Apologies for the long silence. Been very busy lately and was away for a week.
I want to reply to Failasuf's comments on my last post.
1) Chinese dominance of trade and business – and their racist selectivity in conducting business
Response: I have no problems with people of any particular race being economically successful. Good businessmen deserve to prosper regardless of their race or religion. By ensuring their businesses are successful, they contribute to the economic wellbeing of the country by creating jobs and economic growth. But with regards to the "racist selectivity", I think it is unfair to label just the Chinese as racist. Why do people of other ethnicity refuse to go to shops run by those of a different race? Here in the UK, it never occured to me to not go to any particular shop because the owner is of this or that race. If anything, both the shopkeepers and the consumers in Malaysia are selective and both have to change. Blaming anyone is not the way forward.
2) The outflow of wealth from Muslim hands to non-muslim hands (due to meritocracy and equal distribution of opportunity and wealth to all citizens)
Response: Again, I do not see any problems with this statement. If the sellers are all non-Muslims, then obviously the Muslims will have to spend money there. If this were to be avoided, then the Muslims must become successful economically. But then again, are we not all Malaysians? If so, what's the fuss? When wealth move from one person to another, we should start thinking that it is still flowing between Malaysians (if you want to ignore globalization). We have to one day stop thinking in "Muslim vs non-Muslim" or "Malay vs others" dichotomy.
3) Influx of secular materialistic influences from chinese/non-muslim controlled businesses such as ASTRO.
Response: Well, once again, if anyone disagrees or dislikes what is happening, they should offer an alternative for free individuals to choose from. Unfortunately some of us are well-known for our ability to complain but have always failed to organise our efforts. We must learn to put up, or shut up.
***
With regards to the morality issue, I hope every one of us can openly and honestly debate how Muslims and non-Muslims can live together without having to resort to the ethnicity divide. Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians, not for those of any particular race. And most importantly, Muslims cannot continue to refer to the texts written hundreds of years ago for the nitty gritty issues in our daily life. On the major principles of religion, yes. But not on the technical issues that may not exist in the past. The scholars of the past lived in a different environment and no one is free from environmental influence. We need new thinking in our fiqh mu'amalah.
It took quite a while to wair for your response. But I appreciate it.
Regarding the need for a socio-economic based affirmative action, I thought this is already in place under the NEP. So I’m curious to know what happened to the NEP that it became labeled as bumiputra-ism? Or is it via other policies?
1. When I mentioned the problem of chinese racist selectivity, I’m specifically referring to the Malay’s problem to make it big in business,one of which is due to Chinese dominance and racism. We all know and agree that the Chinese were given a huge headstart under British rule, and this is why I think reverse/positive discrimination in favor of bumiputras is important. I agree that the ideal is to have race-less consumers, but due to the ‘headstart’, everyone would support Chinese businesses and this becomes an endless cycle of economic oppression towards the Malays.
2. I’m sure you would agree that Islam comes first before country.
3. It is important that there be social sanctions so as to maintain the moral standard in Malaysian society. I’m not sure how, but secular materialist influence has to be minimized.
I apologize for being ultra-malay, if that’s how it appears to you.
I am not sure about the exact content of NEP or other Malaysian economic “policies” because in practise, what we can see is lack of fairness. Whatever the actual policies are, the problem is the way they are implemented.
I agree that we need to create a level playing field for all. But this is a utopia. I do not think the “playing field” will be ever be totally level. Yet stil, there must be a measurable target for a time when the bumiputera concept is officially declared obsolete.
I do not know how to translate the phrase “Islam comes first before country” into practise. Plus, I do not see any reasons to put one thing ahead of the other.
(NB: I think Maududi tried to put Islam before country and he ended up suggesting that an Islamic state should allow any Muslims to immigrate and they then automatically become citizens. This is just not workable in modern times. Thus, it is important to conceptually operationalise the phrase before we go too far into theoretical discussions.)
As citizens of a country with communities of various backgrounds, we have to consider the diversity of our society when talking about the standard of morality *for the whole country*. Just as we Muslims do not want others to impose their values upon us, we should not be imposing our values on them either.
By the way, I don’t see any elements of “ultra-malay-ness” yet….