with the Sharia.

I would rather Anwar swear on the Quran to commit that, on becoming Prime

Minister, he would uphold the constitution and lead a government that is efficient, not corrupt, and has the interests of the people uppermost, as encapsulated in his Ketuanan Rakyat declaration. I also challenge Abdullah and Najib to do likewise. That would be the proper and dignified use of our Quran, the symbolic enactment of the phrase, “Let Allah be my witness!”

It would also have been more meaningful and dignified had Saiful taken the oath over the Quran committing himself to be a diligent student when given the rare opportunity for a precious slot in a local university. And had he followed through with that and studied hard, he would have achieved something for himself and be of service to his nation. Saiful should have known that he was given an opportunity denied to too many other young Malaysians. Instead, he blew that chance for a moment of infamy.

A few years ago former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghaffar declared that UMNO could be had for a few billion ringgit, at most. He was referring to the endemic corruption in the party. Apparently that price has gone down considerably since. Today, a local college drop-out with only a promise of a cheap scholarship to a lousy local institution could derail the whole UMNO government and paralyze the country.

I would have never imagined that the future of our Prime Minister and his Deputy would hang on whether a young man’s posterior had been violated. That is what Abdullah’s and Najib’s leadership has been reduced to, and how it will end, on Saiful’s end.

If a struggling failed-freshman like Saiful could create such a havoc, I would not dare imagine what a smart, savvy, rich foreigner could do to UMNO and our country. There is one sure way to spare our beloved nation such a fate: get rid of UMNO and the incompetent and dysfunctional team of Abdullah and Najib.

By voting for Anwar in the upcoming elections, Permatang Pauh voters get to do just that, and thus protect our country.

Farish A Noor

Odd how sensitive some people can be at times. Reading the reports about the debacle that passed during the Bar Council’s public forum on Religious Conversion in Malaysia, one gets the distinct impression that there are still many Malaysians among us who cannot and do not understand the meaning of respectful, intelligent dialogue between equal citizens who have reached adulthood. Rather than sitting down quietly and listening to the other’s point of view before making one’s own point or expressing one’s reservations, it turned out that a rather large crowd of demonstrators had assembled to demand that the forum be called off altogether, on the grounds that such a forum would upset the gentle and genteel sensitivities of some.

Well, before commenting any further, let us revisit what actually happened at the Bar Council’s forum itself:

According to the Bar Council’s account of the event, the forum passed without any undue incident and the discussion – before it was disrupted – proceeded without any degree of animosity or chaos. The first part of the forum involved two individuals who merely recounted their personal experiences of having to deal with the issue of conversion when a member of their respective families or spouses had converted to another religion without their knowledge. This was, by all accounts, a rather mundane recounting of personal experiences for the sake of shedding some light onto what actually happens in such cases and showing just how such instances of conversion can lead to all manner of legal complications later.

The second part of the forum was stopped before it began thanks to the entry of some of the protestors into the auditorium, thereby forcing the Bar Council to bring the proceedings to an untimely end.

Beyond the forum itself what really caught the attention of the press has been the reaction of the crowd of demonstrators and the language used by some of them as they demanded the forum to be stopped: Taunts of a racial nature, apparently, were used and there are reports of phrases like ‘Babi’ (pig) and ‘Balik Cina’ (Back to China) being uttered, by the very same people who claim to be defenders of a faith that is just and loving. One wonders just how Islam can be reconciled with such racist language and behavior; and whether those who uttered such remarks considered the simple fact that it was they who were really damaging the image of Islam and Muslims in Malaysia…

To make things worse, the Bar Council’s report on the forum went on to note that Molotov cocktails were found in the vicinity of the Bar Council building, and that on the same day another Molotov cocktail had been thrown into the compound of the former residence of the President of the Bar Council. Should these developments be related, we are again compelled to ask the obvious question: Was this also part of the defense of Islam and the reputation of Muslims, one wonders?

Malaysians, of course, are not unused to the claim that certain topics and issues cannot be discussed in public due to ‘public sensitivities’. Since the formation of this nation, we have been told again and again that issues such as race and religion are taboo and that Malaysian citizens are not allowed to discuss them in the open.

What is distressing, however, is the fact that among those who took part in the demonstration were also leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat opposition alliance, notably YB Zulkifli Nordin of PKR and YB Salehudin Ayob of PAS. It would appear that despite claims to representing a new Malaysia that aims to go beyond the communitarian logic of the past, some leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat have no problems whatsoever calling for a ban on public forums alongside their counterparts in UMNO. And some of us were under the mistaken impression that the results of the 8 March 2008 elections were an indication of the emergence of a new Malaysian politics that is non-sectarian and non-communitarian. Perhaps we should be thankful for the active and vocal participation of the PKR and PAS in this latest fiasco, that has reminded us that nothing has really changed after all.

While disrupting public forums has become somewhat of a specialty among the more robust members of the BN, as was the case during the disruption of the APCET II meeting in KL years ago, it is sad to see that the component parties of the PR are likewise able to emulate their BN counterparts, all in the name of protecting Muslim sensitivities. We therefore need to raise a host of other related questions here that may shed some light into helping us understand the real motivations behind this latest drama in Malaysia’s convoluted politics:

Firstly, it should be noted that talk of ‘protecting public sensitivities’ is not unique to Malaysia or Muslims alone. In my research into the rise of Hindu fundamentalist groups in India, I have come across ample instances of the same sort of skewered logic at work; where extreme right-wing Hindu fascists proclaiming the exclusive ideology of Hindutva have also resorted to the same sort of argument. Thus whenever there is any debate about the rights of Muslim minorities in India, the right-wing Hindutva lobby sounds the rallying call of ‘Hindus in danger!’ and makes the claim that Muslims and Christians are touching on Hindu sensitivities, and consequently provoking a violent response. Even after numerous instances of Mosques being destroyed, Muslims being harassed, attacked and even killed, the Muslims of India are told that they cannot question the politics of the far-right Hindu lobby, its hate campaigns and demonization of other faiths, as this is a ‘sensitive issue’ that would ‘inflame Hindu anger’. Minorities in India have thus been held hostage by an extremist, racist, Hindutva lobby and one cannot even question this on the grounds that such interrogations would be insensitive! Now, tell me, is it not the case that a similarly flawed and biased logic is at work here in Malaysia?

The appeal to communal sensitivity is perhaps one of the easiest ploys that have been used time and again to further the end of extremist, communitarian and sectarian politics at its worst. Likewise the issuance of bogus threats and fear-mongering campaigns that are designed to distract our attention from the real issues at stake, and are instead used merely as a smokescreen for a more insidious politics of racial, ethnic or religious majoritarianism worldwide. From the rise of the Fascists in Europe during the 1930s to the rise of the Hindutva lobby from the 1970s and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists from the 1980s, we have seen the same tired and worn-out strategy at work: To use the notion of ‘public sensitivity’ as a blanket excuse to foreclose debate, narrow down the public domain, marginalize civil society and erode democracy. While this is to be expected from a ruling elite that is bankrupt of ideas and values, again we need to ask: why was PKR and PAS there?

Secondly, we would like to remind our friends in the Pakatan Rakyat that the PR is precisely that: it is the PEOPLE’s alliance and it is meant to express and mirror the aspirations of the Malaysian people as a whole. Now this may be news to some of the leaders of PKR and PAS, but Malaysia happens to be a plural, multi-confessional nation that is complex. Malaysian society is made up of many different faith communities as there are varied ethnicities. The election results of 8 March 2008 was the clearest indicator ever given by this plural Malaysian public that we want a new form of national politics that transcends racial, ethnic and religious differences; one that demands a new politics based on universal citizenship.

Now one of the features of any democratic plural society is its maturity and ability to deal with matters that transcend communal divisions, including religious conversion. In case the leaders of PKR and PAS are not aware of this, conversion is a commonplace occurrence and it often leads to distress among family members and those related to the convert. I myself have had to play a pastoral role in assuaging the worries of many non-Muslim families when one of their members converted to Islam. Surely this is a matter that requires all those qualities that Islam speaks of: compassion, understanding, sympathy and integrity? And not to merely fly off the handle and start a demonstration just to make a point and grab some media publicity? To unilaterally demand that a perfectly sensible, responsible and objective public forum be stopped on account of the perceived injury to one community – real or imagined – smacks of bias and prejudice, and the failure to even understand the anxiety of other communities. One is compelled to ask if these ‘defenders of Islam’ have even thought of the pain and anguish caused to those families who have seen and lived through broken marriages, divorces and grave-robbings? Or do the feelings of other communities do not count, and do other communities have no sensitivities? Why is if that time and again, it is only the sensitivities of Muslims that matter in the eyes of some of these people?

And finally, a note about decorum and language. That PKR and PAS could have been present at a demonstration where phrases like ‘Babi balik Cina’ were uttered is a mind-boggling revelation that beggars belief. If the members of PAS’s Unit Amal could have walked out of a public performance simply because they did not take to the sort of music being played at a concert on the grounds of its alleged indecency, how and why could they consent to be present at a demonstration where such foul, obscene racist language was used? Or have we come to a point where PAS is able to live with racist language that calls on our fellow Malaysians to ‘Balik Cina’, while unable to tolerate even a simple, mature and objective discussion on freedom of religion?

Truly, the event at the Bar Council has served as a check on the perception and optimism of the Malaysian public who voted for the Pakatan in March. We gave the parties of the Pakatan – notably the PKR and PAS – our votes on trust and the longing to see a new Malaysia. Instead all we have is the hysteria of mass-organized moral panics and the language of ‘Babi balik Cina’ instead. Shame on you

Chapter 9: Institutions Matter

Islamic Civil Society

Paralleling the development of the modern civil society is its Islamic variant. It too transcends ethnicity and operates outside the sphere of the state. This last assertion needs clarification.

In contrast to the secular West, there is no separation of church and state in Islam. It is all encompassing. True, but conveniently forgotten is that this is so because in Islam there is no “church” and no formal clergy class. The imam is imam because we, the flock, call him so. His power is derived from and not imposed on the congregation—the essence of representative governance at its basic level. That has long been the tradition in Islam.25

Exceptions occur. Shiism, often dubbed Islam’s Catholic Church, has a penchant for an elaborate clergy: Mullahs, Ayatollahs, and the Grand Ayatollah. Malaysia, although non-Shii, is also picking up this trend of having formalized state-sanctioned “church,” complete with its hierarchy of officials with their proud civil service status.

This bureaucratization of Islam in Malaysia is relatively recent, within the last decade or two. Malay leaders try to legitimize their positions through control of the religious establishment. In the past, local communities governed their mosques, with the congregation selecting its imam; today the state takes over that function. Today’s imam is just another civil service functionary, and has as much commitment to his congregation as his fellow bureaucrats in other agencies to their clients. Even the sermons are canned, supplied by the central office.

When the state becomes large and intrusive, whether in Eastern Europe or the Muslim world, that human yearning for freedom begins to express itself. The vibrancy and mushrooming of Islamic civil society is precisely the result of the overbearing presence of the state.

A complicating factor in Malaysia is politics. Many Islamic civil society activists are sympathetic to PAS. This kindred spirit has less to do with Islam and everything to do with their common opposition to an intrusive powerful government. Precisely because of its close association with PAS, Islamic civil society is getting an unfair bad rap from the establishment.

Contrary to the perception in the West, civil society (or its equivalent) has a long tradition in Islam. The institution of waqaf (local endowment) builds hospitals, schools and universities, is active in social welfare, and welcomes new converts. The bulk of their charitable activities are outside the sphere of the state.26

Two Islamic civil society organizations are worth noting: Sisters in Islam and Al Arqam. The former is a women’s advocacy group led by moderate, liberal and essentially political establishment types. One of its officers is Prime Minister Abdullah’s daughter. Its leaders are regularly lauded in the mainstream media. The reason? Their brand of Islam matches that of the government.

At the opposite end of the theological spectrum is Al Arqam, started by one Ashaari Muhammad who until recently was jailed for “deviationist” preaching.27 That movement emphasizes personal responsibility, believing that if individuals were moral and upright, society would become clean and wholesome. “Amen!” to that! The movement was remarkably popular and successful. It combined the independence and discipline of the Mormon Church, the asceticism and cohesiveness of the Amish community, and the communality and free spiritedness of a hippie commune.

Today we have leaders exhorting Malays to be independent and to shed our “subsidy mentality.” That was the same message Ashaari was preaching three decades earlier. He was very successful, and the government jailed him and banned his movement!

Many would consider ABIM, the Muslim Youth Movement once led by Anwar Ibrahim, an Islamic civil society. It certainly has all the trappings of one, but in dynamics it is nothing more than pseudo civil society.

The traditional and pseudo civil societies are fast fading. Today the main contenders are secular (Western) civil society and its Islamic variant. At first blush, the twain will never meet. They view the cosmos, in particular self and state, very differently. Modern civil society, following in the grand humanist tradition, places supremacy on the individual, with the state deriving its power from and using it to serve the citizens. In Islam, everyone—ruler and ruled—are ultimately answerable to a higher authority, Almighty Allah.

If advocates of both civil society and its Islamic variant were to emphasize their missions and ideals, they would find that they are on the same path. Were they to emphasize their symbolisms and differences, they are bound for collision. Malaysia, with its plural society and where both elements are strong and vibrant, is the ideal environment and unique opportunity to test this proposition. Malaysians should seize it.

There is always the possibility that religious-based civil society would heighten ethnic and communal identities with devastating consequences, as in the Balkans and India. The models to emulate instead are the Red Cross and Red Crescent. They share the same ideals and mission; an injured Christian in Beirut would not feel out of place in a Red Crescent ambulance any more than a Muslim patient in Boston would be discomfited receiving blood from the Red Cross. Were we to associate the cross with the Crusade, and the crescent with the Saracen, we would be heading for collision.

Early civil society in America too had strong religious orientations. With time and responding to an increasingly plural America, they began transcending ethnic and religious boundaries. Today, the YMCA is more an athletic club and less a Christian organization. Many recognize the Salvation Army for its many wonderful charity works; few recall its Christian origin.

Islamic civil society, like Islam, should transcend ethnicity, politics, and geography. In reality, the Malaysian version is essentially a Malay movement and politically aligned with PAS. Doctrinally, with few exceptions like Sisters in Islam, their adherents tend towards the more fundamentalist version of the faith. They are also insular; they do not welcome Muslims of less pure persuasions, and of course non-Muslims. Their circle of trust is small. They are significant barriers to developing a common Malaysian identity.

I hope that with time and responding to the plurality of Malaysia, Islamic civil society would lose its religious emphasis and focus more on its missions and goals a la the YMCA and Salvation Army.

There are two avenues to achieve this: revamp the way Islam is taught; and reduce the state’s presence in matters Islamic. Both are tall orders. Islamic learning in Malaysia and in the wider Muslim world is nothing more than indoctrination. Students are dustbins to be filled with dogmas rather than intellects that needed to be sharpened. Islamic schools and colleges are more seminaries than educational institutions. If they were more like their Catholic counterpart in America and also teach “secular” subjects like science and mathematics, then they would not only attract non-Muslims but also produce better and less insular Muslims. Islamic International University uses English and offers nonreligious courses; as such it attracts many non-Muslims. I see no reason why an Islamic school would not attract non-Muslims.

The morals and ethics of Islam are universal. The central command and recurring theme of the Quran is to “command good and forbid evil.” All, believers and non-believers, would agree with that.

Young Muslims must have broad-based liberal education in schools and undergraduate years. They can specialize and study Islam in depth later in graduate school. Exposure to and learning the humanities and sciences (natural and social) would enhance their understanding of our great faith. Muslims would benefit by being exposed to the rich and varied theological interpretations of Islam. It would be the height of intellectual arrogance if not downright “un-Islamic” to declare that your interpretation is the only true one.

The second approach would be to reduce the role of government in the lives of its citizens. The state’s close identification with Islam risks many negative consequences.

It alienates non-Muslim Malaysians and makes them feel disenfranchised. It also degrades the faith; it would be viewed as nothing more than a bureaucracy. Failures of the state would be viewed as the deficiencies of Islam, eroding the public faith in this great religion. This is exactly what is occurring in Iran. The Ayatollah and other members of the overbearing clergy class have driven more Iranians away from Islam than any Western crusader. The current contempt many Malaysian Muslims have for the Islamic pseudo clergy in the political establishment also reflect this sentiment. These political ulama are viewed less as men of piety and more as petty bureaucrats. With the government out of Islam, Muslims would be free to explore and discover our rich and varied traditions without fear. This intellectual freedom, like all freedoms, is empowering.

The most devastating consequence of the state’s heavy involvement in Islam, and one inflicted exclusively on Malays, is that it diverts scarce talent into the non-productive activities of the bloated religious bureaucracy.

With the bureaucratization of Islam, functions previously done by the local waqaf are taken over by a paternalistic and authoritarian government. I do not know whether the poor are looked after better today, but I do know that those religious functionaries (I would not dignify them by referring to them as Imam) live in government-appointed bungalows, drive luxury cars, and work in palatial offices.

With the government out of Islam, Muslims can truly focus on the essence of our faith instead of its superficial rituals and manifestations. Then we would see in the modern civil society not its Western origin, rather its ideals that are also the ideals of our great faith. With the de-emphasis on Islam, Islamic civil society could concentrate more on its civic mission and less on its Islamic trappings. That would also bring Malaysians together.

Next: The Fourth Estate

M. Bakri Musa

The eminent economist Ungku Aziz, whose insight on rural poverty remains unmatched, once proposed the “sarong index” as a measure of rural Malay poverty. You count the number of sarongs in a household and divide that by the number of dwellers (excepting infants, who presumably would still be in their diapers).

The lower that number the greater is the poverty, with an index of less than one (more people than sarong) signifying extreme poverty. Perhaps that explains why the poor have large families; they are, in the language of my old kampong, sharing the same sarong too often!

With politicians now routinely giving out sarong pelakat to Malay voters during elections, I suggest a new “sarong index,” this time as a measure of political corruption. Divide the number of sarongs distributed by the number of Malay voters. The higher the number, the more corrupt the politician, and the more competitive the constituency or the position sought.

My index is superior in that it simultaneously measures two variables: the degree of political corruption and how keenly a position is being contested.

Like Ungku Aziz’s old index, mine too could be refined by, for example, noting the material of the sarong. If it is only the cotton Madras variety, you could conclude that the corruption is low, or that the election is only for a branch and not a national position.

I imagine Abdullah Badawi’s team is now aggressively handing out the more expensive and finely-embroidered Kelantan sutra in anticipation of defending his party’s presidency in the upcoming UMNO elections!

Bless those folks of Permatang Pauh, for they, at least the Muslim voters, will now be inundated with gifts of sarongs given out by generous UMNO operatives intent on denting Anwar Ibrahim’s assured victory in the upcoming by-election.

It may be argued that my index is so, well, 1960s or kampong-like. In these days you would need an extended stay at a plush hotel in the capital city or even a brief overseas trip to carry any weight. Rest assured that my sarong index would still apply in those circumstances, albeit with some modifications.

For in addition to the number of sarongs and type of material, the manner by which the sarong is presented would also matter. For the ordinary villager, simply leaving the sarong in its original clear plastic wrapping would be acceptable. For more important or exceptionally influential clients, that would not suffice. Not only would you need a better material like the sarong sutra, but you would also need to wrap it around something attractive, like a voluptuous body a la the Mongolian model, with the carrier included as part of the gift! And if your target has shall we say a more avant garde taste, you would have to wrap the sarong around a Saiful!

A note of caution for those ill informed on matters of chemistry: biological stains on fabric, unwashed, last a long time, as President Clinton so woefully found out.

In traditional Malay culture, the gift of a sarong is the most personal and thoughtful, bestowed only on special occasions. For a youngster, it would be the traditional gift at the time of circumcision and on khatam, the completion of reciting the Quran, both seminal events in a young Malay’s life. The sarong is also a wonderful wedding gift.

The sarong has both religious and traditional significance. The more embroidered and expensive sutra is worn at weddings and to adorn the pelamin (wedding dais). The simple cotton sarong is the apparel for our daily prayers. Imagine for your prayers wearing the sarong given to you with the intent to corrupt!

The gift is very personal for when donning the sarong one would immediately be reminded of the generosity of the giver as well as the unique occasion on which it was given. I still have the samping sutras given to me by my friends and family decades ago. On the special occasions like Hari Raya and wedding receptions when I would don it, it would inevitably rekindle favorite memories of those dear friends and family members, as well as the warm occasions when I received those gifts. Such is the meaning of the gift of a sarong.

I also remember fondly the sarongs given to me by my grateful patients, not so much for the gift as for the emotions and sense of gratitude expressed with the giving. On those occasions I would feel a certain kinship with the village dukuns (medicine man), for whom the gift of a sarong from their cliental is the tradition.

It saddens me that such a pristine part of our culture is today debased. Far from being the symbol of affection and generosity, as I know it, the sarong is now part of and the emblem of corruption.

Earlier we saw the obscenity of our very symbol of honor and nobility, the keris, being publicly degraded by those who would claim to be our future leaders. What saddened me were not the thuggish behaviors of these young pseudo leaders rather that they were wildly cheered on by their followers. Such perverted values!

Alas, the sarong, like our beloved keris, is now a metaphor for the erosion of our traditional values and the desecration of our culture. There is no index to measure that.

Why Nation-States Need to Embrace Complexity

Farish A Noor

Modern nation-states are rather clumsy, careless things that blunder along the path of history until they eventually get to their appointed destinations. Along the way, modern nation-states tend to tread rather heavily on the conscience of their marginalized minorities and liminal, subaltern groupings who do not quite fit into the grand logic of the monologuos state with its singular vision and homogenous, self-referential narrative of unitary identity. All over the world today we see the perils of assimilationist politics at work, with minority groups beings sidelined, marginalized, erased or silenced. More often than not such discursive closure and historical erasures are justified before the altar of realpolitik and pragmatic majoritarianism, and we are told time and again, that the history of nations must necessarily be the history of the majority. So where does this leave the subaltern Other?

All of this, of course, points to the quaint parochialism of the modern nation-state which is, after all, a rather crude and blunt instrument at best. Nationalism and nation-building have always been a messy process and invariably the bloods of innocents have been shed for the sake of creating some false sense of unity in identity and purpose. We need not repeat the catalogue of atrocities that human beings have committed in the name of nationalism and of course we cannot escape the fact that the nation-state is all but normalized and hegemonized in the age we live in.

But can the modern nation-state be induced to engage is a modicum of self-reflection and auto-critique? Can it be compelled to reconsider some of its foundational premises; to back track and retrace the steps that it has taken to where it is today (which often leads it to the mistaken conclusion that history is determinate and teleological); to question some of its cherished settled assumptions?

The root of the matter is the question of identity and the perpetuation of identity over time. This, incidentally, is a question that is both personal as it is political; and the nation-state, like the individual, has to be made to look into the mirror of self-doubt to see the glimmer of reason tucked behind the cloud of untruths (in the Nietzschean sense) that are its instrumental fictions. It has, in short, to be made to ask the same existentialist questions that we are all bound to ask ourselves sooner or later: “what am I; why am I here; is this all I am; is this all I can be?” How, in short, do individuals and states deal with complexity?

Instructive in this respect is the dialogue between the semi-divine hero Arjuna and the God Krishna that takes place on the eve of the great battle of Kurukshetra, which makes up the theme of the Bhagavad Gita, and which, incidentally, happens to also be one of the most important works of localized Hindu literature in Southeast Asia, rendered as the Hikayat Pandawa Lima.

Unable to lay his soul to rest the warrior-prince Arjuna contemplates the folly of life and the madness of power on the night before the great battle between the two warring clans of the Pandawas and Korawas, cognizant of the fact that regardless of the outcome the battle will spell the doom of both. Gnawing at his conscience is the perennial conundrum that he is unable to resolve: How can he, the warrior-prince, obey and comply with two apparently contradictory moral orders, the dharma of the just man who must respect life, and the dharma of the warrior who must destroy life itself?

It is Krishna who comes to Arjuna’s aid by offering him sage counsel that is equally relevant to the modern technocrat of today. Krishna reminds Arjuna that life is full of contradictions and that as a human being one of the first conditions to be met while living in the here-and-now is to accept, understand and live with these contradictions. Arjuna has to protect life, but he also has to kill. He must be both prince and warrior, protector and killer. Having to bear the burden of both obligations is his destiny and he cannot escape this.

Arjuna is faced with the last temptation before the great slaughter at Kurukshetra. He longs to relinquish all sense of responsibility, to escape, to deny his own agency and responsibility, to refuse to act, to do nothing. But it is Krishna who reveals himself in all his magnificent universal plenitude and shows him in no uncertain terms that Life is far greater than the individual. While the warrior-prince is forced to do battle with his conscience, Krishna reminds him that Life is far greater, more complex, much richer than the finite conscience of the individual; and that even if the greatest of heroes cannot reconcile such contradictions in him, Life is far more abundant and expansive and great enough to reconcile all contradictions within itself.

The moral of the Bhagavad Gita – of which there are many – is that inaction is no escape from the complexities of life and that submission to Life means accepting the complexities, contradictions and paradoxes that make up mottled landscape of living itself. No, we cannot run from our fears and anxieties and we cannot gloss them over with counterfeit simple solutions either. To truly live to the full, one has to reflect the complexities of life in our personalities as well, to mirror the myriad of life’s contradictions in the myriad of personalities that inhabit ourselves. We have, in other words, to accept and live as a community of selves.

As it is for Arjuna the beleaguered hero, so is it with beleaguered nation-states and confused technocrats. The modern nation-state harbors still an anxiety so deep that it points to its primordial origins and its murky roots in a past that it wishes to forget. Again and again the nation-building project sets itself upon the weakest of foundations, be they artificial histories or instrumental myths of creation that attempt to disguise the confusion and chaos of their genesis. States and nations lie, again in the Nietzschean sense, to escape the prospect of having the mirror of history pointed squarely in their faces; and to be reminded of the mythological seats of their birth. Like children who refuse to grow up, they attempt to escape and are tempted to deny their own agency in their auto-genesis. They deny their authorial responsibility in the writing of their own – often lopsided, narrow and simplified – histories.

The challenge that remains before the modern nation-state today, living as we do at a time when the project of Modernity itself has come under question and in a world where myths are dying all around us, is to admit to its own mythological origins and its fictional identity. The nation-state has to grow up, and like Arjuna, realize that the writing of the national narrative is necessarily a process that is complex, confusing and contradictory; and to learn to live in a confused and complex world. Only then can we say that the nation-state has reached adulthood, only then can we say that we live in a nation that is mature.

Dr. Farish A. Noor is Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University and co-founder of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

Dr. Farish (Badrol Hisham) Ahmad-Noor, Senior Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, 639798 Tel: (Office) 0065 6790 6128; Main line: 0065 6793 2991

Chapter 9: Institutions Matter

Civil Society

The concept of the civil society—the space between self and state where citizens voluntarily come together for the pursuit of personal fulfillment and the common good—is universal. It is not merely a social construct of the modern secular West, as many in the Third World would like us to believe. Nor are the aspirations and ideals implicit in that concept suited only to citizens of Western democracies, as many in the West believe, with the rest being unworthy recipients.

While the concept may be universal, its content varies with cultures. As what we view as self and state varies, there must necessarily be variations in the definition and content of the civil society. In the West, self is essentially the individual and his or her nuclear family. As for the state, it derives its authority from the people, “Government of, by, and for the people.” In many parts of the world self refers to the full extended family, often the entire clan or tribe, and the state is viewed as deriving its authority from a higher source, “The Mandate from Heaven” for the Chinese emperor, and daulat or divine dispensation for Malay sultans, or directly from Allah as in an Islamic theocracy.

As various cultures look upon self and state differently, the defining characteristics of their civil society must necessarily vary.23 This caveat is necessary lest we get fixated on terminology and expect grapefruits to grow on vines simply because of terminology.

I discern four variants of civil society in Malaysia: the traditional, pseudo, modern, and Islamic. The first two are minor players; my focus is the modern civil society, and its Islamic variant.

I grew up in a feudal Malay society, albeit one that was rapidly modernizing. Civil society was not supposed to exist in such a setting. Yet I remember villagers getting together voluntarily to set up an English school, a communal catering group, and to cultivate rice fields belonging to disabled members of the community. Such gotong royong or communal self-help groups are the hallmark of traditional Malay society. The Chinese too have their clan organizations; likewise the Indians. Operationally they all have features of civil society: voluntary, bottom-up organizations, and beyond the purview of the state.

The reason such a civil society existed in feudal Malay society was that the state, despite its seemingly formal structure of rulers and ministers, had in reality no effective power. Those ministers and other officials were essentially royal courtiers, not administrators. In the words of Clifford Geertz, the Malay Negara was a theater state, with little resemblance to the modern political state. Court and state officials were merely playing their role, as in a sandiwara or theater.

With the penchant of many newly independent nations for big governments, many of the activities of these traditional civil societies were taken over by the state. A few remained, to champion such issues as language and cultural rights. These traditional civil societies had limited reach, rarely extending beyond the village, clan, or ethnic group.

With globalization, many Western institutions including civil society are grafted onto the local social landscape. Often these native versions bear only the superficial trappings of Western civil society, for in dynamics and structure they are nothing more than extensions of the state. Participation is far from voluntary, and they are strictly top-down organizations. They are invariably headed by aspiring or has-been politicians, or members of the royalty seeking yet another title. Ostensibly registered as “non governmental organizations” (NGOs), they all have lofty “do good” mission statements. In reality they are propaganda arms of the state or instruments to advance the careers of their leaders; hence my label of pseudo civil society.

These organizations often receive generous governmental funding, at least those compliant with and supportive of the existing order. Being top-down organizations, their existence depends entirely on their leaders. If they fall out of favor, so too would the organization.

A prime example is masyarakat madani. Madani derives from the Arabic word madaniah, meaning civilized. Masyarakat madani actually means civilized society, with the emphasis on civilized or civility, a slightly different shade in meaning, but in its current usage, it is the Malay version of civil society. The man behind the movement was former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. It was an instrument more for his personal political advancement. With his disgrace, the movement fell apart.

The true modern civil society has a long history in Malaysia. During the benign neglect of colonial rule, civil society of both secular and religious variety flourished. The phenomenon no doubt had the enlightened approval if not tacit encouragement of the colonial government. Many of the Malay-based ones later formed the backbone of the now ruling party, UMNO. Civil society then was, not surprisingly, consumed with nationalism and the independence movement.

The colonialists, behaving like other state powers, successfully influenced some of these organizations such that their members were agitating for Malaysia to remain a colony!

Come independence, there was a lull in the activities of civil society as citizens viewed their domestic government as part of themselves. With the increasing dominance and intrusion of the state typical of many newly independent countries, civil society began once again emerging, tentatively at first because of the repression from the state.

With globalization, transnational or global civil societies find a ready soil in Malaysia, especially those dealing with human rights, environment, and clean government. Many are so effective that they have become millstones around the administration.

Perversely, the government’s very policies encouraged the development of these local chapters of global civil societies, in particular, the push towards urbanization, free enterprise, and foreign trade. Malaysia’s healthy economy elevated many into the middle class, enabling them to benefit from modern education abroad. In the process, they aspire to the same goals of these global civil societies. Unlike the pseudo variety, these transplanted global civil societies remain true to their founding ideals and dynamics in being voluntary, foregoing state funding, and having a bottom-up structure. Their leaders often are distinguished Malaysians who have been educated abroad and had absorbed those same ideals. A prime example is Transparency International, headed by Tunku Abdul Aziz. It remains an effective critic of official corruption.

Other influential groups include those associated with environmental issues, like Friends of the Earth (Sahabat Alam). They have effectively blocked the construction of the highway along the crest of the Main Range, and Penang’s outer ring road.

The government is aware of the increasing influence of the modern civil society. As Prime Minister, Mahathir in his usual confrontational mode tried to discredit its members by labeling them as stooges intent on aping the ways of the West. His successor Abdullah is using the velvet-glove approach by co-opting the leaders. He recently appointed Transparency International’s Tunku Aziz to the Police Royal Commission.

Global civil society also stimulates the formation of homegrown institutions. The Consumer Association is an effective watchdog against government and corporate excesses, akin to America’s Consumers Union. Another is Aliran, a reform movement dedicated to “justice, freedom and solidarity.” Its monthly publication is a refreshing antidote to the puerile products of the mainstream media. There are others concerned with peace, rights of indigenous people and immigrants, and women’s rights.

A feature of these organizations is that they are, like their counterparts in the West, bottom-up in structure, independent of the state, transcend geography and ethnicity, and led by outward-looking Malaysians wise in the ways of the modern world.

Next:  Islamic Civil Society

The continuing furor over a college dropout’s allegation that he had been sodomized reveals the malicious mindset and perverted priorities of the Abdullah Administration.

It is also a gross perversion of justice. Those who would have Anwar swear by the Quran and voluntarily donate his DNA to the police, whose reputation is only slightly less soiled than the criminals they apprehend, have it backwards. It is the norm of the civilized world that one is innocent till found guilty; it is for the state to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

I can excuse law-illiterate Abdullah for not appreciating such nuances, but for his law-trained ministers like Rais Yatim and Syed Hamid not to know that is reprehensible. They are breaching their profession’s ethics and ideals.

Besides, since when has our Quran been debased to a lie detector? If only the truth could thus be readily sought, we would not need expensive forensic investigations! Such naiveté!

What with the economic challenges, endemic corruption, and rampant crime in the country, our leaders’ voyeuristic obsession on this alleged male-on-male khalwat represents gross misuse of scarce state resources, a flagrant perversion of priorities.

Perverted Priorities

In this 21^st Century, a charge of sodomy sounds so, well, medieval! To think that in Malaysia today that ‘crime’ carries a 20-year prison term! Perhaps some diligent law student could tell us the last time there was a sodomy trial in Malaysia. I am not counting the 1998 case against Anwar Ibrahim that was subsequently overturned on appeal.

That was nothing more than a crude political maneuver to smear and silence the former Deputy Prime Minister. The glaringly shoddy forensic investigation and amateurish prosecution did not in the least embarrass the authorities.

Nonetheless, in the process Anwar suffered that infamous black eye, the result of being senselessly beaten while in custody by no less than the Chief of Police. The country however suffered an even more damaging black eye, figuratively speaking, from that sorry episode.

Many countries have repealed their sodomy laws making it no longer a crime. Even prudish Singapore reduced the penalty to a maximum of only two years, a far cry from Malaysia’s 20!

Such an enlightened attitude does not mean that society treats lightly or refuses to acknowledge male-on-male sexual assaults. Many jurisdictions have removed the gender specificity to the crime of rape, meaning it can be perpetrated by man on man. It would not surprise me that, like everything else, the Malaysian penal code has yet to be updated to recognize this new reality.

Unlike rape, which requires the legal determination of lack of consent, sodomy does not have that statutory burden. Enough that sperms (or any tissue) other than that of Saiful’s were found in his anus, a fact that could be established through forensic examination. That overrides the “he says, she says” (or in this case, ‘he’) argument. The authorities’ long delay following completion of the forensic examination signals something sinister.

In the context of modern criminal law, what the young man is alleging is that he had been raped. Of course in conservative Muslim Malaysia, a rape charge does not quite have the same devastating political impact as that of sodomy. Indeed, in UMNO’s upcoming party elections one of the candidates for Vice-President was once accused of raping an underage girl.

This sodomy investigation is less the seeking of justice for a ‘soiled’ pretty boy, as Abdullah would like us to believe, more an orchestrated political exercise in character assassination. The recent public opinion polls confirm this.

Meanwhile there are two statutory declarations linking Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah to the brutal murder of a Mongolian model, a translator in the scandalous multibillion dollar submarine deal with France. By whatever measure, the viciousness of the crime or the personalities implicated, these other two allegations are considerably more serious. You would not know that from the reactions (or lack thereof) of the officials.

This sodomy allegation has been commented upon by ministers, senior officials, and Members of Parliament. Don’t they have substantive matters to worry about? Even science-illiterate Abdullah has suddenly become an expert on DNA and its use in forensic investigations!

Now we have evidence that another physician had also examined the young man and found no external indications of bodily injury. This fact was known to the police but it chose to ignore it, until the report was exposed by Raja Petra in his Malaysia-Today.

Although that first physician’s assessment was not a formal forensic examination, nonetheless its negative clinical findings cannot be dismissed. Discrepancy between it and the subsequent official forensic examination must be explained. It throws reasonable doubt to the charge.

The story gets even more bizarre. The victim had a special “visit” with Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak right after the alleged incident. Najib apparently took pity to this stranger. Such paternal concerns! Even more inexplicable is why Najib or his subordinates would allow access of this nondescript political climber.

Serious Problems Neglected

There is no shortage of critical problems facing the country. Citizens’ concerns are far from these sexual shenanigans, real or alleged, lurid or otherwise. They are too busy eking out their daily living. Our leaders’ preoccupation with these silly things merely confirms our deepest suspicions of incompetence and omission at the highest levels.

We suffer daily through the rot of our institutions, as when we visit the land office to pay our assessments or see the dilapidation and neglect that is our children’s school. On the roads we are harassed by those menacing Mat Rempits and have to contend with those boys in blue demanding their share of the “road toll.”

Where are our leaders? Asleep at the wheel, and with Abdullah, literally so! With the upcoming UMNO elections in December, they are even more distracted.

Tun Mahathir, hitherto a trenchant critic of Abdullah, unhesitatingly supports him in this latest action, declaring that it is unlikely for Abdullah to be stupid enough to repeat his (Mahathir’s) mistake of a decade ago. Mahathir deludes himself if he believes that Abdullah has now suddenly become smart or has his priorities right. Mahathir is also mistaken if he thinks that Anwar is as stupid as Abdullah to repeat or be caught with the same mistake.

Contrary to Mahathir’s new-found assessment, Abdullah is as inept and incompetent now as he was before Saiful’s statutory declaration. Abdullah will remain so until we get rid of him. Mahathir was wrong on Abdullah before (as he now readily admits); Mahathir is wrong on Abdullah now.

When Mahathir asserted that we must get rid of Abdullah for the good of the party and country, his message resonated with the masses. In supporting Abdullah’s current foolish action, Mahathir not only risks diluting his central message but also jeopardizes his last chance at remedying his earlier grievous error in anointing Abdullah.

With Abdullah asleep at the wheel, continue to expect the worse. As for this sodomy charge, look ahead to the mainstream media to be filled with silly utterances of our politicians and pundits, as well as prurient details of this slimy case. I for one do not look forward to the graphic description of the private anatomy of this pretty boy who started the ball (pardon me, his balls) rolling.

Farish A. Noor

At present, there are several right-wing conservative Buddhist groups calling for Thailand to be officially declared as the first Buddhist state in the world; a feat unmatched by anyone else thus far, even Sri Lanka, which has remained secular all these years. One wonders what the implications of such a move might be both for Thailand and the region as a whole should it come to pass. Would the rise of right-wing Buddhism have an impact on the Muslim and Christian minorities in the country? Would it further inflame the situation in the South of Thailand where conflict between Thai Buddhists and Malay Muslims has been raging since 2004?

One factor that has prevented any country in ASEAN from unilaterally making such drastic changes to its internal politics has been the checks and balances offered by the region’s plural character itself. A quick look at the map of the ASEAN region would show that this is a region of many faith communities living together and overlapping. Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei remain predominantly Muslim, but they are flanked by predominantly Buddhist Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and even Vietnam. In turn there is the Philippines which is Christian as well, and in all these countries – Singapore being a case in point – there are also large pockets of cosmopolitanism mixed with multiculturalism and multi-religiosity too.

Historically this may have been one of the factors that prevented countries like Malaysia and Indonesia from unilaterally upping the stakes in the Islamization process, for it would have raised eyebrows in the neighbouring capitals. How long this state of affairs will remain unchecked, however, is anyone’s guess. In Malaysia and Indonesia, the rise of political Islam has also given birth to radical new Islamist groupings like the Hizb’ut Tahrir that are now calling for a Pan-Muslim ASEAN super-state, far-fetched though their ambitions may seem.

Malaysia on the other hand seems to be making tentative steps towards raising the stakes in the Islamization race further. Following the results of the March 2008 elections that badly damaged the image and standing of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) party led by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, it would seem that the political elite of the country are more in favor than ever for a political compromise between UMNO and its former arch-nemesis, the Malaysian Islamic party PAS. For several weeks now the Malaysian political scene has been abuzz with talk about a possible merger between the nationalist UMNO and the Islamist opposition party PAS, on the basis of further developing and ensuring Malay-Muslim unity in the country.

An Islamic state in Malaysia? The implications are manifold and would consume the attention and energy of a legion of political analysts. How would such a merger between the nationalist UMNO and the Islamist PAS work? Would Malaysia finally declare itself to be ‘the Islamic state of Malaysia’? What would happen to the existing institutions of state such as the Parliament and the Monarchy? (PAS, for instance, has mooted the idea that the Parliament would be subsumed under a more powerful council of guardians and ulama since the 1980s.

In Malaysia itself the talk of a possible merger between UMNO and PAS has given cause for anxiety among many of its citizens who wish to see the country remain on its secular-democratic track, and who fear that the sudden rise to power of PAS would undermine all the achievements of secular civil society in areas such as multiculturalism, gender equality, and freedom of speech. Even among the ranks of the Islamist party itself there are dissenting voices arguing that the latest gambit by UMNO to bring PAS closer to it is nothing more than a thinly-disguised attempt by UMNO to remain in power at whatever cost.

One other factor that has to be raised now is how all this will affect Malaysia’s image abroad and how this may damage Malaysia’s standing as a moderate Muslim state in the region. After all, was it not the government of Prime Minister Badawi that promoted its own brand of ‘moderate’ Islam, dubbed Islam Hadari – that was in turn roundly condemned as un-Islamic by the very same PAS that UMNO is now trying to court? For decades the Malaysian government has presented the country as a bastion of moderate Islam while decrying PAS as a ‘fundamentalist’ party. Is this ‘fundamentalist party’ now being courted by UMNO to secure UMNO’s dominant position in the country? And would this mean that UMNO will now allow the very same ‘fundamentalist’ PAS to dictate the form and content of normative Islam in Malaysia?

Should the UMNO-PAS talks continue, and should PAS ever be brought into the ruling coalition by UMNO, the ASEAN region may have to look closer at Malaysia and consider the implications of this move for the region as a whole. A Malaysia with Islamists in power and a Malaysia that finally commits itself to the creation of an Islamic state will have long-term implications for ASEAN and the wider community. For a start, the success of the Islamists in Malaysia (should it come to pass) would embolden Islamists in Indonesia and other parts of the region to press ahead with their demands for an Islamic state too. What next? An Islamic state of Indonesia? And where will these moves take Malaysia and Indonesia, two key strategic states that have until recently been cast as ‘model’ ‘moderate’ Muslim states on the geo-political map?

It is for these reasons that the behind-the-scenes negotiations between UMNO and PAS in Malaysia cannot be seen as domestic concerns alone. ASEAN today has become too integrated and inter-dependent that any radical shift in any single ASEAN country is bound to have an impact on the economic viability and political stability of the region. UMNO today may be desperate to hold on to power, but even UMNO has to realize that there are internal and external limits to the manoeuvrability of any party.

Dr. Farish A. Noor is Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University and co-founder of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

Dr. Farish (Badrol Hisham) Ahmad-Noor, Senior Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, 639798 Tel: (Office) 0065 6790 6128; Main line: 0065 6793 2991

Chapter 9 Institutions Matter

Insurance and Risk Management

Another important institution is the insurance industry. Although not directly linking owners and users of capital, nonetheless they are vital to the economy. Any economic enterprise carries risks. There must be a satisfactory mechanism to manage those risks in order to smooth out and thus encourage economic activities. Without it, no one would dare venture out for fear of losing everything.

There are three practical ways of managing risk: avoid, reduce, or share it. Avoidance means just that, staying away from high-risk ventures; however often the most profitable ventures are also the riskiest. One has to match one’s goals with the level of tolerance. If you were a trustee of public funds, you should not invest in high-risk ventures.

Limiting risks is prudent and indeed necessary. Doing otherwise would be foolhardy and a recipe for failure. We reduce risks through careful planning, doing due diligent studies, and having safe working conditions.

An instrument of the modern economy that reduces risks is the limited liability corporation. Imagine if I were to own a taxi business and my car accidentally kills somebody. If I do not have insurance, it would be unfair to the family of the deceased; he may have been the breadwinner. The insurance protects both my business as well as the public. That is why in advanced countries businesses are required to have insurance. In America all cars must have liability insurance. After all, accidents do happen.

Insurance alone is not enough. If the family were to be awarded damages beyond what my insurance would cover, I risk losing not only my taxi but also my other personal possessions. However if I were to form a corporation with limited liability to run my business, only the assets of that company would be exposed. My home and other personal assets would be protected. In Britain, such limited liability companies carry the suffix “Co. Ltd.” (Company Limited); in America, “Inc.” (Incorporated); and in Malaysia, Senderian Berhad (Sdn Bhd).

This concept of a limited liability company is one intellectual invention of the West that has done much for economic development. Without the limited liability and asset protection provisions of the Companies Act, those already rich would not be encouraged to start new ventures for fear of risking what they already have.

Another advantage to the company is that it has its own life legally. When the owner dies (or get entangled in a divorce or dispute) the company could still carry on its business uninterrupted.

The third manner of managing risk is to share it. This is the role of insurance companies. The concept of insurance is not new. Ancient Muslim traders had takaful—risk sharing—in which the participants in a caravan would contribute to a pool so that if one of them were to suffer a calamity like being robbed, they could recoup the loss (or part of it) through the pool. Centuries before, Greek shippers had similar arrangements to take care of the unfortunate among them who might be lost or destroyed in a storm.

Today’s insurance companies are much more sophisticated in their assessment (and thus pricing) of risks. Insurance is pivotal in a modern economy not only because they enable many to partake in economic activities by managing their risks, but also by the investments of their premiums.

Unlike depositors’ money in banks that are available to the depositors “on demand,” meaning at any time, the premiums insurance companies collect are long term or “patient” capital. It would be needed only when the claims would be filed, which may be years later or never at all. That capital is particularly suited for funding long-term projects like buildings and major constructions.

There is difficulty among some Muslims in accepting the concept of insurance, in particular life insurance. The difficulty is in separating the concept of risk management versus gambling and games of chance. Insurance is an integral part of the modern economy and is responsible for its vibrancy. It behooves Muslim scholars to study the matter more closely before rushing to dismiss it as “un-Islamic.”

Next: Civil Society

The Sultan of Trengganu’s decision not to bestow royal honors on the occasion of his birthday is worthy of praise. I also applaud his celebrating it in a low-key manner. With the nation facing trying economic times, this message of prudence needs to be conveyed from the highest levels of our leadership. Further, the Sultan’s gesture while seemingly symbolic portends far more significant changes.

I am surprised that this is not more recognized and lauded by our intellectuals and pundits. Perhaps they too are eagerly waiting for their own little title and accompanying tinplate.

The Sultan in his capacity as King is also imparting his important message to the Prime Minister. Abdullah, his humble beginnings in the village and his very public displays of piety notwithstanding, has shown a detestable fondness for things luxurious since becoming Prime Minister. Witness his RM 250 million corporate jet! Prudent spending is not his strength.

For a culture that does not normally recognize birthdays, Malaysians have taken up this Western cultural artifact with gusto. This is especially so with the royalty. The investiture ceremonies associated with such birthdays would stretch for days, with the Prime Minister and other top officials having to be in attendance at all times, thus distracting them from their regular work. Not that they are any good or effective when they are in their offices!

Apart from the King, Malaysia has nine sultans as well as four sultan wannabes in the person of state governors. With 14 head-of-state birthdays to celebrate and heaps of honorifics to bestow, there is a glut of these titles.

It is not so much that I detest these ostentatious celebrations rather that I resent the wasting of precious taxpayers’ money. I could not care less if those sultans and governors were to throw private parties at their own expense.

Whom We Honor

We can tell much about a culture by whom it honors. Consider the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor. Its recent honorees include not only prominent statesmen and distinguished scientists but also such varied talents as the Black neurosurgeon Ben Carson, singer Aretha Franklin, boxer Muhammad Ali, and banker Alan Greenspan.

For contrast, examine the recipients of Malaysia’s highest royal honor, the “Tun.” Perusing the list for the past decade or two, all the recipients were either retired civil servants or “has been” politicians. Some awards seem automatic, as for example, for the sitting Chief Justice. They all would get one, even those who would later bring disgrace to their office. I am astounded to discover that there are more than just a few of those renegade characters so honored!

The message is clear. To the mindset of our leaders, the only way to serve the nation is through the government, or at least by belonging to the right political party. Such a myopic view of the world!

One is readily inspired when reading the citations of those honored with the Medal of Freedom. Unlike the Medal of Freedom, there is no citation to go with awarding the Tun. One has to guess their achievements. “Googling” their names would be an equally fruitless exercise.

Musa Hitam and Lim Keng Yeik are recent recipients of the Tun. Yet what are their contributions to the nation? Yes they were former cabinet ministers, but what exactly did they achieve? As for former Chief Justice Ahmad Feiruz, another recent honoree, what were his landmark decisions? The nation should honor their contributions, not their positions. These awards should not be part of the retirement package.

I can recollect only a few honorees whose contributions were truly significant and thus deserve honoring. Our first Chief Justice, Tun Suffian Hashim was one, as well as the first Governor of Bank Negara Tun Ismail Ali. Both rightly belong in the same league as the late Tun Razak.

I once suggested to a graduate student looking for a topic for her dissertation to go over the list of our royal honorees to discern the pattern. Who do we honor as Tan Sri and Datuk? This would have been a doable project a decade ago. Alas today, with the avalanche of names, you would need superior computer and statistical skills to do a credible analysis.

It reflects the degradation of our culture that there is now a widely acknowledged “under the table” price for these titles. Consequently, today you are as likely to find such honorees on the criminal roster as on the palace invitation list.

Truly Modern Monarch?

Sultan Mizan may be our youngest King but he has already shown his innovative streak early and quietly. Soon after his installation he directed that all palace functions must end early so as not to interfere with the following working day. How sensible! That royal mandate must have been a severe shock to those ministers and senior civil servants who would find any excuse not to be punctual at their offices.

During the massive Bersih rally in 2007, the King demonstrated his political subtlety and acumen by being conveniently out of the palace and yet opening its gate to the rally organizers. That was a direct public slap to Abdullah who had earlier declared “saya pantang di cabar!” (Do not challenge me!)

On a more substantive level, following the recent March election, Sultan Mizan as the Sultan of Trengganu taught Prime Minister Abdullah a much needed lesson on the real meaning of royal “advice and consent” on appointing the state’s Chief Minister. As Abdullah was (still is) a slow learner, Sultan Mizan had to deliver his message in no uncertain terms. It took some time and much public humiliation, but Abdullah did finally learn his lesson.

Sultan Mizan through his actions and Raja Nazrin with his speeches represent the new generation of royals who are more attuned to the nuances of the delicate checks and balances provided for in our constitution. Such a function, which has been severely lacking, is necessary for an effective government. These royals are not at all shy in exercising their long-neglected oversight role.

The framers of our constitution in their wisdom had provided for, in addition to a bicameral Parliament, another entity, the King and his Council of Rulers, which in effect is the Third House of Parliament. While it cannot initiate legislations nonetheless it has the power to review laws passed by Parliament. At least that was the situation until Mahathir amended the constitution.

Additionally, the consent of this Third Parliament is needed in making senior appointments. In matters pertaining to Islam, this Council rules supreme. This fact was brought to the fore during the recent imbroglio over the transfer of senior religious officials in Perak.

I hope these tentative ventures towards a more activist role for the King and his Council of Rulers would expand, with the King taking his “advice and consent” role more positively a la the United States Senate. While I do not expect open hearings I do hope the Council would carefully vet in private candidates for senior appointments and not merely rubberstamp the nominees of the Prime Minister.

This would restrain the current unchecked powers of the executive and correct the current imbalance that has tilted for so long towards it. At least that is one side benefit albeit unintended to Abdullah’s weak leadership. It allows the King and his brother rulers to re-exert their constitutional power. That can only be good for the nation.

Sultan Mizan’s cancellation of the royal investiture on the occasion of his birthday should be viewed in this light. I hope he would venture beyond and usher our Third House of Parliament to its original proper oversight role. If he were to do that, then he and his fellow sultans would have justified the high cost of maintaining them, quite apart from earning the gratitude of their subjects. Besides, that is a far more crucial role than passing out fancy sashes and tin plates on their birthdays.