Malaysia and the Dilemma of Assimilation (part II)

By Farish A. Noor

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

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

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

Assimilation and the Malay-Muslim comfort zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pitfalls of assimilation

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

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

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

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

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

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 August 2007, 9:07 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MCA policy statement on “social contract” blacked out by MCA newspaper The Star

This is most extraordinary and unthinkable  — MCA newspaper The Star “blacking out” the MCA policy statement on the “social contract”!

The Chinese newspapers gave front-page headline treatment to the policy statement issued  yesterday by the MCA Presidential Council following the shock declaration of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that Malaysia was an Islamic state and not a secular state.

Strangely enough, the policy statement was reported by the
Sun
 but it is also conspicuously omitted in the New Straits Times and the Malay newspapers.

Releasing the MCA Presidential Council statement, MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said the Federal Constitution should be the reference to resolve controversies or confusion over the social contract.

The statement said  that what had been agreed by the forefathers 50 years ago, especially the principles and the spirit in governing the country, must be preserved.

These principles and spirit were enshrined in the Constitution.

Two questions are in order:

Firstly, why the two-faced treatment of the MCA Presidential Council policy statement on the “social contract” by the MCA — having it published prominently in the Chinese media but blacked out in its own English-language newspaper, the Star and the New Straits Times as well as the Malay newspapers.

Secondly, why had the MCA Presidential Council betrayed the fundamental principles espoused by the early generation of the MCA founder-leaders like Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Tan Siew Sin who had declared unequivocally both inside and outside Parliament 50 years ago that this nation  was conceived as a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state.

In limiting its “social contract” understanding and commitment  to what is in the Malaysian Constitution, the present MCA leaders have created the conditions to justify their support for the abandonment of the foundation nation-building cornerstone of Malaysia as a secular state with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.

This is  to enable the present MCA leadership to  support the distortion  and misinterpretation of the Merdeka “social contract” of Malaysia as never having been an secular state and had always been an Islamic state.

The Malaysian Constitution is both silent on a secular state and an Islamic state. However,  all constitutional documents leading up to the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and the 1964 Malaysia Agreement and the highest judicial pronouncements of the land spelt out clearly that Malaysia was conceived as a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state.

Now, through sheer political hegemony and against the public stands of the first three Prime Ministers of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, the “social contract” and Merdeka Constitution is being misinterpreted to jettison the fundamental nation-building principle of a secular Malaysia and to substitute instead an Islamic Malaysia.

The MCA Presidential Council policy statement yesterday has only one objective — to perpetuate the myth that MCA remains steadfast and fully committed to defend and uphold the Merdeka social contract when in fact it had already abandoned the fundamental principle that Malaysia was conceived as a secular state and was never meant to be an Islamic state.

How could Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Tan Siew Sin rest in peace at such betrayal of principles by the present crop of MCA leaders?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 August 2007, 4:26 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Non-bumis no more?

by Azly Rahman

Sometime ago in a column I wrote the following:

We are in the 21st century. About three years from now, we will arrive at the year 2010. The non-Malays and non-bumiputeras have come a long way into being accepted as full-fledged Malaysians, by virtue of the ethics, rights and responsibilities of citizenship. They ought to be given equal opportunity in the name of social justice, racial tolerance and the alleviation of poverty.

Bright and hard-working Malaysians regardless of racial origin who now call themselves Malaysians must be given all the opportunities that have been given to Malays since 40 years back.

Islam and other religions require this form of social justice to be applied to the lives of human beings. Islam does not discriminate one on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, creed nor national origin. It is race-based politics, borne out of the elusiveness of nationalism, that creates post-industrial tribalistic leaders; leaders that will design post-industrial tribalistic policies. It is the philosophy of greed, facilitated by free enterprise runamuck that will evolvingly force leaders of each race to threaten each other over the control of the economic pie. This is the ideology of independence we have cultivated.

I want to elaborate the point further:

A Malay child of Merdeka

As a child born into a Malay family a few years after the shouts of “Merdeka!” filled the nation’s stadium, and as a child privileged to be given the opportunities accorded to a “bumiputera,” I have a statement of hope to convey to our nation.

As an adult growing learning multiple ways of knowing about the world, through people of multiple cultures, I often ask the question of what will happen to the children and grandchildren of Mr Wong, my Jawi teacher in Johor Bahru, Ah Lan of Jalan Segget, the lady who taught my mother how to sew clothes for a living, Dr Das of Jalan Ah Fook who treated my childhood illness and taught me how to be “patient” about wanting to make changes in the world, Mr PV Kulasingam my fearful headmaster in Sekolah Temenggong Abdul Rahman, Miss Chan my favourite Maths teachers who suddenly became angry at me a day after the May 13, 1969 riots, Miss Yap and Mr Ambrose my English teachers who taught me to love the language when I was struggling with other subjects, and countless other “non-Malays non-bumis” I have come to be indebted to — those who have contributed to the “subjectivity” of what I am as a “cultural being living in an ever changing and evolving world of shifting cultural constructs.”

In short, I ask the question — what have this nation done to the children and grandchildren of these people through the policies we create to alienate each other?

Because in my profession as an educator, questions are more important than the answers, I present them as such below:

After this Merdeka celebrations will we all be called the “new bumiputeras”? Will the false dichotomy of “Malays” versus “non-Malays” and “bumiputeras ” versus “non-bumiputeras” be abolished? Will we come together as “true blue Malaysians” that will progress through the guiding national development philosophy crafted by the principles of scientific socialism, multiculturalism, affirmative action and meritocratic principles in a balance, and the respect, cultivation, and preservation of indigenous cultures that sustain the dignity of each race?

Will more financial aid be given to the deserving students of all races? Will more scholarships be given to “non-Malays” or “non-bumiputeras” so that they too will enjoy the fruits of labour of the parents and grandparents who toiled for this nation? Will more deserving “non-Malays” be given the much needed aid to study abroad and to come home and serve, so that they will take pride in building the nation that has been kind to them? Will this new preferential treatment cure the ill-feeling and silent animosity over the awarding of resources amongst the different races?

Will the children and grandchildren of great Malaysians — Soh Chin Aun, V Arumugam, Santokh Singh, (the grand-daddies of the real Beckhams of the Malaysian cultural iconoclasm) and Andre Goh, M. Jegathesan, or the members of the pop group “Alleycats” be given the scholarship they deserve?

Will preferential treatment be given to those born after the Aug 31, 1957 to their children and grandchildren as well?

It will be a shame to the hard work of the “founding fathers” of Merdeka if we do not work towards providing equality, equity, and equal opportunity to the children of all races. It would kill the spirit of Merdeka.

Our Merdeka gone astray?

This Merdeka, we have gone astray. Race-politics has reached its boiling point. It is predictable as a consequence of the outgrowth of politics in a pluralistic nation. Scholars who write about the difference between nationalism and socialism have predicted the bankruptcy of the former, in an age of globalisation and mass consumption — in an age wherein blind nationalism has become a blinder for the politics of plunder.

This Merdeka, let us extend our special rights to all who deserve to live a life of dignity, based on the principles of universal declaration of human rights. In a nation wherein the three major races help build the nation, the nation must now belong to the children of all these races. It is the logic of the brighter side of Social Darwinism — that all must be made fit to survive, not through natural selection but through an inclusive philosophy of developmentalism. It is an antidote to racial discrimination based on a sound philosophy of peaceful evolution.

We cannot continue to alienate each other through arguments on “social contract” that is alien from perhaps what Jean Jacques Rousseau the great Swiss wrote about some 300 years ago — a philosophy that inspired the founding of America, a nation of immigrants constantly struggling (albeit imperfectly) to meet the standards requirements of equality, equity, and equal opportunity especially in education.

How do we come together as Malaysians, as neo-bumiputeras free from false political-economic and ideological dichotomies of Malays versus non-Malays, “bumi” versus “non-bumis’ and craft a better way of looking at our political, economic, social, cultural, and psychological, and spiritual destiny — so that we may continue to survive as a specie of Malaysians the next 50 years?

As a privileged Malay and a “bumiputera”, I want to see the false dichotomies destroyed and a new sense of social order emerging, based on a more just form of linguistic play designed as a new Merdeka game plan. Think Malaysian – we do not have anything to lose except our mental chains.

There is still a reason to celebrate.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 August 2007, 4:38 pm and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


CJM debacle – one up for Conference of Rulers and one down for Pak Lah

The
appointment
of Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff as the Chief Judge of Malaya is one up for the Conference of Rulers and one down for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  — as the debacle  is  a major setback to the prestige and authority of the Prime  Minister as a result of the seven-month constitutional impasse and crisis.

The objection of the Conference of Rulers to the earlier nominee for the Chief Judge of Malaya resulting in the seven-month constitutional deadlock has proved to be fully justified and the Prime Minister most imprudent and ill-advised to give blind support to the proposal submitted by the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim.

The question crying out for answer  is why the Prime Minister placed himself in such an embarrassing and indefensible position and for such a protracted length of time.

Isn’t there a proper mechanism to vet candidates whether for judicial appointments or promotions?

The Chief Justice must bear great responsibility for the constitutional debacle  but from the constitutional standpoint, the Prime Minister cannot shirk final responsibility as the buck must stop at his desk.

Fairuz now says that he is
waiting for an explanation
from a Federal Court judge on his failure to write the grounds of judgments in more than 35 civil and criminal cases.

Malaysians are waiting for Fairuz himself to explain why he had not taken action for more than a month when such judicial misconduct was first  reported in the media  — as such failure by the Chief Justice to  take prompt action against all forms of miscarriages of justice  is a grave  failing and misconduct for the holder of the highest judicial office  in the land.

It has been reported that Fairuz had applied for a six-month extension of his tenure as chief justice as his appointment ends on Nov. 1, when he turns 66, the retirement  age for judges.

Because of his judicial failings and misconduct, over the constitutional debacle over his nominee as Chief Judge of Malaya and even more important, his failure to initiate judicial reforms to restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity, quality and professionalism of judges, he should withdraw his request to the Yang di Pertuan Agong for a six-month extension to allow for a new person to helm the Malaysian judiciary to start on a new reformist slate.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 August 2007, 2:25 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Farce of patriotism by handful of BN MPs – black chapter for Parliament and blot for 50th Merdeka anniversary

A handful of irresponsible Barisan Nasional MPs had disgraced Parliament and demeaned the 50th Merdeka anniversary by staging a farce of patriotism in Parliament yesterday just   to score cheap political points to catch  Opposition MPs off-guard.

Yesterday’s Parliamentary  sitting started at 10 am with the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah making a statement on the 50th Merdeka anniversary before the start of the question session, which was quite unusual as the Speaker represents all MPs, both government and opposition, and should only make pronouncements unrelated to the duties of his office after consultation and mandate of both sides of the House.

Opposition MPs were completely unaware that the Speaker was going to make any such announcement on behalf of Parliament, and that was why I was not in the House at the time.  Not only the majority of Opposition MPs were not in the House, this applies to the majority of BN MPs — resulting in the Speaker making an important announcement to an empty House!

What was clearly out of order was that the Chairman of the Barisan Backbenchers Club Datuk Raja  Ahmad Zainudin Raja Omar (BN — Larut) followed up with  a speech which he read from a prepared text (proof  of prior knowledge and pre-planning) ending up with his call to  MPs to emulate Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman 50 years ago with seven shouts of Merdeka in Parliament.

The farce ended with the BN MP for Kinabatangan Datuk Bung Moktar Radin deriding the Opposition benches  and asking offensively  whether the two Opposition parties did not celebrate Merdeka.

There were only one or two MPs  each from DAP and PAS in the House at the time and they  did not respond to Raja Ahmad’s call probably for three  reasons:

(i)	it was completely against parliamentary  Standing Orders;

(ii)	no prior notice or  consultation; and

(iii)	more a farce than a serious expression of celebration of 50th Merdeka anniversary.

Nanyang Siang Pau, which carries a daily tally of parliamentary attendance at 10 am,  2.30 pm and 5.30 pm, reported that there were only 31 MPs when Parliament started its sitting yesterday at 10 am — which was just five above the quorum of 26 MPs.

With only 25 or 26 BN MPs in the House — which is only one-seventh or one-eighth of the total BN  total of 199 MPs –  how could Raja Ahmad be so irresponsible in staging a farce of patriotism in Parliament just to catch the Opposition MPs off-guard to get an excuse to accuse the Opposition MPs  of being unpatriotic?

Does it mean  that  the over 85% of the BN MPs (including Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries) were unpatriotic for being absent from the House to respond to Raja Ahmad ‘s call for seven shouts of Merdeka in Parliament yesterday?  Even the Speaker, Tan Sri  Ramli Ngah did not stand up from his chair to shout Merdeka seven times.  Was the Speaker also unpatriotic?

If Raja Ahmad’s seven shouts of Merdeka were  not a cheap political trickery to entrap the Opposition MPs, BN MPs like Bung Moktar and Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf (BN — Jasin) would not have immediately pounced on  it to accuse DAP MPs of being unpatriotic.

During the subsequent exchange during question time, I called on MPs to stand up in Parliament to give seven Merdeka shouts of “social contract”, with all DAP MPs present in the House responding in unison. Could  all the BN MPs be accused of being disloyal to the Merdeka social contract as none of the BN MPs had  joined in?

If in Parliament next week, I am to stand up to call on all MPs to shout Merdeka seven times, and if no one from the BN benches responded, can all the BN MPs be accused of being unpatriotic?

The  farce of patriotism staged   by a handful of BN MPs yesterday has spoiled the significance of the Golden Jubilee of Malaysian nationhood for at least two important reasons:

	Disgracing and dishonouring Parliament as if Malaysians need more proof to show that Malaysia is a very long way off from a first-world Parliament which debate  momentous national issues like the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone bailout scandal or the new crisis of confidence in the integrity, quality and professionalism of the system of justice instead of indulging in childish antics;

	Debasing and demeaning the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations — with the handful of irresponsible BN MPs causing division and greater disunity among the Malaysian rakyat when this should be an occasion for all Malaysians including MPs, regardless of race, religion or political beliefs to come together as Malaysians..

The farce of patriotism by a  handful of BN MPs yesterday is  a black chapter for Parliament and a blot for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 August 2007, 11:57 am and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Makna Merdeka 50

Makna Merdeka 50

Merdeka negara!  Merdeka bercita!

Bebas negara! Bebas bersuara!

Merdeka bukan hadiah penjajah

Kebebasan insan hasrat Allah.

Alam ku luas, borkat Illahi

Rezki ku Tuhan yang mengsukati.

Laut, gunung, sempadan tanpa ku segani

Gelombang dunia berani ku layari!

Kampong halaman bukan nya sauh

Ingin ku menghilir merantau jauh.

Di mana bumi ku pijak, di sana langit ku junjong

Selagi hati berhajat, cita ku jangan di kandong.

Hidup, bebas, bahagia, hasrat Allah

Pantang celaka lah jika di ubah.

Raja dan menteri mesti mempatuhi

Jangan kau mungkir perentah Illahi.

Rakyat negeri bukan nya kuli

Untok di kerah ka sana sini.

Zaman purba tak akan kembali

Mungkin menteri yang di buang negri!

Renungkan nasib si Idi Amin

Yang Shah Pahlavi pun tak terjamin.

Pemimpim negri mesti menginggati

Rakyat — bukan raja — yang di daulati.

Tidak ku sangka songsang

Anak dagang di negri orang.

Orang kita/orang sana, tidak bermakna.

Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia

Bukan kah itu gesa Laksmana?

Urat ku mendalam di bumi asing

Loghat ku pun ikut sama mengiring

Sambal belacan dah berasa lain

Teras ku tetap Melayu tulin!

Kampong ku jauh beribu batu

Begitu juga kaum sa suku

Kalau di renung hati ku rindu

Mengenang cerita moyang ku dulu.

Anak merantua jangan diigaui

Sepi perpisahan boleh dibatasi.

Bebas! Merdeka!  Alangkah murni!

Ku peluk penuh cinta berahi!

M. Bakri Musa

Morgan Hill, California

2007

My translation:

Meaning of Merdeka (Independence) 50

Merdeka to the nation!  Merdeka for my ambition!

Freedom of speech!  Freedom of thought!

The benevolence of colonials, merdeka is not

Free!  Unshackled!  That’s the command of the Lord.

My universe is broad, the blessing of God.

I strive, but only He knows my fate and lot.

Oceans, mountains, and boundaries faze me not

The global waves a match for my surfing board.

My village abode is not my tether

The yonder wide world beckons me thither.

Firm on ground, the heavens above I praise

And pray my dream will find its rightful place.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

That is Allah’s command; His measured kindness.

It is not for kings and rulers to alter

Nor put boundaries to God’s desire.

Blessed with freedom and reason are God’s children

To lords and kings we are never beholden.

The feudal order had long been toppled

Let’s be clear, the sovereign is the people.

Ponder the fate of one Idi Amin

That of Shah Pahlavi was equally grim!

These realities our leaders must heed

“Power to the People!” is the new creed.

Praise the wandering son, our true hero

Heeding the call when the distant wind blows.

This “us” versus “them” makes little sense

True to yourself, that is the essence.

Blessed our forefathers for that lesson.

My roots have deepened in this foreign soil

Affected or not, so too my Western drawl.

The spicy taste of yore has lost its punch

Still, the old Malay can, …  lah!  In a crunch!

Far across the ocean the old abode beckons

My kith and kind, Oh! They readily come to mind!

As I ponder, the heart grows fonder

Reliving stories of days yonder.

The young has flown, the empty nest silent

Sadness yes, but memories remain vibrant.

Freedom!  Merdeka!  Such intoxicating beauty!

With fondness and passion, I readily embrace thee.

M. Bakri Mua

Morgan Hill, California

August 2007

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 August 2007, 5:52 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Merdeka 50th anniversary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 bil PKFZ bailout scandal – nobody accountable for two weeks when Kong Choy on medical leave?

When Malaysians heard or read the news about the RM4.1 billion investment from the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) countries for the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in Johore, their first thought would be that Malaysians themselves have this amount of money to spare if they do not have to be squandered in a bailout of the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PFZ) scandal.

Up to now, there has been no proper and full accountability as to how the PKFZ, touted as a feasible and self-financing project which would not require a single ringgit of public funds, has ended up as a RM4.6 billion burden of the taxpayers.

This is why the report today that the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy has gone on medical leave for health reasons attracted more than its usual share of attention.

His press secretary said Chan has to go abroad for a medical check-up and consultation.

I wish Chan speedy recovery, although two questions jostle for answer:

Firstly, is Chan another example of the present crop of Cabinet Ministers who have no confidence in Malaysian specialists and  medical expertise that one after another has  to go overseas for medical treatment and consultation.   This question is particularly poignant when the Health Minister is another MCA leader, Datuk Dr. Chua Soi Lek.

Secondly, does this mean that for a fortnight, no one from the Transport Ministry need to be responsible to give full accountability for the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal.

Knowing that he had to go on medical leave for two weeks, Chan was being most irresponsible in failing to give a full and proper accounting of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal in his written answer to my question in Parliament on  Tuesday.

In his answer, apart from making a bald claim that there was no fraud, irregularity or malpractice, Chan failed to address the specific issues which I had highlighted in my urgent motion on the PKFZ bailout scandal on Monday but which was rejected by the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah as not complying withy the three prequisite requirements of being urgent, definite public importance.

Chan was given five days’ notice that  among the issues I had wanted to highlight in my urgent motion last  Monday were:

	 (i) Hanky-panky in the purchase of the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ, despite objections by the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers;

 (ii) mismanagement  resulting in the pull-out  of Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone (Jafza) from the project, which could become a “white elephant”; and

(iii) questionable cost-overruns of the PKFZ, ballooning to RM4.63 billion from the original estimate of RM1.1 billion.

	The unlawful and unauthorized  Transport Ministry issue of four  “letters of support” which were used by the turnkey contractor – Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) – to raise RM4.6 billion bonds and get an AAA rating from the Malaysia Rating Corporation Bhd. for PKFZ.

	Why  the government and the 26 million Malaysians must now bear responsibility if there is  a RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout despite earlier assurances that the PKFZ project  would be feasible,  self-financing and would not involve a single ringgit of public funds.

Chan  had failed to act in accordance with the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance in completely evading these issues in his written answer on the PKFZ scandal in Parliament on Tuesday.

Who is the Acting Transport Minister during Chan’s two-week medical leave and will he be fully empowered to give a full accounting of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal, or he will only have a stock reply: “I do not know. Wait until Chan returns from leave”?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 August 2007, 4:37 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


50th Merdeka anniversary – “Feel good” euphoria absent; instead  a stifling “feel worse” sentiment among Malaysians

50th Merdeka Anniversary Message

Unlike previous years, on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary, I am issuing a message on the day itself instead of the usual practice of on its eve.

Just one or even  two months ago, no  one would have predicted or expected that Malaysians would be troubled by  many national issues of import come August 31 when the nation celebrates its Merdeka golden jubilee — whether about the Merdeka “social contract” on the fundamental cornerstone of Malaysian nation-building;  racial and religious polarization; the  independence and integrity of national institutions like the Cabinet, Parliament, Judiciary, Police, Anti-Corruption Agency, Election Commission, the public service;  plunge in educational standards and international competitiveness; decline in quality of life with unchecked rise in crime;  increasing intolerance towards dissent, press and internet freedom; or a host of other major concerns..

With the 50th Merdeka anniversary, the “feel good” euphoria in Malaysia should be even  more effusive than in 2004 which gave Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi the unprecedented landslide general election victory, sweeping over 90 per cent of the parliamentary seats, a feat which had eluded all the four  previous Prime Ministers.

In actual fact, the “feel good” euphoria is singularly absent in the country on the occasion of the  50th Merdeka anniversary.  Instead of  the “feel good” euphoria, there is the “feel worse” sentiment among the people which is even more prevalent and acute  than at any time  during previous  Mahathir administration.

Malaysians have both  chalked up successes and achievements as well as experienced  failures and setbacks in our 50 years of nationhood.

We are right to  be proud of our successes but we must be prepared to address our failures of half-a-century  of nation-building.

If our 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations is one-sided, focusing only on the success story while ignoring completely our failures, we are not doing ourselves and future generations any service — for we are only continuing to wallow in the pond of  denial refusing to  learn from the mistakes which  history can teach us, condemning future generations to repeat the same grave errors.

The 50th Merdeka anniversary should be an occasion for a national introspection of the formula of our successes and the reasons for our under-performances so that Malaysia can fully achieve its optimum national and international potentials, based on our human and natural resources.

If this is not done, then the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations would have failed to achieve its true and   full purpose and meaning.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 31 August 2007, 1:06 pm and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Just imagine that…

August 31, 200
7

Malaysian PM Very Constructive Force For Region, Says Bush

By Salmy Hashim

WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Bernama) — President George W. Bush has described Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s leadership as a very constructive force for Southeast Asia.

He said Malaysia was an interesting example of how a free society could deal with movements that could conceivably change and alter the nature of the free society.

“I respect the way the prime minister has used freedom and the openness of society to deal with frustration. I mean, all societies have frustrated people. The question is will the outlet of that frustration lead to violence or peace,” Bush said in a rare roundtable Thursday with five journalists from Asia Pacific, including Bernama.

“Malaysia is an example of a country where frustrations have been channelled in a positive way.

“I respect Prime Minister Badawi, admire his leadership,” Bush, who met Abdullah at the White House in 2004, said when commenting on Abdullah’s leadership in handling extremism and terrorism in the country.

Abdullah is a proponent for moderation, advocating Islam Hadhari (Civilisational Islam) in Malaysia and everywhere he goes.

The camaraderie between the two leaders could be seen when the president said: “When his wife (the late Datin Seri Endon Mahmood) died, I tried to call him early just to let him know I cared about him.”

When told that Abdullah had remarried, Bush appeared surprised and said: “Has he? Good. I’ll congratulate him. Thanks for giving me that heads-up. I’m going to congratulate him. That’s neat.

When told by his aide that he did congratulate the prime minister, Bush laughed at his memory lapse and said: “Exactly. I’m going to congratulate him again. I’ll double the congratulations.”

He later admitted that he forgot and asked his aide whether he had called or written a note to the prime minister. He was told that he had written a note.

“That’s right, yes. (I also) sent him a couple of flowers,” Bush said.

The president congratulated Malaysia on its 50th Independence Day Friday, and said he looked forward to continuing meaningful discussions on the bilateral free trade agreement with the United States’ 10th largest trading partner.

The two countries are currently negotiating a free trade agreement. Talks have hit a snag over financial services, intellectual property, competition policies, government procurement and labour.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 September 2007, 1:30 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Foreign
,
Merdeka 50th anniversary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia at 50: So far, so good

By Philip Bowring

International Herald Tribune

August 28, 2007

HONG KONG: There is much celebration in Malaysia this month to mark the day 50 years ago when the new nation was born out of the British-ruled states of the Malay peninsula. But was it?

On Aug. 31, 1957 it was actually Malaya that became independent. Malaysia was not created until September 1963, when the Malaya states were joined by Singapore (briefly) and the British-ruled territories in Borneo, Sabah and Sarawak.

The difference between Malaya and Malaysia is not a semantic quibble. It lies at the heart of the nation’s identity issues which in turn are reflected in the racial and religious basis of its politics.

Is this a Malay/Muslim country, where the non-Malay 50 percent and non-Muslim 40 percent must accept a somewhat subservient position whether they are immigrant races (Chinese and Indians) or the non-Malay but indigenous majority in Sabah and Sarawak? Or is this a nation forging a common Malaysian identity from its disparate origins?

Looked at from a 50- (or 44-) year history, Malaysia/Malaya has been a stunning success. Barring the 1965 exodus – at Kuala Lumpur’s instigation – of the predominantly Chinese, Lee Kuan Yew-led Singapore, the country has held together remarkably well.

Domestically, overt racial tensions have been contained since the May 1969 riots in which more than a thousand, mostly Chinese, were killed. Prosperity has advanced despite interruptions in the mid-1980s and following the Asian crisis.

The economy has remained open to foreign investment despite post-1969 efforts to use public funds and official policies on a massive scale to increase the Malay stake in the economy. It has delivered a mostly effective balance between economic pragmatism and politically-driven social engineering. The state has taken advantage of old links to the West and newer ones to dynamic East Asia to build a modern economy.

Although the same party, United Malays National Organization (UMNO), has been in power for 50 years, Malaysia has remained passably open and quasi-democratic with elections and a vigorous civil society that puts up stolid resistance against the often authoritarian instincts of an overwhelmingly Malay government.

Rivalries within UMNO and with its main Malay rival, the Islamist PAS, have kept political competition lively even if unfair. Malaysia remains tolerant enough of other religions and generally open to the outside world, encouraging trade and tourism, to be deemed an example to the wider Muslim world.

However, these pluses could come under threat as the nation moves into its second half century. They mostly revolve around the Malay/Malaysia issue.

Official efforts to advance Malay ownership, education and incomes have been very successful and have had limited negative impact on economic growth. But they have not been matched by increased racial integration.

Indeed, quite the opposite. Under Middle East influence and driven partly by domestic politics, official Malay Islam has become increasingly restrictive in its interpretations, increasingly arrogant in its assumptions about the primacy of Islam and the extent of the jurisdiction of sharia courts.

UMNO is living proof that a monopoly of power is increasingly corruptive. The combination of political power and pro-Malay economic policies is especially corrosive. Nor is there much justification any longer for racial preferences, given that Malays have wealth as well as now easily outnumbering the immigrant races. It has created a Malay elite that is highly dependent on official favors.

The problems of race, religion and corruption may have increased since Mahathir Mohamad stepped down as prime minister. Mahathir was an authoritarian who undermined democracy and the independence of the judiciary, but he was secular at heart.

His successor Abdullah Badawi is more tolerant and less tainted by money politics. His looser grip has allowed civil society to gain ground and the judiciary to become less subservient. But he is arguably not strong enough to confront either the UMNO patronage system or the pretensions of official Islam.

In the short to medium term the outlook, the economy looks reasonable and its demographics are positive. But Malaysia badly needs a new impetus. It cannot count on another oil or palm oil boom, even less on the surge of foreign investment into electronics and other industries that have been so important for the past 20 years.

With entrepreneurship and education both dulled by official policies, it may struggle to achieve the higher levels of expertise needed to sustain income gains.

UMNO remains in power at the center because the non-Malays fear its more Islamic Malay rivals. The Chinese, Indian and east Malaysian parties in the government are there to give an appearance of racial diversity and offer some antidote to the potential for the tyranny of the majority.

The formula has worked for 50 years, but race-based parties should gradually become an anachronism if “Malaysian” is to become an identity that is much more than a passport.

It has much to learn from its poorer but more tolerant, diverse but socially less fractured Malay neighbor, Indonesia.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 September 2007, 9:13 am and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia must adopt global policies and strategies to survive

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

The Barisan Nasional  government frequently makes pronouncements that the economy is sound, with  GDP   growth rates of 5% and above.

However the following  statistics of per capita income do not give a flattering picture of  Malaysia:

PER CAPITA INCOME OF SELECTED ASIAN COUNTRIES

                                       1967/        2005

Malaysia                US290/          5,042

Singapore                           600/        26,836

Hong Kong                            620/       25,493

Taiwan                                  250/         15,203

S. Korea                                 160/         16,308

In 1957, Malaysia had the second biggest per capita income  after Japan, but now we are  at the  tail end among the front-rank developed nations in Asia.

In 2005, Malaysia’s per capita income  increased by only 17 times from 1967, as compared to South  Korea which  increased 100 times. Taiwan  60 times,  Singapore 45 times and  Hongkong 40 times.

Malaysia is far richer in natural resources than the other countries. Singapore for example has no rubber, oil, forests, palm oil, etc.

The difference is in the development and utilisation of human resources. Malaysia has failed to make full use of the human resources in the country.

The statistics indicate that Malaysia was competitive with the other countries up to 1967.  Thereafter, the Asian tigers like HK, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan leapt forward to lofty heights.

In 1966, the bumiputra policy was formally announced as a policy and  in 1971, the National Economic Policy was launched. The various regulations and measures from these two policies slowed down economic growth considerably. Entrepreneurs, businessmen, traders and small and medium industries were put

off by these policies.

The reaction of international countries was negative, and many investors shied away from Malaysia. Foreign direct investments declined considerably to US$3.9 billion in  2006, whereas  Asean countries had FDIs  of US$10 billion for Vietnam, US$7.9 billion  for Thailand, US$30 billion  for Singapore. China had US$70 billion FDIs in that year.

The NEP which compels reservation of  30% for bumiputras in all economic activities has dampened investment interests of both local and foreign investors.

In china, development was depressed  in the days of communist policies. The commune system where production was collected by the central government leaving nothing or a small percentage for the farmers and workers destroyed the enthusiasm of the people to work.

With the launching of liberalisation policies in 1978, China leapt forward and she is on the way to become a world economic power by 2030.

Malaysia too must implement global policies like liberalisation of all

economic functions. Bumiputraism and the New Economic Policy are outdated measures, and must be replaced by more pragmatic and enlightened measures.

If Barisan stubbornly clings to old baggage policies, then it can be

predicted that Malaysia’s per capita income will continue to lag behind the Asian tigers.

The  answer is to go global and liberalise. Liberalise! Liberalise! Liberalise!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 September 2007, 8:07 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Merdeka Golden Jubilee – National anniversary or Barisan Nasional anniversary?

A fortnight ago, the Sultan of Selangor called on politicians regardless of parties to put politics aside and to celebrate the once-in-a-lifetime event, the 50th Merdeka anniversary, as one people.

He said:  “The politicians, regardless of their parties, can have all the time they want to talk about politics after National Day but for now, I do not want to hear any issues that can hurt the feelings of any community.”

It is very sad that the Sultan of Selangor’s advice was completely ignored, as the two weeks before the 50th Merdeka anniversary had produced an unusually big crop of  divisive and contentious issues which further divide  rather than unify Malaysians as well as undermining  public confidence in the independence and integrity of national institutions — not to mention the
farce of patriotism
staged by some Barisan Nasional MPs on August 29, which disgraced Parliament and demeaned the Merdeka Golden Jubilee celebrations.

After the  Ambang Merdeka at the Dataran Merdeka, Kuala Lumpur culminating in the 50th Merdeka Anniversary countdown to midnight of August 30, many Malaysians asked whether it was a national anniversary or a Barisan Nasional anniversary.

Instead of uniting all Malaysians, regardless of generations, race, religion, territory or political party affiliations, the Ambang Merdeka programme polarized Malaysians between those in the Barisan Nasional/Alliance and the rest of Malaysians!

Although the Merdeka Parade at Dataran Merdeka yesterday morning and the  Merdeka Mammoth Celebrations at Stadium Merdeka last night were not as blatantly “Barisan Nasional” as the Ambang Merdeka programme, the tone and motif of the official celebrations had been set and it is no exaggeration to say that many Malaysians were turned off by the anniversary programme for failing to be a powerful agent  of Malaysian national unity for the country to face up to  the many grave challenges of the next half-century.

Where have we gone wrong?  Even more pertinent, are those in authority prepared to acknowledge that mistakes have been made in missing a golden opportunity, once-in-a-lifetime, to unite rather than polarize Malaysians or will such criticisms be dismissed as lacking in patriotism and love for Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 September 2007, 11:05 am and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tall buildings, narrow minds – Malaysia at 50

From The Economist

Aug 30th 2007

After 50 years, Malaysia should stop treating a third of its people as not-quite-citizens

THE government of Malaysia has laid on all sorts of grand pageantry this weekend, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Malay peninsula’s independence from Britain. There is much to celebrate. Living standards and access to education, health services, sanitation and electricity have soared during those five decades of sovereignty. The country’s remarkable modernisation drive was symbolised, nine years ago, by the completion of the Petronas twin towers, in Kuala Lumpur, then the world’s tallest buildings.

Yet there will be a hollow ring to the festivities. Malaysia’s 50th birthday comes at a time of rising resentment by ethnic Chinese and Indians, together over one-third of the population, at the continuing, systematic discrimination they suffer in favour of the majority bumiputra, or sons of the soil, as Malays and other indigenous groups are called. There are also worries about creeping “Islamisation” among the Malay Muslim majority of what has been a largely secular country, and about the increasingly separate lives that Malay, Chinese and Indian Malaysians are leading. More so than at independence, it is lamented, the different races learn in separate schools, eat separately, work separately and socialise separately. Some are asking: is there really such a thing as a Malaysian?

The pro-bumiputra discrimination was laid down in the country’s first constitution, in 1957, to ease Malays’ fears of being marginalised by the Chinese and Indian migrants. These had come, supposedly temporarily, to work in the tin mines and plantations but were settling permanently and increasingly dominating business and the professions. The perks were extended greatly after race riots in 1969. Malays get privileged access to public-sector jobs, university places, stockmarket flotations and, above all, government contracts. The most notable result, as with South Africa’s similar policy of “black economic empowerment”, has been “encronyment”–the enrichment of those well connected to the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the party that has led all governments since independence. Malays as a whole, like other races, have got richer but the gap between the Malay haves and have-nots has widened. The corruption and waste these policies engender seem to have got worse in recent years.

As criticism has grown, UMNO’s leaders have resorted ever more frequently to growling that nobody should question the “social contract”. This is a reference to the metaphorical deal struck between the races at independence, in which the Malays got recognition that the country was basically theirs, while the Chinese and Indians were granted citizenship. The veiled threat of violence lurking behind calls to uphold the social contract was made explicit during last year’s UMNO conference, at which one delegate talked of being ready to “bathe in blood” to defend Malay privileges and the education minister, no less, brandished a traditional Malay dagger.

The hypocritical Malay dilemma

The social contract may once have seemed necessary to keep the peace but now it and the official racism that it is used to justify look indefensible: it is absurd and unjust to tell the children of families that have lived in Malaysia for generations that, in effect, they are lucky not to be deported and will have to put up with second-class treatment for the rest of their lives, in the name of “racial harmony”. When the mild-mannered Abdullah Badawi took over as prime minister from the fire-breathing Mahathir Mohamad in 2003, there were hopes of change for the better. Mr Badawi preached a moderate, “civilisational” Islam and pledged to crack down on corruption.

Four years on, corruption, facilitated by the pro-Malay policies, is unchecked. The state continues to use draconian internal-security laws, dating back to the colonial era, to silence and threaten critics. UMNO continues to portray itself to Malays as the defender of their privileges yet tries to convince everyone else that it is the guarantor of racial harmony. One commentator this week gently described this as a “paradox”. Hypocrisy would be a better word.

The damage caused by this state racism is ever more evident. Malaysia’s once sparkling growth rate has slipped. Racial quotas and protectionism are scaring away some foreign investors. While Malaysians celebrate having done rather better than former British colonies in Africa, they must also notice that South Korea, Taiwan and their estranged ex-spouse Singapore have done much better still. The economic consequences alone justify ending Malaysia’s official racism. Even without them, it would still be just plain wrong.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 September 2007, 4:54 pm and is filed under
ISA
,
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Baby Yok Shan tragedy – 50th Merdeka  reminder of plunge in public service standards/accountability

Newspaper headlines today like

“Baby’s blackened arm removed — Procedure on Yok Shan over in 10 minutes”

(The Star)
,

“Tangan bayi tersalah suntuk tertanggal sendiri”

(Mingguan Malaysia)
,

“ORDEAL — BABY YOK SHAN LOSES HER LEFT FOREARM”

(New Sunday Times)
 and

“Tangan bayi salah suntuk dipotong”

(Berita Minggu)
 highlight another tragic case to remind Malaysians that despite all the glitter and   extravangza of the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations, public service standards and accountability have fallen to a new low in 50 years.

Health Minister, Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek should present a Ministerial statement in Parliament tomorrow on the outrageous case of five-week-old baby Lai Yok Shan who lost her left forearm from below the elbow because of medical negligence at the Tengku Ampuan Rahiman Hospital in Klang.

Lai’s parents,  her father Lai Kian Khee, 24 and mother  Nur Tuemthong, were told on National Day eve that Yok Shan will undergo an operation expected to last from two to four hours on Sept 1 – a day after 50th Merdeka National Day – to amputate her left arm,  but  in actual fact, no amputation was needed as the blackened arm came off when the orthopaedic surgeon lifted and turned it.

This showed how little the panel of medical specialists  knew about Yok Shan’s  condition despite all the hullabaloo about its  establishment to treat the baby girl!

Chua should honour his public promise that “there will be no cover up and all will be transparent” into the negligence resulting in the Yok Shan losing her left forearm.

This is why he should present a Ministerial statement in Parliament to outline not only the shocking medical and hospital negligence resulting in the Yok Shan tragedy,  but what action he has taken as Health Minister to accept full responsibility for the Yok Shan outrage and  ensure that there will not be another horrible case of medical and hospital negligence akin to the  Yok Shan case in future.

Yok Shan was born two months premature on July 23 and kept in an incubator and on a ventilator.  When her condition deteriorated, it was decided to give her strong antibiotics which could only be administered intravenously.

A trainee doctor who received instructions over the telephone from the specialist doctor on duty administered the injection. The trainee doctor inserted the needle into muscles and tissues instead of blood vessel in the arm. This caused the baby’s arm to be infected.

It is clear that there is a chain of irresponsibility and negligence resulting in Yok Shan having to lose her arm, involving the trainee doctor, the specialist doctor, the Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital, the Ministry of Health and even the panel of medical specialists announced by Chua on August 9 to save Yok Shan’s left arm.

Apart from questions of culpability of the trainee doctor and the specialist doctor who had given instructions over the phone instead of attending to the case personally, why was there a six-day delay by the authorities in taking urgent remedial action — with Chua only  responding and announcing a panel of specialists to take care of Yok Shan after the DAP Pasar Besar Branch chairman
Peter Tan
had highlighted the incident in the media!

Furthermore, why was  the panel of specialists completely unaware of the condition of Yok Shan, expecting a two-to-four hour amputation operation when it just fell off when lifted and turned?

I will raise this medical and hospital  negligence issue in Parliament if Chua is not prepared to present a ministerial statement on Yok Shan’s suffering and tragedy tomorrow.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 September 2007, 2:29 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Loss of baby’s left forearm – Did Klang General Hospital have the expertise?

by MONACHORUM

I refer to your recent report regarding the sad loss of Baby Yok Shan’s left arm following an antibiotic infusion into the premature baby’s limb that went wrong.

Pictures and follow-up reports of the baby’s condition and arm were published nationwide. It was obvious that the left forearm was gangrenous with the margins showing features of acute infection.

As reported this could have been the result of an intravenous infusion that extravasated at the level of the elbow causing compartment syndrome, cutting off blood supply further down the forearm, giving rise to the gangrene and subsequent infection.

Alternatively, it could also be possible that the doctor who inserted the IV, could have done so directly into the brachial artery which is the main artery that supplies the forearm. An injection such as vancomycin into this artery could result in disastrous circumstances including obvious shut-off of blood supply and death of tissues that this artery supplies.

A remote and far more unusual way of inflicting infection would be to actually insert the IV needle intraosseously (into the bone) also at the level of the elbow which will result in infection of the bone or rarely pulmonary embolism transmitted via the marrow. Gangrene is an unusual occurrence.

It was reported that the findings of a committee formed to look into the mishap found that the gangrene was the result of an injection given by an unsupervised house-officer and a pediatrician who was consulted only by phone which is not unusual if the pediatrician had been on-call too frequently.

More relevant is the question of what was the house-officer doing with a neonate, and that too a premature one, in the first place? Was this baby managed in a neonatal unit and were there any qualified neonatogists in this hospital. If there were, it is not usual practice to have house-officers in a neonatal unit which are usually managed exclusively by neonatologists and medical officers and not by general pediatricians.

But if there were no neonatologists, why wasn’t this baby referred to the nearby University Hospital or any other neonatal unit?

Only last week the Health Minister growled that specialists should confine themselves to their specialties. By the Health Minister’s own logic why didn’t the pediatrician and hospital confine themselves to their areas of competence and specialties? A misfortune of this nature could perhaps then been avoided.

Today, news reports suggested that the baby was to undergo a two-hour surgery but this was clarified later when an orthopaedic surgeon stated that the procedure was over in ten minutes.

Now anyone dealing with controlled dry gangrene of limbs will tell you that auto-amputation of that body part will take place eventually without too much surgery.

Why this “sandiwara”? Fault-finding after an event is almost always a cinch but the Health Minister’s frequent application of double standards at various medical communities in this country should tutor him that in medicine, no one likes complications, mortality nor morbidity and that it can happen even if all precautions have been taken even in his own backyard which appears greatly in need of both administrative and professional help.

Frequently playing to the gallery at the expense of the stage must have its consequences as in this case if the baby’s young parents decide to sue.

The Minister seriously must now look into the quality of healthcare that his ministry is meting out onto many poor and sometimes ignorant patients.

Perhaps this Minister’s advisors should advise him to refrain from using the duty of care as a bargaining tool to gain political mileage as any benefits gained by him this way may be at the expense of someone’s life… ….. or arm.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 September 2007, 10:30 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rooting For An Islamic State of Malaysia

M. Bakri Musa

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

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

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

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

Economic Bonanza of An Islamic State

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equality of Believers

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

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

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

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

Expanding Chinese Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 September 2007, 1:10 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Seven shouts of “Merdeka” in Parliament this morning without support from a single BN MP — does it mean BN MPs disloyal, anti-national and unpatriotic?

I started my speech on the supplementary estimates this morning calling  on MPs to stand up for seven shouts of “Merdeka” to uphold the Malaysian Constitution as the country  is still celebrating the 50th Merdeka Anniversary.

Only DAP MPs stood up, with me shouting “Merdeka” and the DAP MPs responding “Secular Malaysia” seven times.

Not a single Barisan Nasional (BN) MP, whether Umno, MCA, MIC or Gerakan stood up to shout “Merdeka”.

In my speech, I said I had called for seven shouts of “Merdeka” for two purposes: firstly, to demonstrate that the loyalty and patriotism of DAP MPs to the country is second to none to anyone from Barisan Nasional in Parliament, whether minister, deputy minister or parliamentary secretary.

Secondly, to highlight the
‘farce” of patriotism
staged by certain BN MPs last Wednesday who disgraced Parliament and demeaned the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations just to  score cheap political points against Opposition MPs.

The BN MP for Jasin, Datuk Mohd Said Yusof growled from his seat that my seven shouts of  Merdeka in Parliament was “cheapening” its meaning. I must thank him for helping me to illustrate  my point about the “farce” of patriotism staged by him and other BN MPs in Parliament last Wednesday.

Love of country and patriotism are not proven by shouting “Merdeka” seven times. As I said in Parliament this morning, those who are  corrupt  like  those responsible for hijacking gargantum sums of public funds, e.g.  the RM4.6 billion  Port Klang Free Zone bailout scandal, would shout Merdeka the loudest although  this would not make them patriots when they should be regarded as traitors.

Those who are prepared  to stand  up against the tidal pressures of the government to voice out the innermost thoughts and feelings  of the people, and even to undergo detention in defence of the higher interests of the citizenry and country, are  clearly even more nationalistic and patriotic than the Cabinet Ministers and BN MPs.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 September 2007, 3:04 pm and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How much government budgetted  for 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations?

Believe it or not, this question raised Barisan Nasional ire in Parliament yesterday.

When yesterday’s sitting started and  Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek presented  the 2007 supplementary operating and development estimates totalling RM11.9 billion and explaining the details of the supplementary requests to the original 2007 estimates of RM159 billion, I stood up to ask for clarification.

I pointed out that under the Prime Minister’s Department, there was a request for an additional RM18.2 million expenditures for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations. However, unlike many other items where supplementary estimates were being requested, it was not possible  to find out  from the Treasury memorandum tabled in Parliament what were the   original estimates which had been budgeted for the Golden Jubilee Merdeka celebrations.

I asked Awang what was the original estimates to which an additional RM18.2 million allocation was being requested.

Who would have thought that such a simple-and-straightforward question nearly brought down the House, with the Deputy Minister stubbornly refusing to do so and even threatening to refuse to give way to me to seek clarifications when delivering his winding-up speech the next day, with  Barisan Nasional MPs creating a din and demanding that I should cease and desist and stop  posing such a question as if I had committed something sacrilegious in Parliament.

I rejected Awang’s argument that he would give the answer during his reply as such information should be at his finger tips unless there were reasons why he was not prepared to be forthcoming about the original estimates budgetted by the government for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations.

I rebutted Awang’s argument that I was already debating the supplementary estimates in posing the question, as what  I wanted was the most basic information so that an informed debate on the supplementary estimates could be conducted by MPs from both sides of the House.

In the event, the brute majority of the Barisan Nasional in Parliament prevailed  and Awang did not enlighten Parliament as to what were the original estimates budgetted for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations and the BN MPs were very happy about their ignorance!

Awang told me this morning that he has the answer to my question which he would give during the winding-up of the policy debate on the supplementary estimates later today.

Why was he so coy about giving the figure when he was asked yesterday?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 September 2007, 1:36 pm and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Over RM100 million spent by Federal govt for 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations

BREAKING NEWS

The Federal Government has budgetted over RM100 million for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations.

This was finally admitted by the Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek this evening during the winding-up of the two-day policy debate on the 2007 Supplementary estimates.

At first Awang said the original estimates for the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations under the Prime Minister’s Department was RM74 million, and with the additional supplementary vote of RM18.25 million requested, making  up a total of RM93 million. The government spent RM38 million for the Merdeka anniversary in 2006 and RM35 million in 2005.

He said the expenditure of RM93 million for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations were proper and justified once in 50 years and in creating a sense of national unity for the occasion, which was priceless.

Seeking clarification, I asked firstly, whether these are the “final” and “absolute” figures or  whether there would be other expenditures for the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations which would come before Parliament in future  supplementary estimates.

Secondly, I pointed out that in the 2007 supplementary estimates there were at least two other items of specific expenditures for the 50th Merdeka anniversry celebrations in other minisries, viz RM7.2 million for all parliamentary constituencies for the 50th Merdeka anniversary under the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage and RM8 million under the Ministry of Youth and Sports for Youth Day programme in connection with the 50th Merdeka anniversary.

I asked for the ‘grand total” of all expenditures for all Ministries in connection with the 50th Merdeka annivesary celebrations and not just the allocations for the Prime Minsiter’s Department.

In his reply, Awang admitted that there were other items of expenditures outside the Prime Minister’s Department  like the RM7.2 million figure (he did not touch on the RM8 million item) which would bring the total to RM100 million. He said he could not  give a categorical answer that there would not be other figures but as far as he knew these were the substantial sums, and if there were other items they would not be major ones.

He said  with 26 million population, the RM100 million tag worked out to about RM3 or RM4 per person once in 50 years, symbolising the peace, harmony and welfare enjoyed by the people.

When I asked for the major heads of expenditures, Awang gave the following breakdowns:

(i) August 17 Launch of Merdeka Anniversary celebrations and raising the Jalur Gemilang (Malacca) – RM3 million

(ii) August 30 Ambang Merdeka (Dataran Merdeka, KL) – RM8.2 million

(iii) August 31 Merdeka Parade (Dataran Merdeka, KL) – RM26 million

(iv) August 31 Merdeka Tea Party – RM1,000

(v) August 31 Massive Merdeka Celebrations (Merdeka Stadium, KL) RM17 million

(vi) Sept. 10 Close of Merdeka anniversary celebrations (Kuching) RM4 million

(vii) Flying Jalur Gemilang RM8.5 million

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 September 2007, 11:14 pm and is filed under
Merdeka 50th anniversary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A Dialogue in Hell

by Farish A. Noor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 5:27 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.