Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Reform in Islam

Islam is fortunate in that right from the very beginning it has a tradition of revival and reform. A tradition of the prophet has it that Allah will send every so often unto each ummah those who will renew the faith. Implicit in this hadith is the recognition of a community’s dynamism. The great Muslim reformists of the 19th and early 20th Centuries were handicapped because their native lands were under Western colonization. Many were necessarily consumed with the battle to free themselves from colonialism and by association, Western influences.

They understandably regarded the West as an enemy of Islam. Nonetheless despite such burdens, reformists like Muhammad Abduh of Egypt and Pakistan’s Muhammad Iqbal were able to forge a new understanding and insight into Islam. While many reformists of his time were consumed with the futile effort of trying to bring Islam back to its glorious past, Iqbal was forward looking. He rightly distinguished between the eternal and immutable principles of the Quran on the one hand, and those laws, regulations, and practices that were the products of human interpretation.

While he rightly acknowledged the great contributions of earlier scholars and ulama, Iqbal reemphasized the necessity for present-day Muslims to use their God-given akal (intellect) to forge new meanings and interpretations to serve modern society. He was rightly contemptuous of the fiction of the “closing of the gate of ijtihad” (rational discourse)” of the 11th Century, and with it the arrogant presumption that everything had been decided and that no fresh insight or thinking was warranted. All that was needed was for the faithful to follow what had been established. That particular hubris resulted in the subsequent stagnation of Islam.

Like many contemporary reformists, Iqbal believed that Muslims must once again emulate our earlier brethrens and reassert our right to ijtihad, that is, to reinterpret and reapply Islam to changing social conditions. More significantly, this right belongs to all Muslims and not just the ulama. He felt strongly that the views of individual members of the ummah must be heard and that the mechanism for this can be achieved through a variety of mechanisms. To him, modern participatory democracy is indeed an idealized form of the Muslim concept of mesyuarah (consultation). This is his take on the Westminster model of democracy: “It is…the spirit of the British Empire that makes it the greatest Muhamadan Empire of the World.”

Iqbal was the product of the great universities of the West (Cambridge and Munich) and the beneficiary of the finest tradition of liberal education. Having seen the best of the West – its dynamism, unrivalled intellectual fervors, and powerful technology – he was not nearly so dismissive of Western achievements. Iqbal was very unlike those ulama who had never ventured beyond their villages and whose intellectual horizons rarely extended beyond the worn-out pages of ancient religious texts. Although Iqbal was very much aware of the excesses and weaknesses of the Western tradition as exemplified by its legacy of colonialism, exploitative capitalism, and rampant secularism, nonetheless he viewed such central Western values as the equality of man, and the rights and dignity of the individual as very much the ideals of Islam also.

While traditional ulama may contemptuously dismiss Iqbal because of his Western training, they cannot easily reject Muhammad Abduh. He was after all, one of them, having served as the Grand Mufti of Egypt. He rejected the orthodox notion that constrained Muslims to a literal reading of the Qur’an and sunnah. Clearly he felt that Muslims were mistaken in rejecting the ideas of the West simply because they originated with non-Muslims.

Later 20th Century reformists carry on the Iqbalian tradition. Unlike Iqbal, they were not burdened by having to live under colonial rule or foreign domination. Indeed many benefited from the West in terms of their education and freedom. I will mention two in particular. One is Sudanese Mahmoud Taha. He excelled under the British as an engineering student at the rigorous Gordon College (the precursor of the University of Khartoum) and had a thriving private practice before turning to politics, occasioned by the turn to extreme fundamentalism of the Sudanese military government. He feared that the government’s headlong rush to implement Shari’a would severely disadvantage and disenfranchise the significant Christian population. Unchecked this would only lead to a destructive civil war.

His observation was particularly prescient. He was not against Shari’a, rather the form in which it was to be implemented. There were too many provisions that were simply inconsistent with modern and widely accepted concepts of justice and simple fairness. He founded the Republican Brotherhood, a movement whose objective was to reform the Shari’a to meet the demands of a modern pluralistic populace. Sadly the military rulers interpreted that to be apostasy, a capital crime under Shari’a. Taha was executed in January 1985.

In a turn of events that could only be interpreted as divine intervention (or perhaps simple justice), those same military leaders were later killed in yet another military coup. The Sudanese Supreme Court in reviewing the appeal brought by Taha’s daughter, reversed the earlier decision and excoriated those who participated in the sham trial. It was of course too late for Taha.

Mahmoud Taha’s enlightened views are now widely accepted by the Sudanese and others. Equally significant, his many disciples, in particular Abdullahi An-Na’im, are carrying forward his torch. Na’im is uniquely positioned to spread that message from his vantage point as a professor at a leading American university. With the vast resources afforded by Emory University, An-Naim is able to effectively propagate Taha’s ideas to the wider world. An-Naim’s translation of Taha’s seminal work, The Second Message of Islam, and An-Naim’s own tome, Toward an Islamic Reformation, represent some of the most original and enlightened interpretations of Islam and the Shari’a.

Taha’s basic thesis is that we should, like earlier Muslims, go back to the Qur’an and divine its immutable and eternal theme, and then reformulate a new set of laws to meet the needs of contemporary societies. Just as the ancient Muslims were able to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in the interpretations of the various passages of the Qur’an and successfully formulated a remarkable set of laws, so too should modern Muslims do likewise. While ancient Muslims out of necessity emphasized the later passages of the Qur’an that was revealed to the prophet while he was attempting to build the first viable Muslim community at Medinah, present-day Muslims having successfully established our community, must now go back to the Qur’an and ponder its earlier messages, the Meccan verses, that address the idealistic and universal values of Islam.

Early Muslims introduced the concept of naskh (abrogation), to justify their emphasizing certain Qur’anic passages over others. Volumes have been written on this topic, with some denying entirely the very concept. Nonetheless the reality remains; that is, the Shari’a relies on certain passages of the Qur’an while de-emphasizing or simply ignoring others. Thus it justifies capital punishment for apostasy by referring to the Medina verses while ignoring the Meccan passages that encourage Muslims to lead a life of peaceful coexistence with non-believers, and that there be no compulsion in religion.

As Muslims accept the Quran to be infallible and consistent, perceived differences must therefore be just that – a matter of perception. Thus instead of analyzing to death particular Quranic verses to support one’s viewpoints – the atomistic approach – present-day Muslims should instead emphasize the totality of the message. In the words of the late Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago, we should deduce from the particularities of the Qur’an its underlying unifying principles, and then apply those same principles to specific present-day situations. Obviously modern society differs from those of the prophet’s time, but the moral principles and imperatives remain the same.

Next: Confusing Examples For Principles

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Shari’a in a Plural Society

The issue of the Islamic state is needlessly consuming the energy of many Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is also the platform of the Islamic Party (PAS), its reason for being. Yet when challenged on the specifics, PAS is sorely unprepared. Surely after championing the issue for the past half a century, its leaders should have a pretty clear idea of their goals. If by Islamic state they mean one based on the ideals of justice and morality of the Quran, then all Muslims and many non-Muslims would agree. But if they want a state based on the Shari’a (Islamic law) in its current form, many Muslims and certainly all non-Muslims would demur.

The Shari’a took three centuries to formulate and consumed the best intellectual talent of the Muslim world at the time. Although based on the Qur’an and sunnah (ways of the prophet), the Shari’a remains the creation of mortals and as such, carries all the imperfections implicit in such endeavors. For Muslims to ascribe to it the reverence and perfection reserved only for the Quran means that we ascribe those very same qualities to the mortals who crafted the Shari’a.

Shari’a literally means, “the road to the watering hole,” the right or straight path to be followed. To Muslims, Shari’a refers to the body of Islamic laws that are perceived as being part and parcel of the faith. It thus assumes the same rightful place as the Quran and sunnah. To criticize the Shari’a is to criticize the faith itself. And therein lies the problem.

There are over 6,000 verses in the Quran; of these less than 600 are concerned with the law. And most of those cover such matters as prayers and rituals. Only about 80 verses deal with such traditional legal matters as crime and punishment, contracts, and family law. Clearly the Quran is not a legal tome but a general guidance on how to build a moral and ethical society.

It is a magnificent tribute to the intellect of those early Muslim scholars that they were able to fashion out of the Quran and the sunnah a coherent and consistent body of laws that is the Shari’a. In its time the Shari’a represented a giant leap in intellectual, social, and legal achievements. Its treatment of women in particular was light years ahead of its time. The status of women accorded by the Shari’a was of the order of magnitude a thousand times better than the prevailing practices. Then women were not even recognized as humans. Whereas women are granted a share of the inheritance in the Shari’a, in the then prevailing culture, women were the inheritance. They were chattels and properties of their husband, to be passed on or traded accordingly. The Shari’a represented a grand emancipation of women. In this regard Islam was centuries ahead of Western civilization. The codifying of divorces too was truly an inspiration, considering that the concept did not even exist then. Wives were not divorced then; they were simply discarded, traded, or handed over to their husband’s heir. The Shari’a’s treatment of criminal justice was similarly light years ahead of the prevailing ethos of “an eye for an eye;” likewise the treatment of slavery and indentured labor.

While the Shari’a represented a quantum leap in achievement of early Islam, in its present form it is clearly incompatible with many of today’s universally accepted norms, in particular with respect to human rights, criminal justice, public law, gender equality, and hosts of other areas.

I do not say this lightly seeing that to many Muslims, any criticism of the Shari’a is blasphemous. But I cannot look at my daughter and tell her that she is worth only half that of my son, as the Shari’a would have it. I love all my children equally and my inheritance to them should and will reflect that sentiment. Nor do I find such cruel and inhuman punishments as stoning to death a woman for adultery and the chopping of hands for thievery compatible with an All Compassionate and All Merciful Allah. Similarly I find the death penalty for apostasy as prescribed by the Shari’a not only abhorrent but also incompatible with the Koranic admonition that there shall be no compulsion in matters of faith.

As a Muslim I take the Koran to be Allah’s revelation. Its message is infallible and immutable, and for all mankind at all times. That is a matter of faith. Being Allah’s words, the Koran takes precedence over everything else, including the Shari’a and the sunnah.

That is a heavy statement. Having said it, a much-needed pause for clarification. Muslims consider the Koran and the sunnah as co-equal parts of the faith. One cannot separate the message (the Koran) from the messenger (the prophet – pbuh); they both form an integral part of the faith. I agree wholeheartedly. The main issue I have is differentiating between the actual practices and sayings of the prophet (pbuh) and what scholars say they are. I will revisit this important differentiation a few pages hence. Meanwhile back to my original discussion.

Societies change, and so too must the laws. There is nothing in the Shari’a that mandates we give it the reverence due only to the Quran. Thus the pertinent question, and one rarely asked, is not whether the Shari’a should be applied to modern society, rather how can we adapt and modify it to meet current needs. A body of laws that was an enlightened piece of legislation for 7-10th Century Arabia is clearly not suitable for the present. When the Shari’a was formulated, the Arabian society was just emerging from the Age of Jahiliyah (Ignorance), a period of rampant female infanticide, slavery, and tribalism. A millennium later, the problems are of a different order. The challenge today is to enhance the freedom and dignity of humans. That these freedoms and rights are emphasized by Western civilization is no reason for Muslims not to co-opt and adopt them.

Today’s Muslims should emulate our illustrious predecessors. Had ancient Muslims been like their present-day counterparts and considered everything originating outside of Islam as “un-Islamic,” Islam would not have expanded. Muslims today should be equally receptive to and be welcoming of new ideas and innovations regardless of where they originated. That Allah chose a Christian to reveal His secret on gravity, a Jew on the nature of the atom, a Confucian on the explosive power of gunpowder, and a Hindu on the concept of zero, is not for us to question. It is however, for us to appreciate that such wisdom and insights are for the benefit of all.

Next: Reform in Islam

Malaysians Passed The Test, Brilliantly!
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com
bakrimusa@juno.com

[Due to last Saturday’s Bersih 2.0 event, for this week only, the serialization of my book, Malaysia in the Era of Globalization, is switched to Wednesday, and my weekly essay to today (Sunday). My usual pattern will resume next week.]

A remarkable thing happened this past weekend. To many, the event on Saturday was nothing more than a massive public demonstration that capped a long brewing confrontation between those advocating “fair and free elections” and those who deemed that our elections are already so.

As with any fight, the drama was played out long before the event, and by the time the actual battle took place, the participants had long forgotten the original issue. Instead, now the preoccupation is who blinked first, who outsmarted whom, and most of all, who lost and who won. These then become the new overriding divisive issues, eclipsing the original one.

The losers would return to their corner with their new resolve: “Next time!” And the battle continues; they never learn! There were plenty of losers this weekend but few winners. The winners may be few but their achievements scaled new heights.

To me, this weekend was one of those moments (much too frequent, I hasten to add!) that test our nation. This time however, Malaysians acquitted themselves well. The same cannot be said of the Najib administration.

If this was an academic exercise, I would grade the performance of Malaysians as represented in Bersih an “A,” while the Najib Administration flunked badly. So dismal was its performance that the Najib administration should have no recourse to a remedial course or supplemental test; expulsion is the only option.

Terrible Trajectory

I would have thought that after the debacle of 1997 with the grossly inept handling of the reformasi demonstrations, and again a decade later with HINDRAF, the UMNO government would have learned a thing or two on how to deal intelligently with dissent and public demonstrations, two inherent features of a democracy. My expectation is not unreasonable, if not heightened, considering that we are today dealing with essentially the same characters in the administration. Most of the ministers who were in power during the reformasi and HINDRAF (now dubbed Bersih 1) are still there in Najib’s cabinet.

Obviously they, individually and collectively, have a flat learning curve. They are incapable of learning. There is a clinical term for that, but since this is a lay article I will resort to street lingo: idiots.

Their flat learning curve is even more incomprehensible considering that the consequences to them were so severe. The 1997 reformasi mess resulted in Barisan being thrashed in the 1999 elections, with Najib nearly being kicked out of his safe seat in Pekan that his father had held for many years.

The price escalated with Bersih 1.0. The general elections of 2008 saw Barisan being humiliated with an unprecedented loss of its two-thirds parliamentary majority, along with five states, including two of the most developed: Penang and Selangor.

I will let readers plot the trajectory as to the consequences of this weekend’s mess should the next general elections be held soon, as is widely predicted.

The iconic image of the reformasi debacle was of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar’s battered face; that of Bersih1.0 was of Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin frothing at the mouth, babbling incoherently in front of the international news media trying to justify his government’s brutal suppression of its people. It was a classic demonstration of that uniquely Malay mental malady, latah (verbal diarrhea). It was also a display of amok, another peculiarly Malay affliction, albeit in this case only of the oral variety.

The iconic image of Bersih 2.0 was refreshing; that of its leader Ambiga Sreenivasan, former Bar Council President, serenely leaving the Istana after an audience with the King. The symbolism could not be overstated, for the Najib Administration had earlier declared her organization illegal! Only those retarded would miss the message, and they are precisely the types we are dealing with here.

Winners and Losers

My award for courage and excellence in Berseh 2.0 goes to those brave Malay masses who defied their government, their imams, and the party that had long proclaimed and presumed to speak on their behalf. In taking a very active part in a movement led predominantly by non-Malays, those Malays showed that they are no longer trapped by tribalism; they had escaped the clutches of chauvinism. There is now no going back.

This significant milestone is not acknowledged, much less appreciated. However, leaders who ignore this do so at their peril. For aspiring Malay leaders, it is now no longer enough for you to display your nationalistic zeal or ethnic instincts. You have to articulate the issues that matter most to the Malay masses: fairness, honesty, and justice, in elections and on other issues. I would also add competence. Those incidentally are also the concerns of all Malaysians.

Yes, there was a time when you could garner Malay support by justifying that the victims of your corruption, injustices and unfairness were non-Malays. Those days are now long gone; get used to it! Malays now realize that while in the past those victims may be mostly non-Malays, today they are increasingly Malays too.

The comforting corollary to my observation is that those capable non-Malay leaders would be assured of Malay support, if they were to address the central issues facing the masses.

Yes, Bersih 2.0 had strong non-Malay support especially abroad. Unanswered is whether a similar movement with equally noble objectives but with predominantly Malay leadership would garner the same enthusiastic support from non-Malays. If reformasi was any indication, the answer would be a reassuring yes.

I am especially heartened by the responses of Malay NGO leaders like Marina Mahathir. When Najib, and others who took their cue from him, began demonizing Ambiga by maliciously injecting ugly racial and religious accusations, Marina unambiguously and passionately defended Ambiga. Marina was of course all smiles and gentleness, as is the traditional halus (fine) Malay way, but there was no disguising her contempt for such odious tactics and their purveyors.

The biggest loser was of course the Najib Administration, specifically Najib and his fellow UMNO ministers. Their inanity was typified by Home Minister Hishammuddin complimenting the police for keeping the peace and stability. Yes, with the streets blockaded, stores closed, and citizens bludgeoned – the ‘peace’ and ‘stability’ of a prison “lockdown.” That was KL all week leading to last Saturday.

The conspicuous silence of other Barisan leaders was noted; that reflected solidarity not out of courage but cowardice. In contrast, even UMNO Youth defied Najib in declaring that it too would stage a counter demonstration.

Despite its defiance, UMNO Youth was also the loser, together with that ultra-Malay organization led by has-been politicians and past-their-peak professors, Perkasa. Good thing that the government had banned their leaders from KL; at least they had a ready excuse for their dismal performance.

The list of losers is long; there is little merit in mentioning more except for just this one, and I do so with profound sadness. A few weeks before the event, all the mosques in Kuala Lumpur, including the National Mosque, were warning their Friday prayer congregants of the evilness of those who led Bersih 2.0 and the sin that would befall those who would participate in it.

At a time when our community is divided, as with this central issue of fair and free elections, I would expect our ulamas and religious leaders to be our healers, to bring us together, to be the balm to our collective wounds. Instead they became only too willing instruments of the state with their canned state-issued sermons demonizing those who saw merit in the objectives of Bersih 2.0.

Obviously to the thousands of Malays who took part in Bersih 2.0, including one particular old man in his jubbah who had to be helped to walk, those characters cloaked in their flowing robes standing at their mimbar every Friday noon are less pious ulamas to be revered but more propagandists for the state to be defied. They may be Imams, but to the thousands who took part in Berseh 2.0 last Saturday, they are carma imams, to borrow National Laureate Samad Said’s term. Carma is the Malay contraction of cari makan, seeking a living. Idiomatically it refers to those who prostituted their honored craft or profession.

Those GI Imams (Government-issued) have flunked their test; there is no remedial course for them either. That is one of the great casualties of last Saturday’s event. For those carma imams, there is no corner they can return to or hide in.

The Wisdom of the Students
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com
bakrimusa@juno.com

In a remarkable display of professorial prowess, University of Malaya Vice-Chancellor Ghauth Jasmon recently engaged his students in a two-hour dialogue on what it would take to make their university great. With humility, pedagogical skills, and great stage presence, he enthralled his audience while imparting an important message. They in turn were not at all shy in telling him the challenges they faced. It was truly a dialogue, not the usual one-way pedantic pronouncements.

Those students had a clear message not only for their Vice-Chancellor but also the country’s leaders and policy makers: Listen to us!

The session was even more remarkable as it was held after lunch, typically siesta time in the tropics. Anyone who has faced a classroom of students at that time of day knows how difficult it is to get their attention. Yet there they were – professor and students – intellectually engaging each other, interspersed with frequent cheers and laughter.

The Vice-Chancellor listed the five criteria of an elite university, as judged by the rating bodies. They are, in order of importance, the academic reputation of its faculty (40 percent); the related faculty citations (20); student-faculty ratio (20); employers’ assessment of its graduates (10); and the institution’s internationalism as reflected by the number of foreign students (5) and faculty members(5).

For parents and students however, the fourth factor – employers’ assessment – is for practical reasons the most important. Thus Ghauth focused on that. To employers, local graduates are deficient in such important areas as English proficiency, critical thinking, and problem solving. He emphasized the lack of English fluency.

The first three major criteria, comprising 80 percent of the total, are beyond the students’ control. Those are the responsibility of the university, specifically Dr. Ghauth. Students’ contribution would be limited, as the Vice-Chancellor humorously suggested, to existing foreign students encouraging their friends and family members to enroll at UM, and that would influence only five percent of the total assessment.

In a Kennedyesque twist, Dr. Ghauth asked his students what they could do for their university to make it great. Specifically he asked them for ways on improving their English proficiency if for no other reason than to make them acceptable to local employers.

The students’ responses were most illuminating. To be sure, most were the usual and predictable, “Use English more frequently,” or “Befriend more foreign students.” One student stood out for the frankness of his opinion and sharpness of his observation. He also had a deft sense of humor, outclassing the Vice-Chancellor’s. He introduced himself as “Azlé from Kelaté” (Azlan from Kelantan) in that distinctively Malaysian east coast accent. That brought the house down.

Azlan freely admitted to his mediocre English and bravely committed to improving it to “C-grade” over the semester. Amidst the ensuing laughter, many missed his sharp observation, made difficult by his frequent resorting to Malay. In Malay he articulated his problems eloquently.

He related how his teachers back in Kelantan had to resort to using Malay when teaching English! The atmosphere was no better on campus. His friends and classmates would for example, mock and berate him whenever he tried to speak in English. Obviously opportunities for him, and others like him, to learn and practice his English were as limited on campus as they were back in his Kelantan village. That was his crucial message.

As indicated, Azlan could not escape the irritating and jarring Malaysian habit of mixing Malay and English at will. I can readily excuse him because of his admitted lack of English fluency; inexcusable however, were Dr. Ghauth and the other supposedly English-proficient students.

“Soft” and “Hard” Obstacles To Achieving English Fluency

I would have stated Dr. Ghauth’s central question differently: How could the university enhance the English proficiency of its students? A good start would be to follow up on Azlan’s insights.

What Azlan had related are the “soft” obstacles to achieving greater English fluency among Malay students, the subtle cultural and peer pressures. The mindset that dictates learning English is tantamount to hating your own language is part of this “soft” problem. It is a formidable obstacle precisely because it is so amorphous; you cannot easily put your hands around it.

Then there are the “hard” obstacles, like the lack of competent teachers or our students not taking the subject seriously. Ironically, because they are concrete barriers we can readily get a handle on them and then come up with workable solutions.

Take the obvious, the poor teaching of English in our schools and the lack of competent teachers especially in rural areas where the need is greatest. To train these teachers the university must have a strong Department of English. Yet UM’s department has only 11 faculty members and three tutors to serve a campus of 25,000 students. To its credit however, nine of its members have doctorates, a higher percentage than the university as a whole.

The department’s size is not consonant with the great needs of the university and country. Considering that it was one of the first if not founding departments, its lack of growth must have been deliberate. That was short sighted and must be quickly rectified.

The university must expand that department and provide non-credit courses and language labs so its Azlans can have a place to learn and practice their English. Emulate many American campuses including elite ones like Harvard that have similar facilities to improve the math and writing skills of their students.

Dr. Gauth should go further and persuade his fellow Vice-Chancellors to impress upon our policymakers on the importance of teaching English in our schools and universities. They should not remain silent in the face of such regressive steps as the discontinuing of teaching of science and mathematics in English.

As academic leaders these Vice-Chancellors could also mandate a pass in the Malaysian University English Test (MUET). That single move will make our students take English seriously. There will be severe opposition from some students and Malay language nationalists, part of the soft obstacle I alluded to earlier. Thus to soften the impact, I would add this proviso: If a student is otherwise qualified except for his MUET score, then he would be given a year to remedy the deficit before enrolling.

If these academic leaders are really assertive and truly believe on the importance of English for their students, as they frequently profess, they would go further and make English mandatory for all freshmen. Have a placement test so students could be assigned to the appropriate class. Again this is common practice on many American campuses.

Dr. Ghauth could also require all students write no fewer than 30 extended essays (term papers) during their undergraduate years. Again, this is the norm at good American universities. I would also have a similar requirement for essays in Malay (though far fewer in number) for international students. It would be a great shame and make a mockery of their attending a Malaysian university if they were unable to read or write in our national language.

Once we have successfully overcome the “hard” obstacles, the soft barriers will automatically disintegrate like a mud wall in a downpour.

This emphasis on English, though well placed, should not distract us from the other problems facing our students. English proficiency is no panacea; otherwise those Indian and Filipino graduates would be competitive.

Deficiencies in critical thinking and problem solving are not English language dependent, as attested by Azlan’s performance. Instead they are the consequence of our pedagogical philosophy as well as our approach to teaching and testing. Far too often what goes on in our schools and universities is not education but indoctrination. Education in Malaysia is, to borrow Noam Chomsky’s phrase, “a system of imposed ignorance … a system of indoctrination.”

Consider how we test our students; it is nothing more than an exercise in regurgitation. If we design our questions so students could have “open book” examinations, then we are truly evaluating critical thinking and problem solving abilities instead of talent for regurgitation. Professor Ghauth had demonstrated a teaching style that engages students and make the intellectual traffic flows both ways.

I applaud the university personnel for doing a professional job in videotaping the session and then posting it on Youtube. I hope Dr. Ghauth will have other similar sessions with his faculty, the public, and policymakers to address the first three criteria on making the university great.

Anticipating that, I offer my suggestions. One, strive to have within five years all faculty members with terminal qualifications. I would later elevate that by requiring new recruits to have substantive post-doctoral experience. Two, I would fund faculty members so they could present papers at international meetings. That would encourage them to submit their papers to international bodies. Three, grant all faculty members automatic research funding equal to their annual salaries, and spread over three years. Four, I would supply each faculty member with a free laptops and unlimited WiFi access so they could download lectures by leading scholars elsewhere for presentation to the students, as well as access to professional journals. Many of those publications offer free access to academics from the Third World. That alone would pay for the computers, by sparing the library from having to subscribe to those expensive journals. Five, I would treat our academics with great respect beginning with getting rid of that idiotic Akujanji pledge.

If our policymakers think that my suggestions are expensive, think how much more it would be to have our universities remain in the academic cellar and continue producing mediocre products! That would be the greatest disservice to the students, as well as to the country.

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Authoritative Versus Authoritarian Ulamas and Scholars

Then there are such irrelevant issues as who can and cannot partake in these debates. There are those ulamas and scholars who feel that only they are qualified enough to partake in such heavy issues. There rest need merely follow their dictates. They are not so much authoritative as much as authoritarian, to use Khalid El Fadl’s words.

It reminds me of the bad old days of imperious doctors who behave like Gods; their utterances and decisions cannot be challenged, least of all by the laity. Thank God, those days are gone. Today physicians fully engage their patients and the y in turn participate fully in decisions affecting themselves. The seeking of second and alternate opinions is now standard practice.

Take the issue of Islamic scholars, another very contentious one. Much of the confusion and the ensuing controversies revolve around the different meanings of basic terms. I can best illustrate this by using the example of surgical scholars. In the academic department I was once associated with, among my colleagues were a veterinary doctor, a biochemist, and an engineer. In standing, pay and prestige, these professors of surgery were no different from the other “operating” professors of surgery, the clinician surgeons. They taught medical students and would-be surgeons, and published in surgical journals. But if one were to have appendicitis, one would not ask these “non-operating” professors to operate. If someone were stupid enough to do so, he or she would be politely if not embarrassedly referred to the “real” surgeons in the department.

Similarly there are Islamic scholars and there are ulama. One can learn a lot about Islam – both the discipline as well as the faith – from Islamic scholars; but in performing funeral rites or reciting the Surah Yaseeen (requiem), one needs the ulama. In medicine there are strict rules as to who can treat patients. Apart from specific training, he or she has to be properly licensed. Anyone not so licensed, no matter how competent, could be charged with fraud and criminal assault were they to practice as physicians. This is to protect the public.

No such statutory delineations occur in the practice of Islam, and rightly so. Islam, unlike other religions, lacks a proscribed clergy class. In Islam it is we mortals and Allah, there being no need for an intermediary. There are no priests, bishops, or pope in Islam. Sure we have an imam, but to paraphrase an ancient saying, he is imam because we, the flock, call him so. His power and prestige are derived from and not imposed upon the congregation.

The present heavily bureaucratized Islam, with ulama placed on salary schemes and acquiring all the other accouterments of the civil service, is purely a Malaysian phenomenon. No surprise then that these modern day ulama behave like their petty counterparts in the civil service – very conscious of their turf. Thus, instead of engaging in a scholarly fashion with those who disagree with them, these ulama treat new ideas as potential threats. Hence the ugly specter of the president of the Muslim Scholars Association filing a police report against writers he disagreed with, instead of publishing his own scholarly rebuttal!

This is not a surprise considering the training these ulama had undergone. They are not so much being educated as being indoctrinated. The quality of their scholarship, certainly when viewed from the vantage point of Western scholarship adept at critical thinking and “deconstruction,” is severely wanting. Their training is akin to that of students of classical music. Classical musicians are trained not to interpret but simply to follow the path of their masters before them. Improvisations or novel interpretations are not expected or welcomed. If you do, you may end up playing for the local jazz band instead. Only when you have become a Glenn Gould could you establish your own style. Until then, no fancy incidental notes or flourishes in phrasing. Follow the score as it is written.

Likewise the ulama; they are not expected to put forth any new thought or to question. Indeed such critical thinking and novel interpretations are viewed suspiciously as the devil’s machinations. Occasionally one may get an alim, who, having mastered the existing state of knowledge, goes on to make his own seminal contributions. There were many such outstanding individuals in the history of Islam. Some were successful in blazing new trails in the understanding of our faith, but most ended up being marginalized or worse, labeled as apostate –and treated accordingly.

What is threatening the world of the traditional ulama today is not the “orientalist” secular Islamic scholars like Patricia Martinez and Farish Noor, rather the emergence of ulama trained in the traditional madrasah system who then went on to be exposed to the rigors of Western scholarship. In the past such scholar-ulama were denigrated back in their native lands, but with the heightened interest in Islam in the West, these individuals are now eagerly sought after by leading Western universities. From their vantage point there, with its superior supporting structures and generous funding, this new breed of scholar-ulama are spreading their views onto the wider Islamic world. With their madrasah credentials, they are as erudite and exquisite in their tajweed (rendition of the Qur’an) as the best of Al Azhar.

The Islamic faith is invigorated with this new breed of scholar-ulama like UCLA’s Khaled Abou El Fadl and Duke University’s Ebrahim Moosa. These distinguished scholars, steeped in the traditional as well as Western scholarship and well versed in Arabic (the language of Islam) as well as English (the language of technology), will take Islam to greater heights. El Fadl is also remarkable in that he has a personal library of over 6,500 Islamic texts and manuscripts, some dating as far back as the 13th Century. More importantly, these enlightened scholars present a refreshing face of Islam to the modern world, a view more in consonant with the ideals of the faith as revealed to our prophet (pbuh) – a much-needed antidote to the rabble rousing and fatwa-issuing likes of Osama bin Ladin. These modern scholars spread the word of Islam not by issuing endless edicts but by the power of their intellect and the logic of their arguments. As the Iranian scholar Abdoolkarim Soroosh noted, the Qur’an is divine; its interpretation is human. The text of the scripture is silent; it is up to us to make it speak. These enlightened scholars have given a fresh voice to the Qur’an.

Much of the present understanding of Islam comes from the works of dedicated scholars, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. All Muslims should value their contributions. They complement our ulama. Confusion arises only when scholars try to assume the trappings of an alim, or when ulama take on the pretensions of a scholar.

For Malays, Islam is the central element of our culture; it also defines Malayness. Legally, a Malay is someone who regularly practices the Malay culture and professes Islam. Malays belong to the mainstream Sunni sect. But what is more important at the daily level is that Islam in Malaysia is what the government bureaucrats deem it to be. Anyone straying from this “straight path,” as defined by the government’s ulama, risks being branded as a subversive or “deviationist,” and will suffer the worldly consequences (like being incarcerated under the ISA).

Islam arrived in the Malay world in the 15th Century by way of Muslim traders. It did not land on a cultural vacuum as Malays then were already steeped in Hindu beliefs and animist traditions. Many Malays today would want to deny this aspect of our past, to wipe the slate clean. This tendency to overlook what present-day Islamists view as less-than-pristine “unIslamic” past is not an affliction peculiar only to Malays. The Japanese have yet to come to terms with their role in World War II. Thus the preoccupation of Malays today in trying to “cleanse” and “purify” the faith, while misguided, is understandable. The difference between the Talibans blasting to smithereens the ancient Buddhist monuments and Malaysian Islamists desecrating Hindu temples is only a matter of degree.

Sadly, much of the world today view Osama bin Ladin and his band of the Talibans as representing the essence of Islam. Unfortunately many Islamic leaders and scholars implicitly encourage this misconception by not condemning unequivocally the criminal activities of these extremist Muslims. As the late Sudanese reformist Mohamad Taha observed, religious fanaticism is inalienable from religious ignorance. It is out of ignorance of the basic tenets of Islam that these fanatics view this world as hostile, and not as God’s wonderful gift to mankind. The challenge is to enlighten Muslims especially those in Malaysia to the pristine message of Islam.

Next: Shari’a in a Plural Society

Attracting the Best To Teaching
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com

Early this year the US Department of Education, together with OECD and the Asia Society, convened a summit of education ministers, master teachers, and union leaders from 15 countries. The theme was on attracting, training and retaining the best teachers. Those were no ordinary countries participating; their students had consistently excelled in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

America has some of the finest private and public schools, while its colleges and universities regularly dominate anybody’s list of the best. Yet there was US Education Secretary Duncan sponsoring this symposium and its opening speaker. That reflects the seriousness with which American leaders and policymakers consider education. It also shows their humility and commitment to learn from the best. I long for such traits in our leaders and educators.

The core assumption of the summit is that you cannot have excellent schools without excellent teachers. “Great teachers are not just born that way,” Secretary Duncan noted in his opening remarks. “It takes a high-quality system for recruiting, training, retaining, and supporting teachers over the course of their careers to develop an effective teaching force,” he continued.

This emphasis on schools and education is well placed. As OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria put it, “The prosperity of our nations depends on whether we succeed to attract the brightest minds into the teaching profession, and the most talented teachers into the most challenging classrooms.”

Pivotal Role of Teachers

You cannot have good schools without good teachers. Good teachers in turn come from good students, and good students need good schools in order to shine. This is not an extended version of the old chicken-and-egg riddle. Rather what these countries with exemplary schools and outstanding teachers have demonstrated is the pivotal position of the teacher. Finland and Singapore in particular have shown that you can indeed intervene to make teaching an attractive profession, the first-choice career of the talented.

In Finland teaching is a much-sought occupation, with ten applicants for every position! The teaching profession there attracts the best applicants in part because teachers get competitive pay. Singapore aggressively recruits from among the top third of its students, and those interested in and committed to teaching are paid while still in school.

Keen competition in itself is no indicator of quality. In Malaysia, there is a glut of applicants for religious teachers but no one dares claim that the applicant pool is made up of top-tier students. There is similar stiff competition to be teachers in Egypt, but its schools and students rank at the bottom in international comparisons. The reason is that the Egyptian economy is in such a rut that teaching is the only job available. The same dynamics apply to our religious teachers.

Recruiting top talent is only the beginning. Rookies’ enthusiasm will get you only so far. Teachers must also be given superior initial training; then there must be a mechanism for continuing professional education and training.

Finland has an exceptionally superior system; hence it is attracting the best talents. Teachers there get training to the level of a master’s degree, even for primary school teachers. They are rightly treated as professionals because they are rigorously trained and more importantly, behave as such. They are also trained to be diagnosticians to recognize not only the different learning styles but also learning problems.

A unique feature of the Finnish system is that each teacher is also a researcher, participating in research in collaboration with the local university. The best way to keep abreast in your field is to be involved in research even if only tangentially.

Being true professionals, Finnish teachers have considerable autonomy, as are their schools. The Finnish Ministry of Education is more a resource center than a command-and-control one. Its bureaucrats are not control freaks.

Those countries are also actively widening the pool talent for recruitment to include those from underrepresented minorities and those seeking mid-career change. This has particular relevance for Malaysia; it too must aggressively recruit from among Orang Asli and other minority groups especially of East Malaysia. It is important for minority students to have role models from among the teachers.

No professional would be satisfied unless he or she is assured of career advancement as well as appropriate reward and recognition for a job well done. In Singapore teachers are career tracked to be master teachers, school leaders, or specialist in curriculum or research. The government regularly tracks what competing sectors are paying their workers in order that teachers remain competitively paid.

Reforming Schools

The other significant lesson from the summit is that school reforms when effectively executed can bear positive results quickly. Poland is an example. It initiated reform only in the late 1990s but within a decade it has dramatically reduced the number of its poorly performing students and cut in half the variations in performance among its schools. Previously Polish students regularly perform at below average level of OECD countries; after reform they were on par with Americans.

Reforming school is the rage everywhere, Malaysia included. The consensus at this conference is that teachers must both be the active agents for and effective implementers of reform.

This creates a dilemma for Malaysia. Where teachers are well trained, thoroughly professional and highly effective as they are in the Scandinavian countries, they should be actively involved with the reform process. In Malaysia however, our teaching profession is far from that. It has been significantly degraded with respect to standards and professionalism, as reflected in the quality of their products – the students.

Having been brought up under the current system it would be unrealistic to expect these teachers to be agents or advocates for change. Their position is essentially that the system was good enough for them; it should be good enough for the present and future generations. Stated differently, current teachers are part of the problem, not of the solution. This does not mean that they cannot be trained or persuaded to be part of the solution, but we should not underestimate the difficulties and challenges.

The reform in Poland was, as expected of a former communist country, a top-down affair. Yet it was highly successful. Likewise in Singapore; no surprise there either, but it was also effective. A generation ago Singapore faced problems similar to what Malaysia faces today where teaching was not the first choice career for its top students.

Thailand too has its “Malaysian problem;” the Thais solved it in their own unique patient way. Recognizing the futility of persuading these teachers to agree for reform, the government simply bypassed them by liberalizing the school sector to foreign players. Consequently, international schools blossomed in Thailand. Yes, they are an option only for the elite and rich. These schools are educating the children of the influential. These students are destined to hold key positions in their country, their superior education and social standing assured them of that. They would be the ones to lead successful reforms in the future.

In reforming Malaysian schools, we could pursue either the top-down approach of Poland and Singapore, or use the slower and surer Thai way. However, I do not see the necessary enlightened and intelligent leadership to effect meaningful top-down reform, nor do I see a farsighted leadership to initiate the slow Thai way.

Quality of Schools and Fertility Rates

On perusing the list of countries whose students excelled in PISA, one fact stands out: Those countries also have low fertility rates. The latest addition to the list of top performers is China, specifically Shanghai. China’s almost inhuman “one-child” policy has many critics but there is no questioning its benefits. For the past few decades China was spared the burden of feeding and housing over 300 million potential Chinese. Imagine the savings in not having another Bangladesh within your borders! Spared of those huge expenses, the Chinese could now divert resources to improving their schools.

The reverse however is not true; low fertility rates alone do not guarantee good schools. Sri Lanka is proof of that.

In Malaysia, the fertility rate for Malays, while declining, is still nearly doubled that of non-Malays. The wide discrepancy in academic achievement and other social indices between Malays and non-Malays is ultimately attributed in part to this difference in fertility rates.

If today the authorities were to implement an effective and acceptable family planning program that is enthusiastically endorsed by the religious authorities, the positive impact would be felt almost immediately. First, there will be the drop in the number of pregnancies, and nine months later the decline in the number of births. With that the savings in expenses related to medical care. That would only be the beginning. Six years later when those potential babies would be ready for school, the savings would be even greater as there would be no need for new schools and teachers.

Even more remarkable, those savings would be cumulative; they would continue to add up. With those savings we could then expend resources towards improving the quality of life of our people, and that would include providing them with good schools and superior teachers.

Those OECD and other advanced countries can focus on making their schools superior because they have the resources to do so; they have been spared the expenses that would have been incurred had they had high fertility rates. This basic link was not discussed at the summit as it was taken for granted. For Malaysia however, it is a reality that is not yet even been acknowledged, much less addressed.

The wisdom of those eminent educators from OECD displayed at the summit is still valid, and Malaysia could usefully adopt some of it provided our leaders and policymakers bear in mind that we have a more basic problem outside the realm of education but related to it. We have to tame our fertility rates first; then with the savings we would have the resources to address the challenges of education.

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Religion must act as the lights do in a car, and not as the brakes do.
—Abdolkarim Soroosh, Contemporary Iranian Philosopher

Islam is Malaysia’s state religion. It permeates all aspects of Malaysian life, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In this chapter I will examine the impact of Islam on law, education, and economics. These are the three major areas that have the greatest impact on the ability of Malaysians generally and Malays in particular at meeting the challenges of globalization.

A visitor to Malaysia quickly becomes aware of how pervasive Islam is in the country. At prayer times the Azzan (call to prayers) is heard loud and clear from loudspeakers at the minarets of the numerous mosques. One is awakened in the morning by the Azzan and put to sleep at night by it. The Azzan regularly interrupts television programs, often at the most inopportune moment, as just before the dramatic climax of a scene or even in mid sentence. It is not the call to Azzan that exasperates viewers; rather the rude and crude manner in which the robotic technicians back in the studio mindlessly and mechanically stopped the tape. If they can find a convenient spot to interrupt programs for commercial breaks, why cannot they do the same for the Azzan? They can, but the fact that they are not doing it reflects the contempt they have for their viewers. And during the fasting month of Ramadan, the entire country is in suspended animation; nothing gets done, particularly in the public sector.

While in the past Malays would greet one another with “Selamat Pagi!” (Good Morning!), today they use the Arabic salutation Assalamualaikum (Peace be upon you!). Young men now sport beards and wrap themselves in thick turbans and flowing green robes, oblivious to the scorching heat and humidity, all in an effort to appear “Islamic.”

Mosques during Friday prayers overflow, with congregants forced to pray outside. In their pious pursuit they have no qualms about praying over stinking open sewer drains. Such jarring incongruities do not affect their sensibilities. Every year Malaysia sends more pilgrims (on a per capita basis) to the holy land than any other nation. Many brag about making the trip many times, even though it is required only once, and then only if conditions permit. But I see many young men and women eagerly interrupting their careers to make the pilgrimage.

Presumably these fortunate souls have paid off their home mortgages and put aside enough funds for their retirement and children’s education to be able to afford the trip.

This pervasiveness of Islam leads many to suggest that the faith is experiencing a revival or resurgence. This appearance of religiosity and piety is only a façade, a very thin veneer. Muslims in Malaysia appear Islamic only in their adherence to the rituals and other external manifestations of the faith. Alas one looks askance at their core. Tolerance, long a tradition with Islam, is sadly lacking among them. They look upon fellow Muslims who disagree with them as kafir (infidel) – an extremely pejorative term when applied to Muslims – and refuse to partake in any social or religious overtures with them. Imagine what their attitude is towards the real kafirs: non-Muslim Malaysians.

On a more mundane level, they drive like maniacs, oblivious of other road users. They park their cars in the middle of the street and block the traffic in their rush to be at the mosque. That they would inconvenience other road users is irrelevant as long has they get to claim their religious brownie points. As for charity, another esteemed Muslim attribute, well, they have paid their zakat (tithe) and that is enough. There is no need for them to contribute to their children’s schools or local community. Nor do they profess any concern for the plight of fellow Muslims from Bangladesh and Indonesia amongst their midst. Those foreigners are illegal immigrants anyway, not worthy of any goodwill. Slavery and indentured labor may have been banned but Malaysians’ treatment of their maids would make slave owners of pre-Civil War America look generous by comparison.

To me, there is no revival or renaissance of Islam in Malaysia, more a regression to a form more suitable for ancient Bedouins. More accurately, present-day Malays are obsessed with the ways of ancient Arabs rather with the pristine message of Islam.

In 2001 the government issued a publication written by one of its functionaries proclaiming that Malaysia is an Islamic state. Written in Malay, it was a clumsy attempt to blunt PAS’s charges that the nation is not “Islamic” enough. The booklet was meant to be a preemptive attack on or to “out Islam” PAS, to use Farish Noor’s (a Malaysian writer) phrase. Instead it precipitated a raging controversy. The government was forced to sheepishly withdraw the silly publication. A measure of the booklet’s irrelevance is that its cover features a plane. What those images have to do with Islam is beyond my comprehension. In light of the 9-11 attacks, it is not a terribly smart idea to associate Islam with jet planes.

Subsequent to that there was another raging controversy over some essays written in the popular press by lay Muslim writers. These provoked the ire of the religious scholars, who deem that such discussions on Islam are their exclusive preserve. They went to the extent of petitioning the King (the head of Islam) to take actions on these writers for allegedly insulting Islam. That the King and his Council of Rulers actually entertained such a silly petition is by itself very revealing.

Such heated controversies reflect the coarsening of public discourses in Malaysia. These public discussions, far from enlightening the citizens and bringing them together, merely succeeded in acerbating the polarization and deepening existing divisions. The blame for this sorry state of affairs goes to both the organizers and participants of such events. These discussions were less on the merits or demerits of the issue, rather more on displaying the oratorical prowess and Islamic credentials of the participants. These public debates very quickly degenerated into name-calling, and reduced simplistically to “my ulama is more knowledgeable (or pious) than yours” type of exchanges.

Next: Authoritative Versus Authoritarian Ulamas and Scholars

Improving The Odds For Our Disadvantaged Students
M. Bakri Musa
(www.bakrimusa.com)

Students from a disadvantaged background face many challenges; thus it is not a surprise that they lag academically. This has always been true and accepted as normal. The consequence to this acceptance is that the students’ disadvantaged background becomes too ready an excuse for teachers and policymakers not to address the issue of widening educational achievement gap, blaming instead such factors as poverty and lack of parental involvement.

While those are relevant, there is much that schools, teachers and policymakers can do to turn disadvantaged students into “resilient” ones. A recent OECD study, Against The Odds. Disadvantaged Students Who Succeed in School, (http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/12/47092225.pdf) confirms this. “Resilient” students, as defined by the study, are those from a disadvantaged socio-economic background relative to students in their country, and attain high scores by international standards.

Across OECD countries, nearly a third of disadvantaged students are resilient; in Finland and South Korea, nearly half. The bottom line, as the report confidently asserts, is: “Disadvantaged students can and often do defy the odds against them when given the opportunity to do so.” Note the report’s emphasis.

At first glance the report may be stating the obvious. We all can readily recall examples of those from disadvantaged backgrounds who have successfully overcome their many obstacles. Some would attribute their success to their innate ability, sheer grit, and unwavering determination. Those of humbler persuasion would generously credit other factors – talented teachers, superior schools, and opportune openings.

This OECD report marshals impressive data to support its contention that when the disadvantaged are given equal opportunities to learn, foster their self confidence, and effectively motivate them, they can exploit their potential. It then carefully collates and sensibly summarizes the experiences of those member countries that have successfully executed their strategies and achieved those desirable objectives.

Learning From OECD’s Experiences

Suitably adapted and with some enhancements, Malaysia could usefully adopt the findings of the OECD report. Granted, the disadvantaged in an OECD member country are a universe away physically, economically and in many other ways from their counterparts in Malaysia. Consider that in America students from poor families get free textbooks, transportations and school meals. They are also spared the expenses of uniforms and examination fees. Malaysian parents are burdened by these ancillary expenses. They make a mockery of our “free” schooling. A good beginning would be to get rid of such burdens.

We could go further and reward parents who pay attention to their children’s schooling. Brazil’s Bolsa Escola and Mexico’s Progresa pay parents if they were to keep their children in school. Such “Conditional Cash Transfer” initiatives are powerful incentives. If we pay our poor fishermen and rice farmers to keep their children at school, we would dramatically reduce the dropout rates. If we add a bonus in the form of extra payments if their children were to excel, then watch those parents become diligent in ensuring that their children attend school and do their homework.

A universality of the human trait is that we respond to incentives. The secret is to find the right one. For many, it is still cold cash.

The key finding of the OECD study is that resilient disadvantaged students attend more regular lessons at school than those who are not. Thus extend the hours of our rural schools to a full day, and increase the number of school days from the current 180 to 220 per year, as in Japan.

This means single-session schools. If these disadvantaged children are in school for much of the day, well fed, well taught and well supervised while there, then we could not care less if their parents were unable to help them with the homework or read to them at bedtime. Further, with an extended school day, the afternoon could be devoted to enriching extracurricular activities like athletics and fine arts. Thus instead of loitering in the afternoon or otherwise getting into mischief, they would be in school practicing their music or participating in sports. Those extracurricular activities help nurture a more wholesome development; they are also true and tried confidence builders.

Nurturing Self-Confidence

As for self-confidence, the OECD report emphasized the importance of instilling this, especially in disadvantaged children. This cannot be achieved merely by participating in cheerleading rallies and endlessly proclaiming our supposed glorious past.

Instead, and this is another key finding of the report, resilient students spend more time studying science. Excelling in science boosts their self-confidence; this in turn spills over in other areas. This benefit is particularly pronounced with disadvantaged students; the more disadvantaged they are, the more they benefited.

Resilient students spend more class hours on the subject. In France, Germany and the Netherlands these students spend an hour and 45 minutes more in science classes per week than disadvantaged low-achievers. Thus we must not only expand the school day of our rural schools, which are mostly attended by disadvantaged children, but also increase substantially the hours devoted to science classes. Their enhanced literacy in science, apart from boosting their self-confidence, would also greatly improve their employability later in life.

For disadvantaged Malay students, another effective way of boosting their self-confidence would be to enhance their English proficiency. Our leaders endlessly exhort our students to learn English, as if that can simply be wished upon or achieved by waving a magic wand. Instead we should, as the experience with science proficiency of resilient students in OECD countries demonstrates, devote more hours to the subject. Additionally, more subjects should be taught in English so students could practice their English skills outside their language classes. In this regard, the greatest burden of the recent decision to end the teaching of science and mathematics in English falls disproportionately on our rural (meaning, Malay) students, the very group our leaders profess to champion.

That fluency in English could greatly boost a student’s confidence is dramatically demonstrated in California. The state has a large number of immigrant children with severely disadvantaged backgrounds and who cannot speak English. In the days of bilingual education they would be taught in their mother tongue (most commonly Spanish) as well as English.

That policy ended with the passage of an “English Only” referendum in 1998. Today these students have to spend their first year in an English immersion class, and only when they are sufficiently fluent would they join the regular stream.

The results of that experiment are now clear. Whereas in the past these pupils would perpetually be handicapped by their limited English ability and remain at the bottom of their class right up to their final years in school, with the mandatory immersion classes, their ability to speak and write English improved quickly. That boosted their self-confidence, which in turn spills over onto other areas. Today those students readily mix in the playground with the other children and fully engaged socially and other ways while at school. In the past they would segregate themselves as they felt inadequate; they had low self-esteem because of their language handicap.

Today no one would wish to return to the bad old days of bilingual education, most of all those children and their parents. California’s success, now widely acknowledged, directly contradicts the opinion of a widely quoted UNESCO study that purported to show that mother tongue-based bilingual education has a positive impact on learning and learning outcomes.

The self-confidence of Malay students would similarly be boosted if they were to be fluent in English. We could achieve this by replicating California’s experience of English-immersion classes. We had something akin to that with our “Special Malay” and “Remove” classes of yore. Better yet, bring back the old English schools back to our rural areas where the need for enhanced English fluency is the greatest.

If we supplement that with an increase in the hours they stay in school, enrich the curriculum to devote more hours to science, and have a full offering of extracurricular activities to include sports and the performing arts like music and drama, then watch miracles unfold in these kampong kids.

While parental and social factors are important, there is much that our schools and teachers can and should do to improve the current abysmal academic performance of our kampong kids. The key lies with the teachers and schools. In the next essay I will explore the experiences of those countries that have highly effective schools and how they have managed to attract the best to be teachers.

Learn from the experiences of the OECD countries. If we adopt the measures discussed here, then watch the miracles unfolding in our rural students. We can break the link between disadvantaged background and low academic achievement.

Next: Attracting the Best To Teaching

Chapter 8: Culture, Institutions, and Leadership

Lack of Checks and Balances in Malaysian Leadership

One unhealthy trend in the Malaysian leadership is the increasing concentration of power and the consequent absence of checks and balances. Invariably this leads to the lack of accountability and potential abuse. It is not so much that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton had put it, rather we do not have a system that prevents the inherently corrupt from becoming powerful.

Consider that Mahathir is not only the chief executive (Prime Minister) of the country; he is also the leader of his party, chairman of a number of government corporations, as well as being the finance minister! With the lack of an effective system of checks and balances, such a structure is a set up for either spectacular achievement given a competent, honest and humble leader, or the destruction of the country given a lesser mortal.

A system with effective checks and balances could handle even the most evil and corrupt. America survived Richard Nixon; he was forced to resign. The American system could also deal with the personal moral turpitude of a president, as when Clinton was impeached, albeit unsuccessfully.

In Malaysia even at the state level we see this same pattern of concentration of power and lack of checks and balances. The chief minister, apart from being the chief executive of the state, is also the state leader of the party, mayor of the capital city, and chairman of various state corporations. Any of those jobs would have consumed the full attention of a skilled executive, yet we have these politicians, many with no formal training in management or special executive skills, who think they can credibly perform all those functions at the same time. No wonder nothing gets done.

If we distribute the power, not only would we ensure the jobs would get done, but there would also be greater accountability. I see no reason why the head of the ruling party should be the same person as the prime minister, or that cabinet positions be reserved for top party officials. The prime minister should be able to select the best person to be in his cabinet and not be hamstrung with whether that person has been elected to a top position in UMNO. The skills to run for a party position are not necessarily the same skills needed to manage a ministry or agency. Similarly if the state UMNO leader and the chief minister were different persons, they would both keep each other on their toes.

Again reverting to the American example, George W. Bush may be the President, but he is not the head of his Republican Party. Although he has the sole power to appoint his Cabinet Secretaries and other senior officials, nonetheless those too are subject to Senate confirmation – a check on presidential power. Even if the president’s party were to control both houses of Congress, there is no guarantee that the president would get a free ride from the Speaker of the House and the Leader of the Senate.

Another unhealthy trend in Malaysia is the lack of regular challenges to the senior leadership. Such challenges are important even when the leaders are strong and popular as such exercises then effectively become an evaluation of the leaders. Earlier leaders of UMNO right down to Mahathir’s immediate predecessor, Hussein Onn, were all routinely challenged at their party’s leadership conventions. Those challengers all had no realistic hope of winning, nonetheless the number of votes they garnered became a surrogate evaluation of the leader. Such exercises would also prevent leaders from becoming another Saddam Hussein. He routinely would get reelected with over 99 percent of the votes. And if he could determine who those 1 per cent of voters who did not vote for him, the next election would see Saddam returned with a 100 percent approval!

Since the debacle of 1987 UMNO leadership crisis where Mahathir was challenged and nearly toppled by Tengku Razaleigh, a new culture has developed within the party, that of not challenging the senior leaders. All in the name of party unity! This is a retrogressive step. Such regular challenges and open competitions are important not only to keep a check on the leaders but also to encourage the emergence of new talent.

What Malaysia needs today is a fresh generation of leaders with new vision, or to pursue my wings analogy, a new set of backswept or delta wings to go with its turbocharged engines. Unfortunately, the very nature of the political structure generally and UMNO in particular, does not encourage new talent. Apart from the emerging tradition of not challenging the senior leaders, the rules for candidates vying for party positions in UMNO are skewed to favor incumbents heavily.

Candidates have to have the backing of at least 10 percent of the divisions before they could be nominated. I am surprised that they did not make that 50 percent and then do away completely with the election!

As with the party, so it is with the country. In the general election of 1999 there was much hype about Mahathir fielding fresh candidates. Alas that was mere hype as in the end they were the same old tired faces being reshuffled. In striking contrast, Singapore had an election in November 2001 that saw over a third of the candidates from the ruling PAP being new faces. Their leaders knew they needed a new set of wings.

I do not see that the political line up in Malaysia to change much in the foreseeable future. The country seems stuck, with minimal influx of fresh talent. UMNO made a tepid attempt at attracting young women professionals with its new Puteri (princess) wing, but that met with considerable resistance from the established order.

The party that is successful at drawing in new talent is PAS. But if that party ever hope to rule the country, these new leaders must replace the rigid set in the ulama council and make that supreme body directly elected by and accountable to the members.

Malaysia’s present senior political leaders do not appreciate the serious need to attract fresh candidates. They simply assume that politics and public service will continue to attract the best and talented. These leaders are in a dream world. With opportunities in the private sector so much more challenging and enticing, Malaysians no longer value public service, and in particular, politics. The marked discrepancy in pay between the public and private sector only aggravates the situation.

The next Malaysian leader will need the IQ (Intelligence Quotient) of a Tun Razak and the EQ (Emotional Quotient) of a Tunku Abdul Rahman. Thanks to the successes of Mahathir’s policies, Malaysia now does not lack for such individuals. The challenge is to entice them into public service.

The Malaysian leaders of tomorrow will not be those who simply bark out orders a la the drill sergeant. Rather they will be individuals with proven personal and professional achievements who can share their vision for the country’s future with their followers. They will be more like the symphony conductor, cajoling and encouraging in order to bring out the best from the citizens. These leaders will lead through personal examples of competence, integrity and excellence, and not merely by manipulating personnel, information, and institutions.

In addition to the political leadership, there is also the leadership of the hereditary class, principally the sultans and territorial chiefs. These hereditary leaders are found only in the nine sultanates; the remaining four states of Sabah, Sarawak, Penang, and Melaka are fortunately spared this additional burden. These hereditary leaders add another layer of inertia to change. The royalty and nobility classes have never provided much leadership to Malays either in their official or personal capacity. Unlike European kings and dukes who through their patronage provided for the development and nurturing of talented artists, musicians, and scholars, Malaysian royalty and aristocrats feel no similar obligation.

A new development among members of the royalty is their increasing involvement in business. To the extent that they are now contributing to the economy, that is good. But if they are using their royal clout to secure unfair advantages over their competitors, that would be dangerous. We must also be mindful of Ibn Khaldun’s admonition about the ruinous effect of rulers’ involvement in commerce. There would be less criticisms if members of the royal family were well qualified and competent to run their businesses, but if they were content in being merely silent partners and figureheads or sultans of their enterprises, then that would easily evoke the hostilities of not only their competitors but also their subjects.

Another trend that I view with increasing concern is the current vogue of installing sultans or their consorts to important bodies such as chancellors of universities. I do not mind them becoming chairman of the Malaysian Society of Orchid Lovers, but for them to be directly involved with important organizations would be unhealthy. Given the typical Malaysian obsequiousness in the presence of members of the royalty, I cannot imagine any substantive discussions taking place in such meetings chaired by these sultans. The government is doing these bodies a great disservice by appointing these royal luminaries. If the government were to honor these bodies, than by all means appoint the sultans in an honorary capacity.

Malaysian sultans and nobilities are akin to bulkheads on a ship rather than propellers. Not only do they not help in pushing the ship of state forward, on the contrary they effect a significant drag. They are an expensive burden to boot. They also set a very poor example to the masses. They sit at the apex of the privileged heap and do not contribute.

The sultans also disproportionately influence Malays by being not only the secular leader but also as head of the Muslim faith. This latter function protects the sultans from criticisms from the masses, for doing so would be tantamount to criticizing the faith itself. And because the citizens are discouraged from criticizing the sultans, this habit is carried over to all the other leaders, including political leaders and also their superiors at work. In short Malaysia has all the makings of a compliant and robotic society – a flock of sheep.

There is one other important factor that accelerates this trend. That is the attitude towards and the influence of Islam, especially in Malay life and culture. This is such a significant bearing that I have a devoted the entire next chapter to it.

Next: Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Economic Development Reverses Brain Drain
M. Bakri Musa

A recent World Bank Report concludes that Malaysia risks jeopardizing its economic development if it does not ameliorate its “brain drain” problem. The Bank singles out the country’s affirmative action program as a major contributor to the problem.

Brain drain, as the Bank rightly acknowledges, is a universal problem. For the Bank to conclude as it did, it must present comparative international data showing that Malaysia’s problem is worse off than those without similar affirmative action programs. Alas, this is precisely the glaring deficiency of the report, its lack of comparative data.

The Report nonetheless contains a wealth of valuable data. However, as the information sage Edward Tufte observed, nature’s laws are causal; they reveal themselves by comparison and difference. This absence of comparisons makes the report’s conclusion not credible.

The Bank has it backwards. Brain drain does not impact economic development rather the other way around. Have a robust economy and then watch talent – and not just native ones – flocking in. We saw this with Japan of the 1960s, South Korea in the 1980s, and Ireland in the 1990s. Ireland is a particularly pertinent example. Today with its economy sputtering, Ireland is again suffering a brain drain.

There is no indication that Malaysia’s problem is worse off than that of China, India, or Singapore. On the contrary those countries may suffer even worse, and they do not have any domestic affirmative action program, except for a perfunctory one for India’s “untouchables.”

In California there are more émigrés from Singapore than from Malaysia. Nearly all my college mates in Canada in the 1960s who were from Singapore are now émigrés. Considering the republic’s much smaller population, we can infer that it has a bigger brain drain problem. Heck, even its former head of state emigrated! Yet that does not impact its economic development.

China suffered through massive “brain drain” for the past few decades; it still does. Yet it continues registering spectacular economic growth. Only now with greater opportunities as a consequence of that growth is China seeing an improvement to its brain drain problem.

Despite that, China now has a new problem. According to a China Merchant Bank’s report, those Chinese with assets in excess 100 million yuan, a stunning 27 percent have already emigrated while another 47 are considering it. In Malaysia, at least according to the World Bank Report, only the smart Chinese are emigrating; the rich ones stay put. I let readers conclude who really are the smart ones!

Snared by the Race Trap

The Report’s other major disappointment is its less-than-rigorous teasing out the race factor in its analyses. Consequently its authors, like many commentators both native and foreign, get unnecessarily entangled with the nation’s sensitive race issue. No surprise then that the report succeeded only in unleashing suppressed chauvinism and resurrecting ugly stereotypes.

Consider its findings that the overwhelming majority of emigrants are Chinese and those with tertiary qualifications from or recognized by foreign (specifically Western) institutions. Only those not attuned to the Malaysian scene would miss the redundancy to that statement.

To tease out the delicate race factor, you must present data that show Malays with similar qualifications as non-Malays do not emigrate, at least not in comparable proportions. The Bank does not have that data.

Anecdotal evidence may indicate otherwise. When I visit American campuses, the one frequent question posed to me by Malay students is: How do I get to stay back? Most Malays are on scholarships and tightly bound to their contracts. Emigration is not an option for at least ten years; that alone would skew the figures, race-wise.

The West is a magnet for the talented. Outstanding athletes and artists excepted, talent to the West means those conversant in English and have qualifications issued by its institutions. In Malaysia that means non-Malays. They may hate Malaysia’s affirmative action program but that is not enough for them to emigrate to Australia or America; they have to have the needed qualifications.

Now if Malaysian Chinese were to emigrate to China and Indians to India, then that would really indicate something rotten in Malaysia. I do not see that happening – as yet. This salient fact indicates that the “pull” of the West far exceeds the “push” out of Malaysia. In China and India however, the “push” factor is overwhelming, reflecting their general economic status and not because of any domestic social policies a la affirmative action. There the prime consideration is to get out; regardless whether you are among the rich, talented or the unskilled, hence the all too frequent tragedies of their poor citizens caught in abandoned rusty trawlers on the beaches of the Pacific and Atlantic.

The Bank noted that Malaysia’s brain drain is worse only within the last decade, a period that coincides with Malaysia’s less-than-robust economic performance. Affirmative action however, has been a fixture for over half a century. If it were to be the reason for emigration, as claimed by the Bank, then we would expect the rate to be constant all these years.

There are many good reasons to jettison the current corrupt and ineffective affirmative action program, but hoping that it will solve our brain drain problem is, well, just hope.

Surprisingly, the Report’s many nuggets of information escape comments both by the report’s writers as well as by the mob of commentators. The latter is no surprise as any issue that parallels (or seem to) the racial divide inevitably invites such Pavlovian race-tinged responses. That the report’s writers who are experts would fall into the same trap is a surprise.

Consider the report’s findings that fewer than 10 percent of its respondents (Malaysians who emigrated) spoke our national language. If you were born and raised in Malaysia you have to be literally an idiot or a hermit not to know our national language, as it is widely spoken. Both idiots and hermits have their place, but they are not regarded with esteem in any workplace.

Their lack of fluency in Malay reflects their commitment to Malaysia. To them Malaysia is only a staging ground, to prepare themselves for subsequent migration to greener pastures. There is nothing wrong with that; it is only human. The error is in imputing evil motives on those they leave behind and who have kindly provided them their launching pad. They should be grateful, not spiteful to Malaysia. The quota lines (yes, America has quotas too!) for green cards for those from China and India are closer to infinity; not so for those Malaysian-born.

Focus on Retaining Talent

It is futile to tailor your policies in the hope of attracting people who have long ago decided to emigrate. Instead, the emphasis should be on two areas. One, treat your present personnel so well that they would not even consider leaving. Two, attract talents worldwide without regards to whether they are Malaysians, former Malaysians, or complete foreigners. The market for talent is truly global; there is no place for nostalgia, insularity, or misguided notions of nationalism.

Contrary to popular perception, pay is not the only consideration, but a decent one would help smooth out the many other frustrations, including those of affirmative action. Once you treat your current talent well, word will quickly spread out and you will be inundated with enquiries.

Stop tinkering with the tax code or hiring expensive foreign consultants to produce yet another thick report that would soon be forgotten. Disband the costly Talent Corporation; it is just another bureaucracy whose budget for foreign travel rivals that of the Foreign Ministry. Divert those funds to compensate the highly talented you have at home.

You do not have to match exactly the global pay rates to attract talent. A modest increase in the current pay scale in the range of 30 to 50 percent would go a long way in encouraging Malaysians to stay put. We all know the variables of purchasing power and the cost of as well as standard of living even within a country. If you make US$100K and live in San Francisco you may be lucky to afford a one-bedroom condo. In Wyoming you could live in a “McMansion.” For that same pay, in Malaysia you could live in a real mansion, with maids, drivers and gardeners to boot. Salaries in Singapore may be considerably higher but try finding a house with a yard for your children to play. Yes, you can readily afford a car so you can drive around the island in half an afternoon.

Focus on attracting talent from wherever; practice meritocracy on a global scale. All things being equal, I would choose talent already in Malaysia. You cannot beat local knowledge and perspective. My next choice will be a complete foreigner; I prefer that over a Malaysian émigré, especially one who cannot speak our national language.

My rationale is simple. The one trait I value most in an employee is curiosity, for with it comes the eagerness to learn. The complete foreigner has demonstrated his adventuresome by wanting to work in a foreign country. He considers that a challenge; his learning curve will be steep. He is also enthused about his new assignment. A Malaysian who cannot speak our national language clearly shows his lack of interest in his surroundings. He is not even curious enough to learn a language that is widely spoken. An uncurious worker is rarely an asset.

A returning émigré also carries with him his old baggage; he may find it difficult or unwilling to re-adjust. When faced with a problem his only response would be, “Back in old England …. ” If he were to be reprimanded by a superior who is other than his own kind, he would more likely dredge up his old prejudices.

Malaysia should not have any hang-ups about recruiting talented foreigners. Its priority however, should be on retaining the talents it already has and on producing more. Not too long ago Malaysia commissioned the same World Bank to review our universities on improving their performance. Few could recall that report now.

Najib has a penchant for employing legends of foreign consultants. Unlike his predecessor Abdullah, Najib at least reads those reports. However, if you do not have handle on a problem to begin with, calling in the various experts would only confuse you. Consider this World Bank report. Just a month after its release, the Bank published another study, “Eight Questions About Brain Drain,” prepared by yet another set of its experts. This second report essentially questions the findings of the earlier one. Dismiss these expensive consultants and divert the money to reward the talents you already have.

The executive talent of a leader is inversely related to his penchant for calling in consultants. Meaning, the more inept he is, the more likely he is to call in various experts. Najib reaffirms my conviction. If he is not already befuddled, this latest World Bank Report would do it for him.