www.wansaiful.com

Ethnolinguistic fractionalization has a negative impact on governance. Political scientists argue that in an ethnically diverse society, officials have a tendency to restrict political freedom and protect “their own” by redistributing national wealth to their own group. Thus ethnically diverse countries tend to be more corrupt.

An abundance of natural resources in a country is also associated with weak governance. Governments that are able to extract revenues from natural resources would be less dependent on their citizenry for tax revenues. Independence from tax revenues would give governments an upper hand since the citizens have ‘reduced’ capability to demand accountability and transparency – the citizens do not have a strong bargaining power since the government do not depend on them for revenues / resources.

(See Al-Marhubi (2004) for a brief discussion)

Evidence? Compare the so-called Western countries – who are less ethnically diverse and have less natural resources – with the so-called Third World, in which many Muslim countries belong to. The Third World is more ethnically diverse and has an abundance of natural resources. The evidence is obvious. Most (not all) governments in the West are more transparent, more accountable and they take their citizens more seriously. The same cannot be said about Muslim countries, Malaysia included.

Does that mean we should be working towards the reduction of ethnolinguistic differences by creating one nation with one identity (ie: the end of multiculturalism)? And a higher tax regime? The former would reduce the sense of belonging to a particular ‘group’, and therefore significantly reducing corrupted cronyism, and the latter would increase citizens’ bargaining power.

Should I be saying “Hail Bangsa Malaysia” and “Please come this way, higher-tax regime”?

It is understandable that we may need a law against racial intolerance. We cannot choose our race. But we are free to choose our religion. So why a law against religious intolerance?

How are we ever going to define what “incitement of religious hatred” is? Listing the mistakes in other religion? Telling me that I believe in the wrong god? Inviting me to change religion?

Religions that cannot stand criticisms and religions that cannot tolerate critical examination does not deserve protection. The law of natural selection would simply wipe out such belief systems sooner or later. Let people debate and choose. Do not curb free speech and freedom of thought.

If Muslims want to protect Islam, then it should be done through intellectual discourse, and patience when faced with uninformed criticisms. Not by hiding behind legislations.

1. Sir Ted Heath passed away tonight. He died a bachelor. Some say he was too busy with politics and he loved his music more than anything. Abidin, you better start planning your family life now….

2. I can officially confirm that Twining’s ‘tea for everyday’ tastes better with full cream milk rather than semi-skimmed.

Following the Guardian’s review of David Davis, I was so keen to listen to his lecture at the Adam Smith Institute’s event yesterday. I got the ticket almost two weeks back.

Travelled in the scorching heat. Arrived at 1 Birdcage Walk well in time. But only to be told that the scheduled talk has been cancelled. They are having a reception instead.

The reason? They say it was inappropriate to do a political talk just one week after the terrorist attacks in London. Apparently it is more appropriate to indulge in free champagnes. What use is that to me?

Bloody terrorists… Wrecked my afternoon. Wasted journey.

I must say that I like this article written by Lim Guan Eng.

I beg to differ with what was written by this blogger (see his 13 July 2005 post). I do not see Guan Eng’s article as an attack on PAS. Rather, it as a voice that must be taken into consideration if PAS wants to improve its electoral performance.

A friend sent me an article recently published in harakahdaily. The article was on how the media, the TV in particular, is eroding Islamic values in Malaysia.

While the content of the article was the usual, I am intrigued by references to Marx and Engels. I never expected to see this - utilization of Marx & Engel’s Manifesto of the Communist Party in an Islamist’s writing in Harakah. How refreshing.

Marx was today confirmed as BBC Radio 4’s Our Time’s Greatest Philosopher.

Will we soon find in Harakah arguments in support of Adam Smith? This would be even more refreshing.

There are those who oppose capitalism and globalization. At the recent G8 meeting, some of those protesters decided to cause trouble.

What I cannot understand is, if they are so against capitalism, what is the alternative?

Many of my friends, while condemning the bombings in London last week, were also unhappy with those who were quick to point fingers to the Muslims.

To be honest, as soon as I heard about the bombs, my mind immediately turned to Al-Qaeda too.

Who else should we suspect?

And in the absence of other obvious suspects, why is it wrong if fingers immediately point to Al-Qaeda? It is not rushed. It is logical.

Personally, I think Muslims are in a real dilemma when it comes to Al-Qaeda. That group claims to represent Islam. The vast majority of Muslims denounce those who have anything to do with Al-Qaeda. But these people, they feel oppressed. They feel like there are no other way to speak up. They feel that they “have” to do it. Most importantly, their interpretation of the syariah somehow led them to believe that their barbaric acts are allowed, and loved, by Allah.

They see the world as good vs bad, and they represent the good side.

Herein lies the problem. As long as the syariah is interpreted in such a way that makes them martyrs, they will never stop. As long as the syariah is interpreted in such a way that they perceive themselves as protectors of Islam and Islamic values, they will never stop.

So where does that bring us?

End the poverty? Make poverty history? Give Paletinians their land? Demolish Israel? Are these going to stop them?

I doubt it, for the struggle of good vs evil will never end. As long as they see themselves as the representatives of “good”, no matter what is being done, they will never stop.

What now?

In any case, I think Abdul Bari Atwan was excellent in yesterday’s Dateline London on BBC Parliament. He handled questions, and provocations, very well.

.

There were terrorist bomb blasts in central London this morning. Six tube stations and one double decker bus were affected.

Two of the tube stations - Edgware Road and Aldgate East - are very near to Muslim areas. Edgware Road is popularly known as the Arab street. While Aldgate East is very near to the East London Mosque and the HQ of MuslimAid. The other explosions happened in central London areas usually packed with people.

Whoever did it, they have no right to claim that they are doing it under the name of Islam. No Muslims would ever do such atrocities. They must not be allowed to terrorize people’s lives and tarnish the good name of millions other peace-loving Muslims.

Not in my name!!!

This is an interesting article which relates well to my previous entry.

Although it was published in 2003, I only found it today.