www.wansaiful.com

I am on the train back from Liverpool. I was there for two days (since yesterday) for a conference at the Arena and Convention Centre at the Albert Docks. The last time I was in Liverpool must have been at least six to seven years ago. The city has changed quite a bit.

I stayed at Thistle Hotel, Atlantic Tower, which is not far from the Albert Docks. While the hotel was good, it was not that close to the places I really wanted to revisit. Time was not on my side either. I only had a few hours after 5pm on Tuesday to go places. But I did manage to go to a few places.

First stop was The Olive Tree on Renshaw Street. This was, and probably still is, the only shop in Liverpool city centre to sell Islamic books. I almost missed it because its facade is now painted red. Previously it was green. Stepping into the shop, I saw a familiar face but this time looking just a little bit older. Sister Somayya, the owner of the shop, was sitting at the counter. She said I have grown a little bit. She must have meant I have fatten up since Liverppol!

Next stop was the University, in particular, the Guild of Students. As I stepped into the building, I saw a poster advertising a play “Jebat”. I was president of the Liverpool University Islamic Society in 1999 and 2000 so unsurprisingly my next stop would be the prayer room, at the basement under the Guildmore Bar (is that the right name?). Not much have changed, but there was more people there during the Maghrib prayers. And I am glad to see that the wudhu area is now more properly done relatively to when I was leading the ISOC. During my time, we made several requests to get the Guild to install something like a shower basin and a pipe so that people don;t have to put their feet into the sinks when making wudhu. It didn’t happen even when I left, but there were two basins there now.

After a quick walk around the Guild of Students, I made my way to Smithdown Lane. When I was in my second year, I lived at either 27B or 28B Smithdown Lane - can’t remember the exact number. But it was on the top floor, and my room was on the furthest left of the building. I then got married and moved to Huntley Road, near Liverpool FC’s Anfield football stadium. And then I moved back to Smithdown Lane, this time number 31. So, I know the landlord - Mr Kassim, an Iraqi - quite well. The area around Smithdown Lane was well known as a prostitute area during that time. Don’t know if it still is, but when I was there yesterday there was no one asking me if I wanted “business”!

By this time, it was almost 8pm and I was getting hungry. So, after a short bus trip towards town, next stop was Master Chef - used to be my favourite Indian restaurant. The food is still quite good. I had dinner with Dr Jeevan Naidu. We were at Liverpool University together and the last time I met him must have been back in 1999. Had a very interesting chat about Malaysia, and, since it is election time, you can’t run away from Malaysian politics. By the time we finished I was too tired to do anything else so straight to the hotel and to bed.

I got up this morning to the news that Britain had its first earthquake for many years last night. Some people at the hotel were actualy woken up by the tremor which was at around 1am. I must have been half-dead because I didn’t feel anything.

Today, just before boarding the train from Liverpool Lime Street station, I paid a visit to Mr Mann, another former landlord of mine. After Smithdown Lane, I moved to 37 Princes Avenue, one of the properties owned by Mr Mann. He has a shop at St John’s shopping centre called Basic Design.

Unfortunately I didn’t have the time to visit Ar-Rahma Mosque ofthe Malaysia Singapore Association. Next time, hopefully.

On 28th Dec 07, I did my Friday prayer at Sekolah Alam Shah Putrajaya. This was only the second time I visited the school since it was opened. (I left the ‘original’ Sekolah Alam Shah at Bandar Tun Razak in 1992).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, no memories came to me when I entered the school gate. It felt like it was a very different school. Well, I supposed it is a different school. It was a very different feeling when I passed by the former Sekolah Alam Shah after sending back Ustaz Hasrizal after the Ibn Khaldun Seminar 2. I can still remember waiting for the bus to go to Sungai Wang Plaza every Saturday morning. I also remember sneaking quietly into the school (avoiding the Pak Guard) every now and then because it was too late in the evening….the video game centre at Sungai Wang can make you forget the time!
(more…)

I was on my way to meet Dato Abdul Rahman Ibrahim of KRB Holdings at Malaysia Hall this morning when I got a call asking if it would be possible for me to meet Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing later in the afternoon. That, simply, is an opportunity that even a fool would not miss.

I have heard so much about the man, and I knew that he had opened a branch of the Limkokwing University in London. And I have also heard that he likes eveything black. But I have not met him personally before.

When we arrived at the cafe in Harrods, Limkokwing University’s vice-president, Dr Jayles Yeoh, was already waiting. Not long afterwards Tan Sri Lim arrived, with some shopping. (Of course, he was wearing all black!). I was quite surprised when he said “This is for you”, handing to me a bag with some Harrods goody. How many Tan Sri do you know who would take the trouble to buy gifts for people who come to see them?

We touched on various issues, but focused mainly on education in Malaysia, social cohesion, and influencing policy-makers. Tan Sri Lim was optimistic about the future. On politics, he said we must be patient. Impatience would only make your ideas be rejected, no matter how good they may be. When it came to education, he became very passionate. Our education system must challenge the best brains, and must not be based on learning by rote. If you don’t encourage students to think, they will become just another average Joe. And we don’t need more average Joes.

What can I say? It was a great meeting.

Yesterday (26 July 2007) I had a fruitful meeting with Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, PAS’ President.

We discussed various issues, mainly focussing on Malaysian politics.

In particular, I raised the issue of the FTA and asked why PAS is opposed to it. The worry is understandable. If our markets are opened up, those in the farming and fishing industries would probably lose out – we cannot compete yet. But I can at least be happy that the rejection is not absolute. While PAS believes that at the moment total market liberalization is not yet suitable, there is nothing preventing it in the future, when hopefully situations change.

Of course, I disagree. I think unilateral liberalization is better provided that we put in place stronger institutions to guard property rights and ensure rule of law. But for now, at least it is clear that the rejection is not absolute or permanent. I gave him a copy of a report produced by Malaysia Think Tank London on the issue.

I also raised the needs for more policy-oriented politics among Malaysian opposition parties. PAS must start developing and presenting solid policy proposals to the Malaysian public. Obviously no opposition party can implement their proposals unless they get into power. But it is not a waste to develop policies even if there is no chance to implement it. To get into power, the party must firstly convince voters that they have a plan on how to govern. It is not enough to say “We will govern by Islam”. That means nothing. There must be specific policy ideas to show how PAS interpret Islam.

We also discussed at length my experience in the Conservative Party and how the internal policy research units of the party work, especially under David Cameron. We also touched briefly on my experience running in the English local election in May this year, and how we developed our manifesto for that election.

To me, Ustaz Hadi’s response was positive – both on the issue of trade liberalization as well as on the needs for more policy oriented politics. He looked keen to talk more about my experience with the Conservatives. But it was unfortunate that we both had to rush to other meetings, leaving the discussion rather unfinished.

While listening to his Kuliah Online via Radio MISG, I browsed through the speaker’s blog. This particular entry attracted my attention. 

The author insisted that readers do not compare articles to books. Articles are limited in its content, while books provide more space for detailed elaboration. The author, who is also a good friend, went on to say,

“Jika mahu salah menyalahkan sesama kita, janganlah fenomena ini dibebankan ke atas penulis artikel.”

I want to take that point a bit further than what was probably originally intended by my friend.

I agree wholeheartedly that readers or commentators should not blame authors for what they write. That is why I generally disagree with the banning of books or speakers, or, for that matter, the silencing of opposition. We should read and listen to as many views as possible and make up our own mind. In Malaysia, printing of Malay language Bible should be allowed, and we should also be allowed to listen to all leaders from opposition parties. Materials should be made available to the public so that they can decide what to read or hear.

The usual problem I encounter when talking to people is that they feel they do not have ‘enough knowledge’ to decide what is right and what is wrong. I haven’t a clue when anyone will have ‘enough knowledge’. When will an ustaz ‘know enough’ such that the ustaz is always right? When will a political leader ‘know enough’ such that he knows - and can centrally plan for - what is best for society as a whole? When will anyone ‘know enough’?

Libertarians generally take human beings as reason-guided creatures. Present to the people sound arguments, and they will judge rationally. There is no need to plan from the centre. Central planning only takes away our ability to use our mind - the most valuable gift from God. The principles of market solutions, personal choice, small state, democracy, etc, are mainly natural outcomes of this optimistic view of mankind as reason-guided creatures.

On the other hand, heavy-handed principles like absolute obedience and unquestioning serfdom take away from mankind their ability to think. When people stop thinking and stop questioning, totalitarian leaders will have a party.

So, sapere aude! 

———-

Talking about freedom of speech, agaknya arahan melarang myself daripada dijemput untuk bercakap masih valid ke? (kena gam!) I thought the problem of ‘tak ada permit’ only exist in Malaysia. Rupa-rupanya bawak sampai ke UK!

———- 
 

Several have been asking me what I meant by “incompetent, corrupt and untrustworthy” in my last post. The main question was on the term “corrupt”. It turns out that the other two terms are easily attributable. To explain what I was referring to, let me tell a story of a make-believe organisation. As I write this entry, I am very aware that I am only addressing a very specific set of readers.

This is a story of an imaginary organisation. Let us call it organisation X. It calls itself an “Islamic” organisation and those leading it enjoy some level of respect. Just like the tukang urut, some of them know exactly how to make people trust them.

At the national level, organisation X has a two-layer management structure - the highest level is the unelected Board, and the next one down is the elected executive committee. The Board is headed by a Chair, while the executives by a President. Being unelected, the Board enjoys some level of immunity from questioning.

Upon seeing their authority and influence seeping away, the Board one day realised that they needed to do something. They decided that anyone who might challenge their authority or challenge their trustworthiness must be removed. The Chair of the Board decided to act. He had to act quickly because an election is looming and ‘his people’ are at risk of being voted out.

What did he do? He decided to put pressure on other candidates to pull out from the elections. First, he phoned up the candidate challenging the incumbent President. He asked the candidate to pull put because ‘there are invisible hands working behind the scene’. He said that it is not possible for this candidate to rise up so fast unless ’someone is doing something behind the scene’. Of course, the talk is peppered with words like ‘maslahah jamaah’ every now and then. Not only is this an insult to the candidate’s ability, it also shows the level of paranoia of the Board.  The candidate refused to pull out.

Not satisfied, the Board continued to put pressure on candidates up to the very last minute. On the very night before elections, the Board called up the candidates for the two top posts - President and Deputy President. Again, they were urged to pull out so that the Board’s preferred candidate - the incumbent - would win unopposed. Various arguments were put forward. As expected, words like ‘maslahah jamaah’, ‘untuk kebaikan semua’ etc etc were splashed all over the session. Still, the candidates decided to remain.

Having failed to make the candidate withdraw, the Board - or, should I say, the Chair? -tried a different game. Perhaps feeling desperate, they tried to mislead the election committee into believing that the two candidates have agreed to withdraw. Of course, the candidates actually did not. Luckily once more, the plot was uncovered and the elections went ahead with the election.

Now, that was what I was referring to when I wrote about ‘corruption’. There are people who openly and unashamedly abuse their positions to pursue their own political agenda. When people abuse their positions for personal agenda, THAT IS CORRUPTION, even though they might say “Ana tidak ada kepentingan peribadi dan hanya buat semua ini untuk kebaikan jamaah”.

What worries me is the fact that many people know about situations like this. They still tolerate it. If it were me, I would firstly expose their dirty scams, and at the same time openly urge these corrupt people to step down immediately. They do not deserve to be protected, and they have lost all dignity to be in leading posts.

I see three possibilities. Either many people are happy to be ruled by corrupt leaders and therefore whatever these people say about wanting to get rid of corruption are sheer hypocrisy, or they simply do not have the guts to speak up, or they just can’t be bothered.

But then again, of course, this is a make-believe organisation. Otherwise, surely someone would have stood up and said something! We are all principled, aren’t we? Sebesar-besar jihad ialah……?

On that note, I think David Cameron made an excellent point in the last PMQ. When questioning Tony Blair about what he thinks cabinet government would be like under Gordon Brown, Cameron said:

I asked the Prime Minister a question about Cabinet government, but he will not answer, so let us ask the Cabinet. Who thinks that they will have more of a say round the Cabinet table when the Chancellor takes over? Come on—hands up! Is not that the problem—they all know it is going to be dreadful, but none of them has the guts to do anything about it?

Have you seen the tukang urut adverts in Malaysia? How do they try to convince potential customers? They wear a jubah, a serban, and a little goatee. Lady tukang uruts don a tudung even when advertising ‘urut batin untuk lelaki’. To give a slightly more modern outlook, they put a picture of themselves holding a mobile phone. The more mobile phones they have, the more modern they seem to be. The more telephone numbers they have, the more ‘accessible’ they are! Some people may say “Of course he is not lying….. he looks like a serious Muslim”.

Try looking at how some leaders in our society behave. To hide their (or perhaps, our?) incompetence, they would say “if you have criticisms, please send it directly to me or my committee members. It is in the interest of our society (maslahah jamaah) that we deal with it through the official mechanism”. The hidden message is, if you know of their incompetence, do not let others know about it. Instead, use the mechanism that they and their friends devised so that only they and their friends know about it. Don’t tell anybody else because that may cause a revolt. Just tell them so that they can sweep it under their carpets. And…. wait for it…. they would say that this is , of course, in the interest of our society (maslahah jamaah).

I was talking to a friend the yesterday. He tried to convince me that if a Muslim leader makes a decision which I am not comfortable with, I should keep quiet because it is a matter of ijtihad. The other person may be right, and I may be right too. Or we could both be wrong. But because one person is in a position of leadership, we should not say anything that could damage him ‘for the sake of the society’.

My answer was “I am sorry, mate. That is the very double-standard that keeps corrupt hypocritical people in power!” I said to him, if the coming-from-different-angles argument were to be applied to Malaysia, then he should not criticise any politicians who are not in PAS (he is a PAS supporter). The BN politicians come from a different angle, and he comes from a different angle. Using my friend’s own logic,  he should not say anything against Barisan Nasional because they are merely using different perspectives. Speaking up could damage our country’s leadership and our society.

Of course, my friend disagrees. He said that I should not apply the same moral standards to Barisan Nasional and PAS members. He said, PAS and UMNO are different. My answer was, “I am sorry, mate. That is the very double-standard that keeps incompetent, corrupt, and hypocritical people in power.” It is easy to be obsessed with the munkar that we see outside, while turning a blind eye to the munkar pervasive amongst us. We advertise everybody else’s wrong-doings, but when it happens to us, let us keep it hush hush.

In short, the term ‘in the interest of our society’ or in Arabic ‘maslahah jamaah’ can be abused simply because many of us are either gullible or scared stiff to speak up. Many have been indoctrinated with the belief that we have to look after the interest of the society even if that means tolerating incompetent, untrustworthy, corrupt leaders.

The world is full with such people. If we look just over the last few months, there have been cases where the people in charge of running elections were pressurized by higher powers, their decision was changed by the powers above, candidates were pressurized to withdraw by the powers that be. And what do we do? We keep the power-abusers in place.

And how many times have you heard the powers that be saying “we are open to criticism and suggestion, but all criticisms and ideas seharusnya disampaikan terus kepada kami sama ada melalui email, melalui telefon atau apa-apa medium komunikasi lain yang sesuai, bukan kepada umum kerana kita perlu menjaga keharmonian”? 

What they did not openly say was, please do not tell others about their incompetence and corruption because that would tarnish their reputation! If these people were to become politicians, they would perhaps be the first people to destroy freedom of press for fear of being exposed. Rest assured a few Arabic phrases and Quran verses will be sprinkled into the justification. Abusing Islam is the best way to gain trust from us Muslims. Even the tukang urut knew that!

Keeping these incompetent, corrupt and untrustworthy people in place is only a reflection of our own weaknesses. No wonder we are in such a mess. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Of course there are honest people out there. Unfortunately the abuse by some damages many. Kerana nila setitik, rosak susu sebelanga.

I look forward to seeing a change, and to seeing how serious new faces want to bring change.

Next issue, if I feel like it: How some people attempted to sweep mistakes under the carpet (to protect their reputations), and how weak leaders took hours to ‘consider’ the blatantly corrupt proposition.  
 

I was hoping to write about my search for Ibn Khaldun’s house in Fez back in November 2006. Yes, after three days of asking (mainly using sign language) around, I did find the house and took some pictures. I also visited the house of Maimonides.

But it is becoming increasingly difficult to find time to blog. Twenty four hours is not enough. I struggle to find time to jot anything worth publishing.

So, I am going to take some time off blogging.

My first day at the Conservatives Research Department today. An extremely good day!

Officially, I am on the DTI team. But the work (even on the first day) is very varied. I can’t go into the details for confidentiality reasons, but suffice to say that my longer term responsibility is to assist with policy on social enterprise. But I also had a look into nuclear policy and the party’s stand on Hamas. On top of that, I helped coordinate the intelligence gathering process for the local elections, and did some work that may be useful in tomorrow’s Prime Minister’s Question.

If there is time, which I don’t think there will be, I may go out campaigning tomorrow.

I had a (very) long telephone conversation last night about why Conservatives, and not Labour.

My decision is based on the answer to one question: "Which party is best for Britain?"

If you compare this, this and this, I think it is obvious that smaller state, greater trust and freedom to the people (to look after local services, the environment, the local community, etc) lower taxation, and stronger economy will bring the most benefits to everyone living in this country.

I was repeatedly asked why not the LibDems? They were the one who went all out to oppose the Iraq invasion. My answer to this question is, I do not support a party based on just one decision they may have made. To argue that everyone must go with the LibDems just because of their policy on Iraq is extremely short-sighted.

And then there was the compulsory question "Isn't Labour more friendly to the Muslims?". To that question, my answer is that being friendly to Muslims is not necessarily being friendly to Islam, nor does it imply that they are doing the right thing. Muslims and Islam are two different entities. Do not confuse the two terms for Muslims are not necessarily Islamic (should I give an example of how a Muslim can use Islam as a veil for devious behaviour?).