www.wansaiful.com

Several people sent me emails saying that privatizing education institutions are not Islamic. They say (prefixing their statement with the usual “according to Islam” caveat) that education should be free for all. Therefore, government must run schools.

This is wrong.

Free education does not equal state-run institutions. Schools can be privately owned, free from state control, and still be free at the point of use. 

In classical Muslim societies, education flourishes because the state does not run madrasahs. They are funded via waqf - the modern name of which is foundations or trusts. Essentially, in classical Muslim societies, education is mostly free at the point of use, yet also free from state control. (I doubt if every type of education is free at that time!)

Once the state gets involved, you can say goodbye to quality and academic freedom (and any other type of freedom too!).

—— 

Eid Mubarak, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

——

I received my regular copy of Harakah more than a week ago. In the Fikrah Harakah section, there is an interview with Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, former CEO of Perbadanan Nasional Berhad and Treasurer-General of Parti Keadilan Rakyat.  The interview gives a good insight into the thinking of one of the country’s prominent businessman. He is well-versed on economic issues, talking confidently about the state national and international economy. His comments on our PM’s performance are intriguing.  

When asked: “UMNO cadang untuk wujudkan GLC dalam sektor pertanian, apa komen Tan Sri?”, he answered: 

“Itu kena kaji. Saya sudah buat kajian sebagai KetuaPegawai Eksekutif (CEO) Guthrie dahulu saya cuba kaji sama ada bolehkah Guthrie memasuki sektor pertanian selain kelapa sawit. Kita kena faham persaingan antara petani kecil dan korporat amat berbeza. Walaupun Guthrie boleh sediakan 1,000 ekar ladang durian tetapi hasilnya nanti apabila durian itu menjadi memanglah hasilnya akan berlipat kali ganda, tetapi ia akan membuatkan harga pasaran rendah dan ia akan mematikan petani kecil yang kebanyakan bergantung harap kepada pasaran durian yang ada pada harga yang akan memberi faedah kepada mereka.  Oleh itu cadangan perlulah dikaji kerana (jika salah) strategi, penglibatan syarikat besar dalam sektor pertanian hanya akan mematikan petani kecil. Kalau nak buat sekalipun strategi perlu diubah suai dengan sebaik mungkin.” 

Tan Sri Abdul Khalid accepts that mass production of a product will result in an abundance of supply, which in turn will drive down prices.  

But, he seems to imply that it is better to not  mass-produce so that prices are kept artificially high. In order to keep an inefficient group of producers in work, he would rather punish the vast majority of people – i.e. us – by forcing us to pay artificially higher prices for that good.  

To use the Tan Sri Abdul Khalid’s example, would it not be much better if the durian farming industry is opened up so that the durian can be mass-produced and therefore more people can afford to buy them? The farmers would profit from the increased sales volume, and not be dependent on profiteering from limited and inefficient production.  

If we continue to subsidise – either directly through government financing or indirectly through maintenance of artificially high prices – inefficient method of productions, we would suffer in the long run as we as a nation become increasingly uncompetitive.  

The office of Friedrich Naumann Stiftung - the German foundation for liberalism - is on Karl Marx Straße 2.

Was that pre-planned?

I spent some time this weekend to read a bit more about “Islam liberal”. The more I read about them (from their own sources), the more I ask what is so liberal about them?

In fact, I think the “Islam liberal” people are not liberal at all. If they are, they are certainly trying - albeit failing - to redefine liberalism.

Classical liberalism is about market solutions, personal choice and responsibility, rule of law and small state.

Classical liberalism is not just about choice. It certainly is not about choice without responsibility or morality. Great classical liberals like Seldon and Friedman wrote extensively about capitalism and morality. The Libertarian Reader edited by David Boaz of Cato Institute begins its very first chapter with a direct quote from The Bible (I Samuel 8). Morality is central to liberalism, only that it is not the role of the state to impose morality.

It seems to me that the “Islam liberal” people are only focusing on personal choice. They hardly touch on any other tenets of liberalism. If anything, they are just rebels who have “stolen” two terms - “Islam” and “liberal” - to describe themselves. It is questionable whether they are at all “Islam” or “liberal”.

Kota Bharu Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bharu) introduced a regulation about how women should dress.

Should I ask, why no regulation about a man’s dress code? Perhaps not. Let us not put ideas into people’s heads.

Not long ago, there was an issue about women wearing hijab in the UK. My comments about that can be seen here and here.

Here in the UK, I have met with many women from the Middle East who do not wear the “traditional” dresses they wear back at home. Why? Because at home, they wear it due to legislation but in London they are not forced to do so. This is why I disagree with attempts to impose morality through legislation. It doesn’t stick.

Love of Allah can only come from true devotion. It cannot be forced by the hands of the state.

If we want to create a moral society, we should allow choice. Only a society that chooses to be moral is truly moral.

We should educate. Not legislate.

I was astonished when I saw writings by certain people who argued that the MPKB rule is ok because even China had done the same back in 2004. See an example here.

When you have to use communist China to back your argument, you really are running out of arguments.

The Sun (the Malaysian one, not the British Sun, guys) also published the school voucher article. See it here.