Articles « WanSaiful.com

March 19, 2011 • 12:36 pm 0

Japan – Disaster hacks should stick to the facts

By Bill Durodie, PhD, Singapore

As if the twin calamities of a huge earthquake followed by a devastating tsunami were not enough, much of the coverage and commentary relating to recent events in Japan has displayed a distasteful desire to project a third – nuclear – catastrophe onto the situation.

It is almost as if there is no disaster too big today that it cannot be made worse – or at least imagined so – by an army of self-styled disaster specialists in search of salacious copy. These variously seek to draw out an array of pre-determined conclusions – from the supposed moral lessons to be drawn from societies held to be developing too far or too fast, to assumptions about the presumed fallibility of technology.

And all this, despite the actual evidence emanating from Fukushima consistently pointing to the reality of its being a relatively localised problem; one being addressed by a small number of dedicated professionals whose courage in truly risking it all for the benefit of everyone else we should seriously respect.

The self-oriented projections of certain commentators – many, but not exclusively, halfway around the globe from the site of the incident – reflects the sad emergence of a confused culture today that always starts from the question: “What does it mean for me?”

This is the very opposite of the humane disposition best exemplified by the majority of Japanese people whose calm dignity, fortitude and cooperativeness at this time we could all do to learn from.

Some ill-informed invective has gone so far to suggest that this is what we should come to expect in an age when – driven by climate change or human development – natural disasters will become more frequent or intense.

Such hacks could do with learning a little more history before reaching for their keyboards. Worse or equivalent earthquakes, both in terms of severity and human impact, have been recorded going back over 500 years.

That these are more costly today is a measure of how far we have actually progressed. For the truth is, that in any other period and in most other countries, such an episode would have cost considerably more lives than they have here.

It is a testament to Japan’s remarkable development and resilience that this was not the case. This development relied at base on the provision of plentiful quantities of energy – much of it nuclear.

That anti-nuclear groups are using this event as a vehicle to promote their pre-existing agenda is hardly surprising.

In almost all crisis situations today, there is a small army of risk entrepreneurs who seek to benefit by using particular incidents to confirm conclusions they held in advance, even – as is the case here – when the real evidence flies in the face of their theories.

To give credence to these, as some Western governments appear to have done, by enacting a moratorium on nuclear power generation, is to pander to populist prejudice in a way that may yet prove far more costly than any future mishap.

It is equivalent to taking at face value the gratuitous text message rumours that have also been circulating recently, and saying that their existence somehow proves their validity and the need to pay credence to them.

In fact, the reverse is true. Now, more than ever, such views should be robustly rebutted.

People’s fears are not simply based in fact. Outlooks are shaped over protracted periods, determined by a vast number of social, cultural and political variables, such as the impact on people’s imaginations of books, television programmes and films that project dystopian visions of the present and the future, as well as their interpretation of the various forces shaping their lives, such as presumptions as to whether we live in a particularly dangerous world, or whether we should trust strangers and the authorities charged with ensuring our well-being.

That individuals succumb to the contemporary climate of cultural pessimism may be understandable. Thus the huge demand for Geiger counters in Germany, a country not renowned for major tremors. But that the authorities act accordingly and make the knee-jerk gesture to close down half its power plants is blinkered in the extreme, and points to their own inner crisis of resolve and direction.

It is indeed sad that, at such times, rather than supporting people in need, some focus more on projecting their puerile fantasies and latent prejudices onto the situation, and thereby ignore the real demands of the situation.

Bill Durodie is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and an Associate Fellow of the International Security Programme at Chatham House in London.

Filed under: Articles, Misc, japan

January 8, 2011 • 6:07 pm 0

School improvement: should we go Dutch?

(A version of this was published in The Edge, 8 January 2011)

Several parents contacted me to share their stories after reading my article last month. There is one common thread to all the stories. Parents want the best for their children and they feel that private schools are better. But they don’t have the money to pay private school fees. I can fully understand how frustrating it is, because that is also my personal experience.

Let’s make one thing clear. I am in no way suggesting that all private schools are good by default. But there are at least two forces that push private schools to continuously improve – the forces of competition and decentralisation.

Private schools must compete for paying clients. The only way they can “defeat” their rivals – other private schools and taxpayer-funded state schools – is by ensuring their students perform better. State schools will survive no matter how they perform. In contrast, private schools that perform badly will head towards certain death because parents will exercise their choice and opt for a better one.

On the other hand, the management of private schools is certainly more decentralised. They have more freedom to innovate and improvise. This liberty empowers teachers and school managers to do what is best for their students, not simply following directives from politicians and Putrajaya overlords. A recent report by McKinsey published in November 2010 argues that decentralisation, including in pedagogical issues, is an important feature of a school that is moving towards excellence.

But there remains the problem of affordability. The key therefore is to introduce competition (and the parental choice that comes with it) and decentralisation while keeping schools free. To me this is still a compromise because total privatisation would be the best way. But it is a very good and most acceptable compromise for now.

The central principle is that taxpayers’ money should follow students. The voucher system is among the best options. We must develop one that is suited for our country.

School vouchers is not a new system. Andrew Coulson, Director of Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, suggested that the earliest explicit description of the idea can be found in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation, first published in 1776. More recently, in 2005 Reason Magazine called Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman as the Father of Modern School Reform. Until his death in 2006, Friedman tirelessly campaigned for the voucher system, believing that education subsidies, if it were to continue, must be targeted at consumers and not suppliers.

Thanks to funding from the Dutch government, I was able to visit Holland in November 2010, partly to look at the Dutch school system. Dutch parents have enjoyed the benefits of school voucher and choice since 1917. Educational freedom is in fact enshrined in the Dutch constitution.

Dutch schools are government-funded, yet approximately 70 per cent of schools are private. All schools, including private schools, receive full government funding based on student numbers and manpower needs. Schools do not charge top-up fees, thus ensuring that all schools remain essentially free. But parents can donate for additional activities.

When I met Dr Frans van Noort, the principal of St Gregorius College, a religious secondary school in Utrecht, he explained that teachers and administrative staff (including himself) are employed by the school itself. They are not government employees the way our Malaysian teachers are employed. This gives the school management full ability to reward and sanction teachers and staff based on their performance in nurturing students.

I also met Ton Duif, head of AVS, the trade union for school leaders. He fiercely defended the independence of schools, arguing that he would never allow government to interfere unnecessarily in the terms and conditions of service of school leaders that are his members. It must have been the first time I had a face-to-face meeting with a trade union head arguing against government intervention, out of conviction that employers are partners, not the enemy.

Having spoken to a few groups of Dutch schoolchildren, at a cursory glance, I must say that if we compare them with Malaysian students at the same age group, they are more mature in their thinking. Nevertheless my personal observation is limited and cannot be taken as the benchmark. For that, we need to refer to TIMSS and PISA, the two global education assessments schemes usually used for international benchmarking. Holland consistently performs very well in both.

The Dutch system is an example of how choice, competition and decentralisation created by the voucher system benefit students. Commenting on the Dutch system, a World Bank report entitled The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education published in 2009 says “the system is not only successful academically but is also cost effective, yielding good results at relatively low cost”. In other words, it works.

It is time for those who believe education is a public good and cannot be run by the private sector or be privatised to ask themselves how much longer they want to allow their false belief to trump our children’s education attainment. It is wrong to place this mistaken ideology over and above the rights of our children to receive excellent quality education.

—
More articles can be found on www.IDEAS.org.my and www.AkademiMerdeka.org

Filed under: Articles, Freedom & Liberty, Malaysia

December 22, 2010 • 12:00 pm 0

MCLM: We need a principled political force

Published in “Kite of Freedom” column in The Star (iPad edition) Wednesday 22 December 2010

I was tempted to comment on the establishment of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) as soon as its establishment was announced. But I decided to wait until the closed-door briefing for invited NGOs on Sunday 19 December at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall before penning down my thoughts.

Luckily the wait was worth it because the many comments made earlier were based more on assumptions, and not on what MCLM actually intends to do.

The most common allegation levelled against MCLM is that they are a bunch of idealists who have lost faith in Anwar. The picture being painted is as if they are out there to hurt Pakatan Rakyat.

As an example, Baradan Kuppusamy, a fellow columnist in this newspaper, and one that I highly admire, concluded his column on 15 December 2010, by saying “in MCLM, we are witnessing the birth of a new and unique political venture by committed and passionate individuals who have lost faith in Anwar as the great reformer and want to stride out on their own, whatever the censure.”

Unfortunately there is one very big point that is being missed. MCLM is even more united, more focused and more committed to defeat Barisan Nasional than anything else.

In the closed-door briefing session last Sunday, MCLM made it very clear that their only interest is in helping make sure the reform agenda – currently symbolised by Pakatan Rakyat’s struggle – remains alive.

They even went to the extent of saying outright that they will only work with non-Barisan Nasional parties. Under their “Independent Candidates Initiative” they plan to identify, screen, and support candidates to run against Barisan Nasional in the next general elections. Their intention is to offer these candidates to Pakatan Rakyat component parties.

Thus, when commenting about MCLM, I think we must appreciate that they are first and foremost an anti-Barisan Nasional political force, at least for now. They are not out there to hurt Pakatan Rakyat, but to help them.

The thing that interests me the most about MCLM is their insistence on formulating a set of policy ideas which their candidates will then campaign for. This is quite new in the Malaysian political arena – we have been served with an ethnic-based politics for more than half a century. I am excited by the possibility of being offered a politics based on ideas.

MCLM should indeed work on the policy ideas they want to offer to the public. We desperately need a political force that talks about how to free the poor from poverty, improve our schools and hospitals, free the judiciary and parliament from executive interference, and liberate Malaysians from the shackles of ethnic and religious prejudices.

Once these policy ideas have been formulated, MCLM must stick to their principles and not waver. And it is here that I think MCLM still needs to think how they want to approach the political parties.

If MCLM were to be a principles-based political force, it would be wrong for them to declare outright from this stage that they only want to work with Pakatan Rakyat. For that would be making an assumption that no Barisan Nasional parties are interested in reform.

MCLM must realise that Barisan Nasional is made up of many component parties. And, within the component parties, take UMNO for example, there are factions too. And some of these parties or factions could be open to their reform agenda. I may be wrong, but the only way to find out is by talking to everyone first and deciding only after talking to them.

Some of the Barisan Nasional leaders that I have dealt with are just as keen on reform as the Pakatan ones. MCLM must not discount them.

In fact, I would venture as far as suggesting that if MCLM were to truly stick to their principles, it is their duty to assist any and all parties who want to bring reform to the country, while appreciating the political environment those parties operate in.

More importantly, if MCLM were really to be steadfast to their principles, then they must not fear three-corner fights.

I am both surprised and upset when I read statements by the so-called civil society leaders who say there must never be a three-corner fight because that will damage Pakatan Rakyat. Since when has civil society become subservient to Pakatan Rakyat’s agenda? Why are they allowing Pakatan Rakyat’s priorities to be placed over and above the principles guiding civil society in this country?

Civil society organisations, MCLM included, should instead focus on the principles guiding them and work with anyone and everyone who would support their agenda. If they were to enter the political arena, then it is those principles that should guide them rather than blind partisanship.

—
Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my)

Filed under: Articles, Malaysia, Politics

January 7, 2010 • 1:13 pm 8

Kualiti khidmat pelanggan memalukan

Utusan Malaysia hari ini menyiarkan artikel saya dalam kolum Wau Bebas. Tetapi artikel yang disiarkan tidak penuh (lihat di sini) kerana mungkin ada penulisan saya yang tidak sesuai untuk disiarkan.

Bagaimanapun artikel sepenuhnya boleh dibaca di bawah:

—-

Minggu ini genap tiga bulan saya kembali ke Malaysia setelah 17 tahun merantau di luar negara. Sepanjang tiga bulan ini, saya terpaksa mendaftar dengan pelbagai perkhidmatan seperti telefon, elektrik, internet dan sebagainya.

Tiga bulan ini juga merupakan pengalaman pertama saya memandu setiap hari untuk ke pejabat. Letih juga tersangkut setiap hari dalam kesesakan lalu lintas. Masih ada pemandu kita yang memandu tanpa memikirkan keselamatan diri sendiri dan orang lain.

Tetapi sikap pemandu yang sedemikian kadang kala bukan sepenuhnya salah pemandu. Reka bentuk sistem jalan raya kita saya rasa seolah-olah diatur untuk memenuhi keperluan pemaju, bukan memberi keselesaan kepada pengguna jalan raya.

Lihat sahaja susun atur simpang di jalan-jalan utama ataupun di lebuhraya kita. Jika kita terlepas sesuatu simpang, maka untuk membuat pusingan semula kita perlu pergi jauh ke hadapan. Saya pernah tersilap masuk ke Kerinchi Link di Lebuhraya Persekutuan. Untuk balik ke jalan yang betul memang amat susah.

Papan tanda di lebuh raya pula ada yang menganggu kosentrasi pemandu kerana terlalu banyak maklumat yang hendak dibaca. Baru saja habis membaca papan tanda sebelah kiri, kereta sudah terlajak sedangkan maklumat yang kita kehendaki ada di papan tanda sebelah kanan.

Akibatnya ada pemandu yang memandu perlahan apabila menghampiri papan tanda, atau ada juga yang membuat lencongan maut dari kanan ke simpang di kiri semata-mata kerana tidak mahu terlepas simpang.

Ini bukan salah mereka. Jika terlepas simpang yang dikehendaki, mungkin sahaja pemandu terpaksa membayar tol berganda. Hendak keluar lebuhraya perlu bayar walaupun di simpang yang salah. Hendak masuk semula selepas berpatah balik pun perlu bayar lagi.

Plaza-plaza tol bagi saya adalah tempat yang amat merbahaya. Hampir semua plaza tol memaksa pemandu untuk masuk ke lorong yang berlain mengikut cara pembayaran. Ada lorong tunai, lorong Touch n Go, dan lorong Smart Tag.

Sebaik sahaja pemandu menghampiri plaza tol, maka bersilang-silang kereta yang cuba masuk ke lorong kaunter yang betul. Selepas tol pula sekali lagi kereta menjadi berlapis-lapis kerana para pemandu kembali mahu masuk ke lorong masing-masing. Ini menyebabkan kawasan sekeliling plaza tol menjadi sesak dan bahaya.

Kenapa tidak boleh diletakkan semua pilihan cara pembayaran di semua kaunter tol? Biarlah setiap kaunter tol ada pilihan sama ada mahu membayar tunai, menggunakan Touch n Go atau Smart Tag. Bukankah memberi pilihan kepada pemandu itu lebih selamat kerana ia tidak memaksa pemandu masuk ke lorong-lorong tertentu apabila sampai ke plaza tol?

Selain daripada jalan raya, perkhidmatan kaunter yang disediakan oleh syarikat-syarikat tertentu juga ada yang amat memalukan.

Contohnya pada hari Isnin lalu saya ke TM Point cawangan Bangsar untuk satu urusan pemasangan internet. Saya tahu pusat perkhidmatan pelanggan itu tutup pada jam 5.30 petang. Saya tiba sekitar jam 5.10 petang tetapi pintu telah dikunci oleh pegawai keselamatan.

Setelah beberapa minit berhujah dengan pegawai keselamatan tersebut, saya akhirnya dibenarkan masuk. Saya terus mengambil nombor giliran. Walaupun beberapa minit dibazirkan untuk berdebat dengan pegawai keselematan itu, jelas tertera di atas tiket itu bahawa jam baru pukul 5.17 petang. Masih belum masanya untuk pejabat itu ditutup.

Tetapi saya amat terkejut apabila pegawai keselamatan itu bercakap dengan kuat di hadapan pelanggan lain bahawa saya degil dan tidak mahu menurut cakap. Seolah-olah beliau mahu memalukan saya.

Sistem khidmat pelanggan di TM Point Bangsar itu hanya memikirkan bagaimana pegawai mereka boleh balik pada jam 5.30 petang. Itu yang mereka pentingkan, bukannya bagaimana untuk memberi layanan terbaik kepada pelanggan sehingga waktu yang betul.

Setelah saya membuat aduan, pengurus TM Point itu menelefon saya. Beliau cuba memberikan justifikasi kenapa pegawai keselamatan dibenarkan mengunci pintu sebelum waktunya. Setelah saya mengatakan saya masih menyimpan tiket yang menunjukkan waktu sebenar saya tiba, dia terus bertukar fikiran dan memohon maaf.

Saya sebenarnya tidak ambil kisah sangat mengenai waktu. Apa yang mengecewakan saya ialah sikap biadap pegawai TM Point Bangsar tersebut. Pelanggan tidak seharusnya dilayan dengan biadap oleh mana-mana pekerja di TM.

Bagaimanapun, yang paling memualkan saya ialah kualiti perkhidmatan pelanggan Maxis. Sepanjang 17 tahun di luar negara, saya pernah berurusan dengan syarikat telefon di Britain, Amerika, Ireland, Sepanyol, German, Perancis, Indonesia dan Singapura. Tidak pernah saya berjumpa perkhidmatan pelanggan yang selemah Maxis.

Pada awal Oktober lalu, saya membuat laporan polis mengenai penipuan akaun Maxis yang menggunakan nama saya. Pada mulanya saya ke agen Maxis di Putrajaya, tetapi mereka memberitahu bahawa saya perlu ke pusat perkhidmatan mereka di Cheras.

Malangnya, laporan beserta dokumen yang saya serahkan di pusat khidmat pelanggan Maxis Cheras hilang sehingga saya terpaksa membuat aduan sekali lagi di pusat khidmat pelanggan yang lain di Mid-Valley City, Bangsar.

Apabila saya menghubungi Maxis baru-baru ini, saya dimaklumkan bahawa sekali lagi dokumen yang saya serahkan di pejabat mereka di Mid-Valley tidak sampai ke jabatan yang sepatutnya.

Maxis sekali lagi menyuruh saya membuat laporan dan menghantar semula dokumen buat kali ketiga. Dua kali Maxis hilang dokumen! Yang menjadi mangsa ialah pengguna kerana terpaksa ke sana-sini untuk membuat laporan. Sistem mereka menyusahkan pelanggan.

Saya yakin bukan saya sahaja yang pernah menerima khidmat pelanggan yang buruk. Semua ini berlaku kerana sistem perkhidmatan dicipta tanpa meletakkan pelanggan di atas. Baik di jalan raya, plaza tol, mahupun apabila berdepan dengan syarikat-syarikat yang meyediakan perkhidmatan seperti telefon dan internet, sistem khidmat pelanggan mereka tidak mesra pelanggan. Umpama mereka tidak memikirkan mengenai pelanggan langsung apabila mencipta sistem perkhidmatan mereka.

Sempena kedatangan tahun baru 2010, saya harap akan ada perubahan dalam kualiti khidmat pelanggan di negara kita. Kita sudah masuk ke dekad yang baru. Sudah tiba masanya rakyat sebagai pelanggan dan pengguna dihormati dengan sewajarnya, sesuai dengan kehendak Perdana Menteri agar rakyat didahulukan.
—–
Wan Saiful wan Jan merupakan Ketua Pengarah Malaysia Think Tank dan Editor www.AkademiMerdeka.org

Filed under: Articles, Malaysia, maxis, TM, TM Point

September 12, 2009 • 12:07 am 1

On the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December

My latest articles, one published in The Malaysian Insider and the other in my column in Utusan Malaysia.

English article (The Malaysian Insider)

Don’t be fooled by Western environmentalists (and their parrots)

Import duties, under the guise of ‘green’ taxes, will increase the
cost of international trade, ultimately damaging economic growth in
developing countries that exports to America like us. America is
Malaysia’s second biggest export partner.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, said that he will not
sign any treaty in Copenhagen that forces a curb of carbon emission in
the Third World. We are lucky to have a figure in the developing world
like Ramesh. He knows how climate change activism in and by Western
countries can damage growth in developing countries. Malaysia needs to
learn from his boldness.

Let us not be fooled by the doom-glorifying environmentalists. Many of
them are simply following what Western green activists say, ignoring
science as well as the importance of growth and development in our own
country.

Read full article

Malay article

Jangan terperangkap agenda Barat

Mungkin setelah menyedari bahawa kempen alam sekitar di negara-negara Barat kerap kali dijadikan topeng kepada sekatan perdagangan yang menzalimi negara membangun, maka Jairam Ramesh, Menteri Alam Sekitar India, berkata bahawa beliau tidak akan menandatangani apa-apa perjanjian di sidang kemuncak Copenhagen sekiranya ia memaksa negara membangun menghadkan emisi karbon.

Mujurlah masih ada pemimpin negara dunia ketiga yang berani dalam menangani isu ini. Beliau menyedari hipokrasi negara-negara Barat yang telah sekian lama cuba menghalang kebangkitan dunia ketiga. Malaysia perlu mencontohi sikap India dalam hal ini.

Jangan kita terperangkap dengan kata-kata manis aktivis alam sekitar yang hanya mengikut telunjuk negara-negara Barat, dan mengenepikan kepentingan pembangunan negara kita sendiri serta fakta sains mengenai perubahan iklim dunia.

Capai artikel penuh

Filed under: Articles

July 22, 2007 • 12:32 am 0

An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2131471,00.html

Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides

Karen Armstrong
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian

In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was “polluted”. Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as “incompatible with peace and social harmony”. This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.

Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.

In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.

It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie’s knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western “liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other”. They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.

Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.

On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini’s violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists’ depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called “Christian community” signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.

Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.

Filed under: Articles, Freedom & Liberty

January 24, 2007 • 11:06 pm 7

Penghapusan sekatan perdagangan: satu kewajipan

Perdagangan bukan perkara asing bagi rakyat Malaysia. Para petani dan penoreh getah di kampung-kampung semuanya menjual hasil titik peluh mereka. Tidak sedikit juga yang membuka kedai makan atau kedai runcit di merata-rata tempat. Ada juga yang menjalankan perniagaan yang lebih besar seperti membuka pasaraya, atau mengurus korporat multinasional.

Bagi umat Islam, perdagangan bukan perkara asing. Rasulullah (saw) dan Saidatina Khadijah (r.a) merupakan ahli perdagangan yang berjaya. Rasulullah s.a.w dikatakan pernah menyebut bahawa “sembilan per sepuluh punca rezeki adalah daripada perniagaan”.

Apabila negara kita berdagang dengan negara-negara lain, rakyat Malaysia secara keseluruhan mendapat faedah. Barang-barang elektronik yang diimport daripada China adalah lebih murah dan membolehkan rakyat membeli pelbagai jenis alatan yang menambahbaik kualiti kehidupan. Apabila pasaran ekonomi kita dibuka, maka faedah yang diterima oleh rakyat juga bertambah.

Usaha kerajaan mengadakan perjanjian perdagangan bebas bilateral dengan Amerika Syarikat dan negara-negara lain adalah satu usaha yang boleh membawa kebaikan kepada rakyat yang miskin atau kaya.

Secara umumnya, liberalisasi pasaran samada secara multilateral, bilateral ataupun unilateral adalah satu perkara yang baik. Tetapi, golongan sosialis dan lain-lain golongan yang berkepentingan pasti akan membantah liberalisasi pasaran. Mereka menakut-nakutkan rakyat dengan menuduh bahawa perjanjian perdagangan bebas akan membawa impak negatif kepada negara.

Golongan sosialis mahukan ekonomi negara dikawal oleh puak-puak tertentu. Mereka tidak mahu wujud persaingan kerana persaingan akan mereka kehilangan pengaruh. Mereka hanya mementingkan kantung golongan tertentu sahaja dan tidak memikirkan faedah yang lebih luas yang akan diterima oleh rakyat jika pasaran kita dibuka. Mereka mendesak kerajaan melindungi industri mereka walaupun barangan yang mereka keluarkan lebih mahal dan kurang bermutu.

Jika kerajaan terus melindungi mereka ini, maka yang akan menanggung bahana ialah para petani, penoreh getah, golongan berpendapatan rendah dan rakyat terbanyak. Kita akan terus menerus terpaksa membayar harga mahal untuk barang-barang yang rendah kualitinya. Inilah kezaliman sosialisme!

Pembukaan pasaran kita akan memperhebat persaingan dalam negara, menurunkan harga barang keperluan, membawa masuk lebih banyak pelaburan antarabangsa, dan mencipta pelbagai peluang pekerjaan. Semua ini baik untuk rakyat.

Malaysia Think Tank London baru-baru ini mengeluarkan satu laporan bertajuk “Menghapuskan Sekatan Perdagangan: satu tuntutan moral”. Laporan ini ditulis oleh Professor Julian Morris, pengarah eksekutif International Policy Network yang berpusat di London. Laporan tersebut menyatakan bahawa sekatan perdagangan adalah salah dari segi moral.

Menurut Professor Morris, penghapusan sekatan perdagangan membawa potensi pembangunan ekonomi negara yang pesat. Golongan miskin akan mendapat faedah besar daripada liberalisasi ekonomi kerana harga barang-barang akan turun dan kuasa membeli juga akan meningkat. Peningkatan ekonomi negara akan mempelbagai peluang pekerjaan dan perniagaan. Hasilnya, kita semua akan menikmati kualiti kehidupan yang lebih baik.

Menurut Professor Morris, “Perdagangan bebas membebaskan manusia. Perdagangan bebas membolehkan rakyat secara keseluruhan menambahbaik kualiti kehidupan mereka. Perdagangan bebas boleh membantu membasmi kemiskinan”

Ulama Islam juga tidak menggalakkan kawalan ekonomi. Ibn Khaldun mengatakan bahawa “aktiviti perniagaan yang dijalankan oleh kerajaan adalah merbahaya kepada rakyat dan boleh merosakkan pendapatan dan pentadbiran kewangan negara”.

Ibn Khaldun menjelaskan bahawa jika pihak-pihak tertentu menguasai ekonomi, maka akan wujud monopoli yang akhirnya memaksa rakyat membayar harga yang tinggi. Situasi sebegini membebankan rakyat.

Jika rakyat Malaysia benar-benar mahu mengamalkan sistem ekonomi yang baik, maka langkah pertama ialah memastikan sistem pasaran bebas kembali diletakkan ke tempatnya. Usaha kerajaan kita untuk menghapuskan sekatan perdagangan, baik secara multilateral, bilateral ataupun unilateral, perlu disokong selagi mana ia dijalankan dengan telus.

Menghapuskan sekatan perdagangan merupakan satu kewajipan atas kepada semua manusia tanpa mengira agama atau bangsa.

Liberalisasi ekonomi akan merangsang inovasi dalam pelbagai sektor, mempertingkat produktiviti, seterusnya memacu perkembangan ekonomi negara ke arah menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara yang gemilang.

Filed under: Articles, Freedom & Liberty, Malaysia

January 24, 2007 • 11:04 pm 0

Trade barriers are immoral.

Islam dan Sistem Pasaran

(Freely adapted from an original article by Dr Imad Ahmad, Minaret of Freedom Institute)

Muqaddimah

Perniagaan bukan perkara asing bagi umat Islam. Rasulullah (saw) dan Saidatina Khadijah (r.a) merupakan ahli perniagaan yang berjaya dalam pasaran bebas pada masa itu. Kitab suci Al-Quran juga penuh dengan pelbagai ayat yang menyentuh hal ehwal pernaiagaan. Malahan, jika kita teliti sejarah perkembangan Islam, kita pasti mengakui peranan penting yang dimainkan oleh ahli perniagaan dalam menyebarkan Islam ke seluruh pelusuk bumi. Islam sampai ke Tanah Melayu melalui ahli perniagaan yang bergerak dalam pasaran bebas dunia, bukan melalui bala tentera. Malangnya, hubungan intim antara Islam dan pasaran bebas tidak begitu dihargai oleh dunia, termasuklah oleh umat Islam di Malaysia.

Usaha mengawal pasaran

Di awal kurun ke-20, hubungan rapat beberapa negara Arab dengan Soviet Union menyebabkan sistem sosialisme mula meresapi Timur Tengah. Sehingga hari ini, masih banyak lagi negara Arab yang mewarisi sisa-sisa sistem eknomi sosialisme yang mana kerajaan menguasai dan mengawal pergerakan ekonomi negara tersebut. Perkembangan pemikiran sosialis di negara-negara Arab akhirnya merosakkan sistem pasaran terbuka yang diwarisi masyarakat Arab sejak zaman Rasulullah (saw) lagi.

Bagaimanapun, sejak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini, kita melihat betapa negara-negara umat Islam mula menunjukkan rasa tidak selesa terhadap sistem ekonomi sosialisme. Beberapa negara umat Islam, termasuklah Malaysia, telah kembali kepada sistem pasaran yang lebih terbuka dan berdaya-saing.

Malangnya, masih terdapat beberapa kelompok di kalangan umat Islam yang menentang sistem pasaran yang lebih terbuka.

Ada kelompok umat Islam yang masih pekat dengan fahaman sosialisme. Mereka ini mengatakan bahawa kita tidak boleh memiliki harta peribadi kerana apa-apa harta yang kita miliki mestilah di kongsi dengan rakyat secara keseluruhan. Dalam bahawa Inggeris, mereka ini digelar sebagai “economic egalitarians”. Fahaman pro-sosialis mereka menyebabkan mereka lebih selesa jika rakyat dan syarikat dikenakan cukai yang tinggi agar harta boleh dibahagi-bahagikan, termasuklah kepada mereka yang tidak bekerja.

Kelompok kedua pula meyakini bahawa untuk membangun, semua hal ehwal dalam sesebuah negara mestilah dikawal oleh kerajaan (autoritarianisme). Mereka ini berpegang dengan pandangan bahawa menteri-menteri adalah orang bijak pandai yang pakar dalam mengawal ekonomi negara. Oleh itu, aktiviti ekonomi mestilah dikawal sepenuhnya oleh kerajaan melalui proksi-proksi tertentu.

Kelompok ketiga pula menentang sistem pasaran kerana mereka tidak suka kepada kesenangan dan kemewahan. Bagi mereka, harta hanya menjauhkan kita daripada agama. Sebaliknya, mereka mahu hidup dalam dunia tersendiri dan tidak mencampuri urusan mencari pendapatan untuk hidup selesa (asetikisme).

Ketiga-tiga kelompok di atas mempunyai persamaan yang ketara. Mereka semuanya mengatakan bahawa harta atau kekayaan adalah sesuatu yang tidak baik untuk dimiliki oleh individu. Sebaliknya, pendapatan rakyat mesti dijadikan milik negara, contohnya melalui cukai yang tinggi, dan harta tersebut akan dikawal atau diuruskan oleh negara demi menjaga kebajikan semua rakyat.

Semua fahaman ini sebenarnya tidak selari dengan sistem Islam yang mahukan setiap individu Muslim berusaha dan bekerja, mengumpul harta daripada pekerjaan yang halal, dan kemudian melakukan sebanyak mungkin amal jariah secara sukarela. Dalam sistem Islam, penekanan yang tinggi diberikan kepada setiap individu Muslim untuk membantu menjaga kebajikan jiran tetangga dan rakyat keseluruhan, bukan mencari helah dengan mengatakan bahawa itu adalah tanggungjawab kerajaan.

(To be continued, but most probably on a different platform)

Filed under: Articles, Freedom & Liberty

June 8, 2006 • 2:27 am 9

Don’t just go half-way.

In Malaysia, non-Muslims are not allowed to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, for example, who try to proselytize risk prosecution.

But it is difficult to categorically say that it is illegal for Muslims to convert. There are many cases where Muslims wanted to register their conversion to another religion but were prevented from doing so for various technical reasons. As far as I know, the precedent so far is that you can change religion, but you cannot officially register that conversion with the National Registration Office.

In other words, as long as you keep quiet, you’ll be ok.

Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and that this protection is granted by law. To me, this argument is flawed.

Firstly, how can you defend the sanctity of Islam by curbing the right of non-Muslims to spread their religion? Only the weak protect themselves by limiting the liberty of others. As an exalted way of life, surely Islam is stronger than that. Curbing the freedom of non-Muslims serves only to display the weakness of Muslims than anything else.

Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, made it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will start shouting about human rights, freedom of speech, etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims. Why the double-standard?

Thirdly, protecting a religion by legislation implies that the religion cannot stand to protect its own sanctity. It is as if we are saying Islam cannot be saved unless there is a law protecting it. Surely Islam can stand well above the test of reasoning.

Fourthly, Malaysian constitution states that while Islam is the official religion of the country, those of other religions have full right to practise their beliefs. What about those who believes that their religion encourages them to undertake missionary works, like Christian missionaries? Legislating against missionary works by adherents of these religions is the equivalent of preventing them from fully practising their religion. This is against the constitution, and, most probably is against Islam too.

Fifthly, I cannot understand the current law. How is it acceptable that we make it illegal for non-Muslims to do missionary work, but there is nothing in the law about Muslims changing religion so long as they do not seek official registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down – Islam is ‘protected’ by encroaching into others’ religion and by limiting non-Muslims’ freedom and liberty.

In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while continuing to support Islamic da’wah and the associated organizations. This is a clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country. Politicians from all parties must recognize that Muslims and non-Muslims alike are citizens of Malaysia. As citizens, we all must enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same responsibilities. There must be no double standards.

I have been asking many people about this matter and the best they can come out with is the standard argument that the sanctity of Islam must be protected and one way of doing so is by maintaining the ban. Obviously I am most unhappy with this answer as it avoids providing any real answer at all.

But that was until I read a few books written by Abul A’la al-Maududi which discuss this issue. There are at least three relevant books by him that touch on this issue but the best summary of his opinion is perhaps a quote from his booklet entitled “Human Rights in Islam” (Islamic Foundation, 1976).

In the first chapter “The political framework of Islam” (this chapter is not available in some online versions of the book), Maududi stated:

“The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way. Not only may they propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency”.

That to me is a very bold statement. It shows confidence. As long as the law and common decency norms are respected, non-Muslims have full rights to propagate their religion.

Perhaps a law can be drafted in-line with the spirit of the British incitement of religious hatred bill in which it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred but it is not wrong to debate religion in a civilised way or to proselytize.

As for us Muslims, the way forward is not by curbing non-Muslims’ rights to propagate their religion. But it is by strengthening the aqidah of Muslims through rigorous education. Islam has its own way of preventing riddah. There is a specific clause in the syari’ah that tells us how to deal with riddah. That clause certainly does not include curbing the rights of non-Muslims.

I want to end by challenging the leaders of PAS. Do not just go half-way by inviting non-Muslims to be members of the party. Take the whole full step. Let them practice their religion to the full.

I want to see a PAS that represents Malaysia as a whole, not just a sectarian party representing the narrow interests of a group of Malaysians.

I want to see a PAS that portrays Islam as a blessing to all mankind, not as a religion that limits the freedom of non-Muslims.

I want to see a PAS that is serious about treating all Malaysians as equals, not just shouting rhetorics about wanting non-Muslims to become party-members but at the same time continue to curtail their right to preach their faiths.

I want to see a PAS that is confident in the ability of Islam to withstand criticism, not one that hides behind the shield of restrictive legislations.

Thus, if PAS truly want to represent the voice and the ideals of ALL Malaysians, and if PAS is not fighting just for the narrow interest of a small section of the Malaysian community, then PAS must lead the campaign to ensure every religious person in Malaysia, Muslims and non-Muslims, can fully practise their religion. PAS must be consistent even if it means allowing non-Muslims to preach to Muslims, and abolishing the ban on missionary works.

Protecting the Muslims’ aqidah must be done through education. If legislations are necessary, then it must only be for Muslims. Islam certainly should not be “protected” by treating non-Muslims as second class citizens and limiting their entitlements. In the words of Maududi, “Not only may they (non-Muslims) propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency”

———————

NB (13 June 1006): This article has been published in Malaysiakini (click here) and some related comments have been posted in my previous blog here (don't ask me why).

The article was also quoted by Teng Chang Khim and responded to by a Malaysiakini reader.

A Malay language version is available here.

I also received several comments via email and sms. Some of the comments are very encouraging, while a few are too "violent" to share publicly.

(16 June 2006): I just remembered that I made a statement about riddah which was published in Malaysian newspapers. I think it was back in January 1998, and can be read here and here. I no longer have the original statement.

Filed under: Articles, Malaysia

WanSaiful.com

Japan – Disaster hacks should stick to the facts

School improvement: should we go Dutch?

MCLM: We need a principled political force

Kualiti khidmat pelanggan memalukan

On the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December

An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values

Penghapusan sekatan perdagangan: satu kewajipan

Trade barriers are immoral.

Islam dan Sistem Pasaran

Don’t just go half-way.

Pages

Facebook

Twitter Updates

Links

Recent Comments

Follow “WanSaiful.com”