www.wansaiful.com

I have an interest in Anwar Ibrahim. There are too many unanswered questions when the name Anwar is mentioned.

What does he think about his experience in UMNO?

Would he suggest anyone to try once more to “clean” UMNO from the inside? Would he now say that his decision to join UMNO in 1982 was wrong?

Anwar is now championing the call for a corruption-free Malaysia, but has he ever been involved in corruption?

Anwar is now talking about the need to abolish the Internal Security Act, why does he only openly say this after being sacked?

Anwar has changed a lot after being sacked, but would he become the “clean” man that he is now if he were not sacked in 1998?

Anwar says that he does not need to destroy UMNO for UMNO would destroy itself from within. This “UMNO self-destruction”…. did it start after his sacking, or has it been ongoing prior to that? If the latter, why did he wait until he was sacked before leaving? If the former, does he think his departure is the cause of that self-destruction?

Why did it take humiliation, sacking and imprisonment before he changed his mind about UMNO?

Anwar now talks about freeing Malaysia from money politics, but has he ever been involved in money politics? Was his ascent to deputy prime minister really clean from money politics?

Anwar now talks about the greatness of PAS leaders, did this realization only come about after he was sacked?

Why was imprisonment necessary to change him? Was it so difficult to see the wrongs done by UMNO and BN when he was in power? Or was he simply too clouded by power, and only once he no longer has it that he realizes he was on the wrong platform?

There are many more questions I wanted to ask him. I have heard so much of him from other people. And many have assured me that he has changed. But I have never heard him giving straight answers. In fact, perhaps the problem is not many have openly and publicly asked him straight, probing questions.

My meeting with Anwar last Saturday (29 January 2005), although long enough to allow a friendly chat, was too brief to allow answers to all these questions. Definitely too short to allow me to ask straight questions that can elicit straight answers from him. Let us see if I can get the straight answers from him in future meetings, perhaps in one of these days during his tenure at Oxford University.

By the way, The Guardian has a good interview with Jeremy Paxman about straight-talking. Worth a read. But you need to register. Go on…. it’s free anyway.

DAP’s call for PAS to abandon its Islamic state ambition is not at all surprising. DAP is well known for their opposition to this idea.

While I fully appreciate DAP’s logic behind such demand, I cannot prevent myself from laughing at this absurd demand. Does DAP not see that the raison d’etre of PAS is the Islamic state agenda? Setting up an Islamic state is the purpose and motivation behind everything that PAS has been working for. It is ridiculous to expect them to abandon the main purpose of their existence.

How you would react if, back in 2003, David Beckham set a precondition that he would only join Real Madrid if they agree to abandon their pursuit to be the top club in European football. Or if Serena Williams demands that Venus abandons her own pursuit to be the world number one if they were to pair up for Wimbledon doubles? Or if the MIC demands that the MCA abandons its effort to help the Chinese if they were to remain in the Barisan Nasional? Ridiculous? Definitely. And that is just what DAP’s demand is. Pure and utter ridiculous.

I wonder what DAP would say if PAS were to set a counter pre-requisite – that DAP drops its opposition to the Islamic state if they really want to talk about joining Barisan Alternatif? Now, how would DAP react to that double-dare?

Do you now see the ridiculous game that DAP is playing?

David Bell, the British school chief inspector, caused an uproar when he singled out Muslim schools for failing to promote tolerance and harmony to kids. According to him, these Muslim schools do not properly educate Muslim children about citizenship, thus making the kids unprepared to tolerate diversity.

As expected, Muslim leaders went amok and accused Mr Bell of Islamophobia. But surely, as chief inspector of schools, David Bell knows best. There must be elements of truth in what he said, otherwise he would not have said what he said.

Wait for it….

The Office of Standards for Education (Ofsted) inspected 50 Muslim schools and found that 18 of them failed to teach students to appreciate diversity and tolerance. The failure rate is 36%.

Ofsted also inspected 40 evangelical Christian schools and found that 17 of them failed as well. That is a 42.5% failure rate. The evangelical Christian schools are even worse.

Add to that the fact that a vast majority of Muslim parents actually send their children to secular state school as well as Roman Catholic and Church of England schools. Only 3% of Muslim children go to private Muslim schools. Hence, only 36% of the schools that take this 3% are actually failing. The failure rate is miniscule.

And try looking at any parts of the UK where BNP candidates got elected as local councillors. Well, I supposed since the BNP is pretty intolerant of diversity, the people who voted them in must have been educated in Muslim schools. Right, Mr Bell? Perhaps even the BNP was set up by a bunch of intolerant thugs who all graduated from Muslim schools too.

Now Mr Bell, can you tell me who has been properly educated about tolerance and who hasn’t? And why did you forget to mention the actual statistics produced by your own department? Why were the Muslim schools singled out when the long-established British education system you promote have succesfully produced people like BNP leader Nick Griffin, and the Swastika bearer Prince Harry? Islamophobia?

I have posted two articles published in Malaysiakini which I think is related to my previous posting: this and this.

by: Liew Chin Tong, first published in Malaysiakini

A recent working paper presented at PAS’ recent munaqashah (special convention) by information chief and deputy musyidul ‘Am Haron Din caused a stir within the Islamist party. The paper entitled Kepimpinan Ulama Di Era Caraban Baru proposed, among others, that the president and his deputy be automatically made members of the Majlis Syura Ulama (Consultative Council of Religious Scholars).

Some are concerned that Haron’s proposal is a precursor to amending the party constitution to restrict the presidency and deputy presidency to the ulama. The concept of kepimpinan ulama (leadership by ulama), and the structure of the Majlis Syura Ulama, is central to the identity of post-1982 PAS. However, this has been increasingly questioned internally in the recent years with the influx of highly-educated middle-class members in the aftermath of the sacking of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim. This article traces the lay origin of the now sacred concept, as well as current woes.

That the ulama have played an important role in PAS since its inception is without question. Indeed, the party emerged from the ulama section of Umno. Notably, Abdullah Fahim Ibrahim, a former head of the Umno religious department, and Ahmad Badawi - respectively the grandfather and father of Prime Minister and Umno president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi - were among PAS founders. The scholars are important to PAS in part because they enhance its Islamic credentials. But their continued influence on the party can also be attributed to the early post-independence social structure of Malay-Muslim society. The ulama have been a rare minority of educated persons with high social standing but not necessarily co-opted by the state. Many of them lived an ‘autonomous’ life outside state patronage, and thus could challenge the government through PAS.

Yet, despite the long-term influence of the ulama in PAS, the notion of kepimpinan ulama only came into party lexicon in 1982, partly due to external developments. The Iranian revolution in 1979 galvanised Islamic movements all over the world, Malaysia included. Some party members visited Iran and returned with an aspiration for radical change in Malaysia. The old PAS leadership was seen, especially in the eyes of young Islamists who were exposed to the dakwah (missionary) movement of 1970s, as too conciliatory in its approach towards the government. Also, some PAS leaders were alarmed by the ascendance of the Dr Mahathir Mohamad government in July 1981 and its readiness to ‘absorb’ Islamic values into public administration. Some opined that only an unambiguous differentiation from Umno through articulating Islamic symbols and ideas could save PAS from being undercut by the then new Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, the principle of kepimpinan ulama was a direct product of the intra-party conflict between the leadership of Asri Muda and the so-called ‘Young Turks’ from the late 1970s to 1983. Asri’s days as leader were numbered after the failed coalition experience with Barisan Nasional ended in November 1977 and the debacles of 1978 national and Kelantan state elections. PAS won only two state seats in the Kelantan state election held in March 1978 and performed badly in the subsequent national election in July 1978 when it won only five parliamentary and 10 state seats. Dissatisfaction turned into open challenge at the muktamar (general assembly) of April 1981. Asri stayed on as president when veteran leader Yusof Rawa decided at the last moment not to challenge his position, but he was isolated as the challengers dislodged all his loyalists in senior party positions. Yusof defeated Asri’s close ally and incumbent deputy president Abu Bakar Omar. The two vice-presidents were Young Turks Fadzil Noor and Abdul Hadi Awang.

Pressures on Asri increased after the 1982 general election when PAS’ fortune was improved only modestly. It won five parliamentary seats, the number it had obtained in 1978 but won 18 state seats compared to 10 in the previous election. Post-election, the Youth wing unprecedentedly held its muktamar earlier and separately where Asri was heavily criticised. Delegates proposed that PAS should adopt the principle of kepimpinan ulama - perhaps having in mind the revolutionary vanguard role of the ayatollahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Matters came to a head at the 1982 muktamar which led to the end of Asri’s 30-year relationship with PAS - 17 years at its helm as acting president or president - and the rise of a new ‘Young Turk’ leadership. At the muktamar on Oct 23, delegates humiliated Asri by showing disapproval of his presidential address. Amidst the standard call of Allahu Akbar (God is Great) were noises of marakbar Asri (die, Asri). He skipped the following session and dispatched a letter - read by secretary-general Abu Bakar Omar - announcing his wish to “return the mandate” to the muktamar because of a ‘conspiracy’ to undermine his leadership. According to Subky Latif, the move was not a notice of resignation, but meant to imply that a vote of confidence in his leadership was needed. The opportunity was, however, seized by Fadzil Noor, who immediately adjourned the muktamar and called for an emergency Central Committee meeting, in which he and the anti-Asri faction firmly held the numbers. The committee accepted Asri’s ‘resignation’ and appointed Yusof as acting president.

Asri was not satisfied at being removed unceremoniously and went on to campaign against the new leadership. He still had strong influence in the party, with four of the five PAS members of Parliament supporting him. Nik Aziz Nik Mat was left the sole MP when Asri and his associates - nicknamed the ‘Group of 13′ - were suspended from PAS membership on Jan 30, 1983, and then resigned on Feb 24. He later established the Parti Hizbul Muslimin Malaysia as a platform to continue his political life. The muktamar in May 1983 confirmed the Young Turks’ leadership - Yusof as president, Fadzil Noor as his deputy, Hadi Awang and Nakhaie Ahmad as elected vice-presidents. The muktamar also affirmed the principle of kepimpinan ulama and embarked on a process of rebuilding the party in a new and more radical image.

Ed: see part two below

by: Liew Chin Tong, first published in Malaysiakini

The Majlis Syura Ulama (Consultative Council of Religious Scholars) in PAS was created in 1983 to give substance to newly-adopted policy of kepimpinan ulama (leadership by scholars). Previously, the Dewan Ulama - established in the early years of PAS along with Dewan Pemuda and Dewan Muslimat (women’s wing) as a sub-unit of the party - was the main avenue for the scholars to influence policies. The new body consisted of 15 members. The Central Committee and the Dewan Ulama respectively appoints four of its members to sit in the Majlis Syura. They in turn select the remaining seven members. The council elects from among its members a Musyidul ‘Am (spiritual leader) and his deputy.

Part of recent proposal by deputy Musyidul ‘Am Dr Haron Din is to reduce the representation of Dewan Ulama from four persons to two through the automatic inclusion of the president and deputy president. For some leaders who are frustrated with the conservative and patronising attitude of the Dewan Ulama, this may be an exit strategy.

In the reshuffle of the consultative council last August, party president Abdul Hadi Awang, Hassan Shukri, Azizan Abdul Razak and Haron represented the Central Committee. The appointees of the Dewan Ulama were Harun Taib, Ahmad Awang, Dr Mahfuz Mohamad and Mohamad Daud. The remaining seven were Musyidul ‘Am Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, Idris Omar, Dr Sanusi Daeng Mariok, Yahya Othman, Ishak Baharom, Abdul Ghani Samsuddin dan Hashim Jasin.

The consultative council is entrusted to interpret policies according to the Quran and fundamental tenets of Islam as stipulated by the party constitution:

1) To elaborate, explain and interpret policies and other constitutional provisions, to ascertain their meaning and purpose;
2) To issue directives and rulings to ensure policies and decisions (of the council) are adhered to and implemented, and to ensure that the policies and decisions, as well as the requirements, pertaining to the constitution are adhered to in party activities and administration.

It is also given the authority to appoint the members of the disciplinary committee and to screen the background of election candidates. The consultative council and Musyidul’ Am are ranked higher than the Central Committee and the president in the hierarchy but their relationships are far from clear in practice. For instance, when PAS decided to sever all ties with coalition partner Semangat 46 in 1996, it was the Majlis that made the decision on July 13, followed by the endorsement of the Central Committee the next day. On the other hand, Fadzil contemplated bypassing the Majlis when drafting the Islamic State blueprint. The structure of the Majlis and the position of Musyidul ‘Am - both inspired by the Egyptian Muslim Brothers (Ikhwan’ul Muslimin) - are common features of many Islamic-inclined parties in the Middle East and Indonesia but alien to Malaysian politics.

The party constitutional amendment to facilitate such move was discussed at the 1983 Muktamar (general assembly) but only approved by the Registrar of Societies in 1987. The delay was partly due to the Registrar’s uneasiness with the extraordinary powers given to this non-elected institution, including the power to dismiss decisions made by the elected Central Committee. After the approval in 1987, then president Yusoff Rawa held the position of Musyidul ‘Am concurrently until his retirement in 1989, succeeded by then head of the Dewan Ulama Nik Abdul Aziz. To this day, the party is faced with problems of interpretation and implementation of the now sacred concept of kepimpinan ulama, which had a rather casual origin as a veiled political challenge against party leader Asri Muda, who was not among the ulama.

Subky Latif, a long-time member of PAS central committee and a biographer of Fadzil Noor, wrote: “The resolution (on kepimpinan ulama) caused controversies particularly among non-ulama groups. What were their roles in the party? It is something difficult for the public to comprehend. They could only link it to the Iranian revolution. Ustaz Fadzil himself found it difficult to explain the concept. It was not his idea. (The resolution) was not planned and the leadership had to crack their head to implement the decision of the Muktamar.”

The fear that Haron’s proposal would lead to a constitutional amendment that explicitly stated the persons who hold the office of president and deputy president should be from among the ulama is understandable as some seem to think that they have the natural right to lead the party.

I am of the opinion that while such a danger does exist, it is very much depends on how the party constitution is interpreted. According to Clause 7 (4) (a), a member of the Majlis Syura Ulama shall:
1. understand the fundamental problems (al-Usul) in syariah and laws;
2. and/or able to refer these questions to Quran, as-Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet), Ijma (consensus of religious opinions) and Qias (analogical deductions) with a clear understanding of their meanings;
3. be a just person who has never committed a major sin nor continue to commit minor sins.

It did not explicitly say one has to be from among the ulama. There are at least two distinctive approaches in PAS, in determining who the ulama are. The head of Dewan Ulama Harun Taib contends that the ulama are like the moon among the stars - they are different from and superior to their compatriots preoccupied by mundane affairs. “The ulama have a high status in front of Allah,” he declared. Fadzil saw it very differently. He stressed the importance of knowledge and suggested that the ulama should include not only those who have gone through formal Islamic education but also “those who do not go through religious education at the early stage but strive to acquire Islamic knowledge in their later life”.

I would like to add that the effort to strengthen the institution of ulama within PAS may have been misplaced, especially at this challenging time for party in the aftermath of its poor showing in the 2004 general election.

It is now more important for PAS to tap its talents, regardless of education background. PAS’ leaders in the early years after its inception were mainly rural ulama who lived an ‘autonomous’ life outside the reach of state largesse. But massive urbanisation in the 1970s and the rise of the Malay middle class have resulted in an occupationally/educationally diversified ‘autonomous’ class. Their mass participation in PAS after the humiliating sacking and controversial persecution of the former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim in September 1998 brought PAS in line with the social reality in Malaysia.

It is time for the party to heed the call of Mujahid Yusof Rawa, son of former president Yusof Rawa, who urged the party to define the principle of ulama leadership clearly. His proposal is that the party fulfils the requirement of the principle with the existence of Majlis Syura Ulama. There is no need to restrict other top party leadership positions to the ulama. In part this suggestion reflects the internal conflict over party leadership. In addition, it also reflects a dire reality - where the party is facing serious problem of leadership succession if those positions are restricted to the ulama.

There are not just enough popular and able ulama to run the party and the state government of Kelantan. Nik Abdul Aziz is 73, and recently suffered a heart attack that put him out of action for about two months. While he has a deputy in the party, the succession to the Kelantan menteri besar’s post is more complicated. Husam Musa, the candidate he favours, is not among the ulama. There is no urgent need to succeed Abdul Hadi, who is only 57. However, all viable candidates for the next deputy president are non-ulama. The current deputy president and party veteran Hassan Shukri, who is probably the party’s most conservative figure, is not in good terms with Hadi. Hassan, 65, certainly does not represent the future of the party. One short-term strategy for Hadi would be to make Haron the deputy president. That failed in 2003. Even it had succeeded, the question of succession would linger as Haron is also 65. Veteran ulama and vice-president Azizan Abdul Razak is not a hopeful choice as national leader, given his rather narrow focus in politics.

The next in line are all non-ulama: vice-president and the party’s most senior strategist Mustafa Ali, 59, was a teacher before entering politics; another vice president Dr Hasan Ali was formerly the deputy head of Biro Tatanegara; and parliamentary whip Kamarudin Jaffar was a former aide to Anwar. Among the able and well known leaders who are in their 40s, only secretary general Nasharuddin Mat Isa carries the title of ustaz. Others like newly appointed political secretary to Hadi and former member of Parliament Dr Syed Azman Syed Ahmad, Central Committee member Dr Hatta Ramli, Youth Chief Sallehuddin Ayob and Husam Musa are all not among the ulama. Thus, the way forward for PAS is not to reinforce the artificial barriers between the ulama and those who did not go through formal religious education, but to widen their choice to the pool of talent available.

LIEW CHIN TONG is a research student at Faculty of Asian Studies, the Australian National University, Canberra.

Somehow one of my article got published in Malaysiakini. Now, how did that happened?

I went to the rountable discussion on identity card at the Adam Smith Institute on 18 Jan. It was interesting, but not what I expected. The audience was clearly biased and there was no real discussion about the pros and cons. Just lost of stuff about the cons. But I suppose you should expect that, knowing the background of the organizer.

I think the dinner afterwards with Abidin at Parliament’s canteen was more worthwhile than the Adam Smith event. Lots of friendly chit chats about so many different things. Thanks for the dinner and the company. We should do it again. Perhaps lunch at my place soon?

I received further news about Kota Kuala Muda.

The victims of the tsunami have moved out from the temporary shelters. Some have returned to their damaged houses. Those whose houses were completely destroyed have either moved to temporary houses or are staying with relatives. But the fishermen are still unable to go to sea. The earliest they will be able to return to work would be in March.

Meanwhile, the victims have hardly received any significant financial assistance. The government, who continuously babbles about doing this and doing that, are in reality delaying financial assistance. They emphasise on building new settlements for the victims. These projects would take years to get completed. Do they not realize that the victims need help now?

Apparently the army has stated that, if asked, they can repair and rebuild the houses at only RM 15,000 each. But the government has not said anything about this matter. I want to make a prediction… The tens of million ringgit that have been collected will be put into a centralised fund managed by the government. The government will then start “investigating” how best to help the victims. It will include discussions about which crony contractor is the most worthy of the windfall. This “investigation” will take several months. Then contracts will be given to some cronies to build the new settlements.

In the mean time, the tens of million ringgit will be put in a fixed deposit somewhere and the government will reap the rewards from this extra income, at the expense of prolonging the victims’ sufferings. Then, a big sum would go to planners and architects who are asked to prepare plans and drawings of the new settlement. After at least three to four years, the victims will at last get their new houses. The houses will be completely empty and the victims need to fork out more money to buy furniture. And they will have to pay a fixed monthly amount to purchase those houses. The government benefits in several ways. First, they get the interest from the fixed deposit. Second, they get to feed the cronies. Third, they get additional money by forcing the victims to buy the newly built, empty houses. Fourth, and most importantly, for the next three to four years they are seen as doing the utmost to help the victims. They benefit in every sense. And it is despicable.

What ought to be done is for the funds to be passed on directly to the victims. For every house that was completely destroyed, the victims should get RM 30,000, the equivalent of one low-cost house. Others should be compensated based on the degree of damage. Just create an approximation of the cost of repair and give the money directly to the victims.

The victims should be free to do whatever they want with the money. If they want to move away, then they automatically can afford to pay cash for a low-cost house. If they want to repair the house, they can do it at a fraction of the cost because there would be no cronies to feed, no middle-man, no planner, no architect drawings, etc. Just RM 10,000 would go a very long way for a common villager compared to if it were given to government contractors. These villagers have built and repaired their own houses for years. If they have the money, they can rebuild their houses, and their lives, easily.

And, most importantly, they must not be forced out from their land by this disaster. If the government were to build new settlements in a different area, then in reality the victims are being forced out from their own land.

I strongly believe that the villagers should get the money directly. They are the victims. They must be given full control of the compensation and the donations. It is them who should decide how and where to spend the funds. Not some individuals in Putrajaya who have things other than the victims’ welfare in their minds. Come on…. The least the government can do is to set up a multi-stakeholder committee to manage the donations.

In short, the victims are the ones that should decide how they want to spend the donations collected. Not anybody else. That is why I have been going all out to raise money for them, with the help of Muslim Aid. And the money will go to them directly. £14,000 has been sent earlier this week. Another £30,000 or so last week. And hopefully there will be some more very soon.