:
Lajim Ukin’s hesitancy to quit Umno altogether has left the Umno corridors seething and the local grapevine buzzing over his real intentions.
On the cards are Chief Minister Musa Aman’s future, Lajim’s “close” alliances with Anwar Ibrahim and Shafie Apdal whose loyalty to Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Mukriz Mahathir and former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad is now common knowledge.
Strangely enough, for all his words against Musa, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and other “incapable” Umno leaders, there’s no talk of Lajim not having a future in Umno.
A source close to the Lajim-Shafie circle recently told FMT that Lajim “will force Najib’s hand”.
“He’s going to force Najib’s hand now. He wants Najib to keep his word and force Musa to step down… let’s see what happens,” the source had said in a text message last Friday night.
The comment was somewhat confirmed when Lajim announced his “conditional” withdrawal from Umno at a buka puasa gathering last night.
Lajim declared that he was quitting his positions in the Umno supreme council and his Beaufort division, but “will remain as Umno member and deputy minister”.
He also said: “I am disappointed with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak who promised to make changes to the Sabah Barisan Nasional leadership but has not done anything until now.
“I can no longer be a Yes Man in BN. I am firm with my stand to pressure the state and the federal governments to develop Sabah.”
Lajim also said that he will leave it to the Umno supreme council and Najib to decide on his membership and party respectively.
But observers here think it’s unlikely that Lajim will be sacked from the party because “he has friends in very high places”.
Arm-twisting Najib
Shafie is an influential member of the Umno supreme council and is being “mentored” by deputy Umno president Muhyiddin, who is strongly linked to Mahathir.
Many believe that the Umno supreme council is so deeply divided that Najib has lost control and that Mahathir was now calling the shots, but from deep behind the scenes.
Lajim’s arm-twisting of Najib to act against Musa is seen as a “final” act of sorts in view of the impending general election.
Speculations are rife that Najib will call for election in September just after Malaysia Day and before Hari Raya Haji in October. But alongside these rumours are views that his wife may just convince him to complete his term as prime minister first.
Shafie is eyeing the Sabah chief minister’s post and for now Musa is in the way.
Over the past months, there have been a steady rise in attacks against Musa. Political observers here believe that they are engineered by Shafie’s hidden hands.
In fact speculations here are that even the initial disclosures of Musa’s foreign accounts and allegations of money laundering were allegedly engineered by Shafie via his emissaries in PKR.
Interestingly enough, Lajim is also “closely” associated with Anwar, who was with him last night.
Those in the know of Lajim’s political history have been flogging the fact that it was Anwar who, in 1994, allegedly “bought” and brought Lajim into Umno resulting in the PBS government’s downfall.
Anwar was at the time the deputy prime minister.
Musa’s downfall
This time too observers are foreseeing a downfall – Musa’s – again courtesy of Lajim,who was once a Sabah deputy chief minister.
Anwar has allegedly promised Lajim a chief ministership if Pakatan Rakyat wins most of the seats in Sabah.
Yesterday, Anwar, who was present at Tuaran MP Wilfred Bumburing’s function to announce his withdrawal from Upko and BN, said that Sabah would spring “more surprises” and the exit of Bumburing was only the beginning.
He lauded Bumburing and Lajim’s decision to stand up against BN’s corrupt pratices and urged Sabahans to vote out the ruling coalition.
Bumburing, meanwhile, said that although he “loved Upko very, very much”, he could “no longer support BN”.
Yesterday, Bumburing launched a new entity, Sabah Reform Movement, which he announced will be aligned to Pakatan.
Lajim and Bumburing are supportive of Anwar’s agenda.
Incidentally, both MPs were allegedly on the list of defectors to PKR in Anwar’s now infamous Sept 16, 2008, threat to take over Putrajaya.
Whether or not they are still acceptable to Sabahans in general is debatable
But what is interesting is the political cauldron in Sabah and what’s in it.
The question now is whether Anwar and PKR are bedding Umno to secure both their futures.
Najib, Muhyiddin, Hishamuddin, Rais, Khairy, now this idiot. Talk about a mob mentality. An idiotic mob, in this case. Are they collectively smoking something? Or are all of them suffering from neurosyphilis at the same time? Before you make an allegation towards other i always belief mirror yourself first.. For the past 51 years what did Umno did to Islam And Malay? Still behind chinese in education, Still behind chinese in business, Still behind the world in democratic,still behind the world in everything something you cannot do in 50 years you ask us to do it in 10 years or one year Shafie Apdal i been to semporna.. still the same banyak pengemis like usual 20 years back why lah u cannot do u ask people do? ‘worst than animal’type of behaviour.NEver again must Malaysians elect such thugs to our highest office.We can be wrong once but not twice!THE PIG IS THE MOST SHAMELESS ANIMAL ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. IT IS THE ONLY ANIMAL THAT INVITES ITS FRIENDS TO HAVE SEX WITH ITS MATE. IN AMERICA, MOST PEOPLE CONSUME PORK. MANY TIMES AFTER DANCE PARTIES, THEY HAVE SWAPPING OF WIVES; I.E. MANY SAY “YOU SLEEP WITH MY WIFE AND I WILL SLEEP WITH YOUR WIFE.” IF YOU EAT PIGS THEN YOU BEHAVE LIKE PIGS. WE INDIANS LOOK UPON AMERICA TO BE VERY ADVANCED AND SOPHISTICATED. WHATEVER THEY DO, WE FOLLOW AFTER A FEW YEARS. ACCORDING TO AN ARTICLE IN ISLAND MAGAZINE, THIS PRACTICE OF SWAPPING WIVES HAS BECOME COMMON IN THE AFFLUENT CIRCLES OF BOMBAY
UMNO is Intellectually bankrupt! All they have is their own malaise to inflict the creator. This is the simple Law of Nature ,as they touch they die the same way from the inside. The root of it all is the magic word—MONEY!!These characteristics have become part and parcel of the new generation that walk the streets at all levels .One example is Saiful’s own father taking his son to take an oath in a mosque immaculately dressed like it was a a graduation ceremony at an Ivy League College. What a pitiful facade for the young of the NationYou are looking at a different pot with the same taste of poisonous soup. Anything that has linkage to MM cannot be good for the Rakyat. The proofs are all written on the wall by the unrepentant,evil and recalcitrant characters of the old MM racist dictatorship. You don’t have to listen to what he said, you can even smell the evilness of his every move, just to protect his smelly skeletons filled closet.
For 52 years "the Malays should honestly ask themselves what the umno has done for the advancement of the Malays and Islam in the country?" Answer: creating an elite group of themselves which corrupt n rich with haram monies n sombong without any respect for the constitutions n simple law of the country.
the Malays would realise that none of the opposition parties, whether PAS or Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), was capable of defending the sovereignty of the race, religion and country from these bunch of people by themselves; SO remember n jangan senang lupa , VOTE them out next GE.
At lease the people of PAS n PKR are better if not the best muslim than the "Apdal" type.the current UMNO government involved in rampant corruption, power abuse, deceiving rakyat of true democratic institution that we deserved. So far though we have these so-called developments throughout the years, the quality of life in Malaysia has deterioted to such an alarming level. We were being forced to be constantly cautious and alert of our surroundings no matter where we are due to the extremely high crime rate, all your cronies projects causes every household to suffer, each time we step out from the house we are being robbed of our hard earned money - tol here and there, poor town planning and transportation system, road congestion, those fearful law enforcers (PDRM, Municipal councils, MACC etc) who we see as another 'tax agent' that would find any tiny fault to squeeze us of our money for their 'kopi' and the list goes on and on. Are you from other planet, you didn't know how do we live everyday? Are we suppose to be grateful?? PTUUUI!! and what have UMNO done for Malays and the nation as a whole? Pakatan has never being given a chance to rule even after 308 with all your BN evil deeds and defamatory attacks but still they did the right thing. What BN did for the past 52 years (if those are the good things done) was a responsibility given to you as the government of the day and you have shortchanged us by not doing good enough. Lets Pakatan takes over, we'll judge for ourselves, not you. You are not qualified to do so.
So hard to understand this meh, YB? Ok la, in other words tell us facts la not political rhetoric.
That's the trouble with Malaysian politicians. Isn't it? Always shoot mouth before engaging brains. They always tell us that they are going to do SOMETHING but they never tell us what that something is. Guess la. Hahahahahaha...... Which of course gives rise to speculations, suspicion, distrust......stirs racial sentiments......
And then Najib makes one final, really TOO LAN (ask someone to explain this Hokkein expression if you don't get it) statement...
"As I had said before, we will be fair to all, we will not take away or deny the rights of the other communities." But then... Najib said he would also ensure that nobody would deny the Malays their rights."I will continue to champion the Malay agenda. Let there be no one, whether in or outside this convention hall, question this".
Many words saying absolutely NOTHING.
I flew into "jealousy" when I found Mahathir's "Zaid Ibrahim dan Bayaran Ex-Gratia " attracts hundreds of praises such as "hidup seribu tahun". The article looks lacking any substance. However, remembering this is the work of the mother of all manipulators, I think there is reason for its simpleton and twisted logic. So, let me "impersonate" Mahathir in order to view from his eyes. However, I choose to impersonate not one but three Mahathir's as a way to up the ante for twisting the logic. Mahathir is accusing Mahathirs as the following:
1. Saya bersetuju dengan Mahathir I, bekas (mantan) Perdana Menteri bahawa memecutkan hakim-hakim tertinggi adalah bersesuaian jika dibanding dengan menfitnah and membelasah No.2 oleh Mahathir II maha berkuasa dan termuka di negara ini seketika dulu.2. Bahawa Mahathir II membelasahkan No.2 hampir separuh mati amat memberangsangkan saya. Jelas sekali saya telah pilih taktik yang salah kerana saya hanya membuang jawatan hakim-hakim sahaja. Ini tentulah kerana kezaliman saya tidak sehebat Mahathir II, wallahua'lam.
3. Dakwaan Mahathir II, bekas Perdana Menteri tentang pendapatan kroni-kroni tentulah diasaskan kepada pengetahuan dan pengalaman beliau sebagai perdana menteri yang mempunyai 100+ member-member kabinet. Saya tidak pernah baca berkenaan Mahathir II, bekas Perdana Menteri berniaga sementara berfungsi sebagai ketua negara. Jadi saya tertanya-tanya daripada manakah datangnya pendapatan yang lumayan bagi keluarganya dan sudah tentu dirinya sendiri.
4. Apakah mungkin pendapatan yang tinggi dan banyak ini datang daripada urusan-urusan berkaitan dengan penswastaan Kerajaan dan lain-lain keperluan "contract" Kerajaan? Ini sangkaan saya sahaja. Jika tidak benar tunjuk bukti yang ianya tidak benar.
5. Jika benar patutkah bekas Perdana Menteri ini tutup mata pencarian yang lumayan ini kepada perdana menteri Bumiputera yang lain kerana ingin dikenali sebagai seorang wira Melayu yang tolak kronisma dengan peluang-peluang untuk Bumiputera?
6. Apa perlunya dasar-dasar kronisma selepas kita sudah sampai ke atas? Buang sahajalah supaya orang lain tidak mendapat manfaat daripadanya.
7. UMNO presidential council sedang menggamit. Tempat tertentu boleh dikosongkan supaya calon baru dapat mengisinya. Duit tak penting. Apabila pendapatan sudah sebanyak berbillion-billion siapa perlu jawatan Perdana Menteri yang tidak menjanjikan pendapatan yang setanding?
8. Sesungguhnya politik adalah cahaya yang terang yang dapat mendedahkan banyak yang tersembunyi dan tidak ternampak atau diketahui dahulu.
9. Dalam cahaya politik yang terang-benderang kita dapat lihat dan kenal ramai orang yang kita tidak kenal dahulu.
Father of all Malaysian thieves, liars and murderers telling us how his kind of thievery works...
Whether Zaid Ibrahim comes into the picture or not the rakyat knew who engineered the sacking of the judges and who stripped the sultans of their powers. In short the culprit responsible for the fiasco is none other than the recalcitrant PM who rule for 22 years.
Stop talking how much people benefit from ?
Ask yourself how much you took from being a PM.
TDM, Have you conveniently forget about stealing the country's money by way through your children by the hundreds of RM millions?
if santa claus is real,i would not opt for his chrismas present but i would definitely request him to help n clear this selfish hypocritical tyrant old lizard that speak with split tongue for his own agenda from this planet!the earlier the better!!he is everything for self gain
.
How can the father of all thieves, liars and murderers remember all his types of thievery?
Oh my goodness. . . , this MM is questioning other peoples' income! May we ask you than, how many Billions RM you have stolen from us during the 22 years you ruled this country? May we be given the opportunity to know how much money you have stashed in the Cayman, Bahamas , Argentina Argentina
don't be a hypocrite. At least what a top lawyer earns, is up front. What you used to earn was RM240,000 up front and maybe RM? millions in backhanders and commissions. You definitely will be made responsible for all the haram money as well as your infamous behaviour when you get hauled up to face the Al Mighty when your time comes. So don't be such a hypocrite la.
the old man should just shut up!
I do hope the son makes it at the UMNO elections....so that everything this family stole from Malaysians will be constantly in the news....2 million a year for a good lawyer....he earned it .....not like father and son who stole it directly from the public.
One of the richest PM in the world earning only RM240,000 per annum???How can he accumulated billions of USD??? Did he obtained consent from World Bank to operates printing firm to print currency at Kubang Pasu, Kedah???
SM Lee Kuan Yew was told that his pay was the highest among the other ministers in the ASEAN countries. He replied "Yes, but I am the poorest amongst them!" Now I wonder why he said that?
Tun said: “It is clear I have chosen the wrong career because a prime minister only gets RM240,000 a year.”
'Poor' man. He only earned Rgt 240,000 per year! Assuming that this was his final year's pay, the poor guy must have been "struggling" to pay his income tax, educate his children, buy a decent home, drive a simple car and live a simple life. Based on my own experience and my observation of others, Rgt 240K per year, less income tax, life insurance permium, housing loan, car loan, etc. will leave little saving. Having earned such a 'low' salary, the 'poor' ex-PM must be living in a double-storey semi-detached house, at best, and driving a Proton Perdana. His children must have gone to local schools and universities (because that is what he could afford on his low salary to educate all his children), and they must be struggling to make a living - no boost or a helping hand from their ex-PM father. It is understandable why the poor Tun is so angry. After having worked so hard, this is all Dr. Mahathir could achieve for himself and his family. In the meanwhile, a certain Mr. Hyde has acquired luxurious homes in Mines, Country Heights
Yes, Dr. Mahathir - you have chosen the wrong career of being a PM. Your vitriolic criticism of Zaid indicates that you have deceived yourself and Malaysians in remaining as a PM and earning a mere Rgt 240K per year, while others were earning millions in other jobs. From your statement, it is clear that money is what drives you, not the opportunity to serve the nation and build a great country.
Please do not respond to TDM about how much who earns and who should join PKR. Be focus on the issue of unfair dismissal of judges. Don't let him change the subject.............
thats right.when you hear the worst MM fight with his own UMNO goons we get to know how greedy and hipocritic they ALL are. Even being shot to death a thousand times simply not enough for all these Ketuanan UMNO hipocrites.
So what is the answer?
Words as empty as that plastic smileNow read that statement again. NEP elements will not be abolished but liberalised in STAGES.
As an ordinary Malay what would you be thinking after your read or hear that from your Prime Minister Here's what I think Malay will think...
Bumiputra: What the fuck!!! How dare they even think of treading on our RIGHTS!
Get rid of leaders that enrich themselve at the expense of the inrterest of your communities. Just look at the wealth amsssed by UMNO crook . These despicable people, have no moral, no honour, they will sell the interest of their country and community in order to enrich themselves. They have swindled you for decades. No matter how much of thier wrong doing and corrupt practice have been exposed, they are protected from the law. These crook hyena leaders have a heinounous evil pact with UMNO governemnt -- as long as you submit the interest of SABAH to UMNO government, you can get away with any thing, this is their deal.PR with their decent members and honourable leaders, will lead and educate the new generation of MAlaysians, especially the Malay younger generation, to see the danger and perils of the country is facing , to stand up, to do their utmost to bury BN/UMNO
The state of UMNO politics?THIS IS MALAYSIA’S MALAY SUPREMACY AT ALL COSTS BUT GOING DOWN THE SEWERS WITH NARJIS, THE NEW PRIME MINISTER AFTER THE 51ST YEAR OF INDEPENDENCE. The Malay people can see through Umno's charade and pathetic tribal posturing while the Umnoputras loot the nation dry. The Terengganu people know who has stolen their money and imposed an embargo on them. They know what happened to the royalty and how billions went up in smokes.When Dr Mahathir took over power, he emphasised Ketuanan Melayu. Racial division became the modus operandi of BN during his tenure. It was Dr Mahathir who in fact gloated that Umno could rule Malaysia Malaysia
country if they wanted to prosper and live peacefully.He rewrote Malaysian history, selectively applied the 1957 constitution and encouraged a racist agenda in the civil service
This is 'Mahathirism' in short - a Machiavellian ploy to exploit race and religion for financial gain and power. Dr Mahathir is shameless in his duplicity and the only reason why he was able to succeed was because he was a leader of a feudally minded people who were economically and educationally backward. His Machiavellian psychological ploy was to engender a tongkat mentality in the Malay community to make them loyal to Umno.
Chandra Muzaffar
Kuala Lumpur
Morality in Public Life: the Challenge Facing Muslims
Muslims, more than perhaps most people, should be able to appreciate the importance of morality in public life. And yet most states established in the name of Islam, have failed miserably to uphold basic standards of public morality. What explains this huge paradox? How can we bridge this yawning chasm between the ideals we are conscious of and the realities that confront us? How will globalisation help or hinder our efforts to imbue public life with moral values and principles?
Example
If Muslims should have no difficulty in empathising with the idea of morality in public life it is partly because the Prophet Muhammad (May Peace be Upon Him) is the only prophet in history who established a state guided by moral values derived from religion. Through his own example as a Ruler and an Administrator, he laid down the axioms and precepts of governance.[1] He demonstrated through his exemplary leadership how a person entrusted with high office should conduct himself in the public arena.
The Prophet’s lofty standards inspired the four righteous Caliphs and his other Companions to adhere to the virtues he cherished in public life. A commitment to justice, a profound sense of fairness, devotion to the cause of the poor, a readiness to seek the views of the people, and the ability to select upright, capable individuals to manage the affairs of the state, were some of the attributes of leadership associated with Caliphs such as Umar Ibn Khattab and Ali Ibn Abu Talib. As Caliph Ali put it in his famous epistle to Malik Ashtar, whom he had just appointed as Governor of Egypt: …. “the richest treasure that you may covet should be the treasure of good deeds …. Maintain justice in administration and impose it on your own self and seek the consent of the people, for the discontent of the masses sterilises the contentment of the privileged few and the discontent of the few loses itself in the contentment of the many …. So live in close contact with the masses and be mindful of their welfare.”[2]
Ali also cautioned the governor to observe rectitude in his conduct, especially in matters related to integrity and probity. He advised him to, “Make it a rule of your conduct never to give even a small piece of land to any of your relations. That will prevent them from causing harm to the interests of others and save you from courting the disapprobation of both God and man. Deal justice squarely regardless of the fact whether one is a relation or not. If any of your relations or companions violates the law, mete out the punishment prescribed by law however painful it might be to you personally: for it will be all to the good of the state.”[3]
Even after the period of the righteous Caliphs, there were Rulers who displayed superlative qualities of statesmanship in promoting the public good. The Umayyad Ruler, Umar Ibn Abd-ul Aziz and the liberator of Jerusalem, Salahuddin Al-Ayubi, would be just two such examples. While Umar’s passion for justice, especially in relation to the poor and downtrodden, was legendary, Salahuddin’s magnanimity towards his opponents has been etched in gold in the annals of history.
Rulers
It is because the righteous conduct of those vested with power and authority is so central to Muslim civilisation, that almost every illustrious Muslim philosopher of antiquity — from Al-Farabi and Al-Mawardi to Al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun — has given so much significance to the role of the Ruler in setting the moral tone and tenor of society.[4] Al-Ghazali, for instance, took the view that it is only through his virtues and not through his power or wealth, that a Ruler would be able to create a truly Islamic society.
The emphasis given to virtuous Rulers in Islamic thought, and the examples of honest and upright Rulers themselves, should not obscure us to the other side of Muslim history: the presence of countless Caliphs and Sultans who violated every moral code in their conduct of the affairs of state. They not only abused power and indulged in corrupt practices; many of them were utterly ruthless and incredibly cruel. In a sense, the contemptuous disregard for public morality began with Yazid, who succeeded Muawiya, who in turn usurped the power of the Caliphate in the wake of the assasination of Ali, the last of the four righteous caliphs. It is said that Yazid was, “A plilanderer, [who] defied every tenet of the Islamic faith. His short rule was marked by an ugly exhibition of greed and misuse of power.”[5]
There are many Yazids in the contemporary Muslim world. Even as they proclaim their determination to return to the pristine glory of the Quran and the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet), they transgress the most rudimentary moral principles of the religion. The ‘Islamic’ states that they claim to have established are often devoid of any semblance of allegiance to the values of justice and compassion which lie at the heart of the Sharia.
Ten Questions
We shall try to show how contemporary Islamic states in general have deviated from the accepted norms of morality in public life. We shall do this through an overview of sorts of different states, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan, without going into any detail. To provide a structure to our analysis, we shall evaluate governance in these states by asking ten questions which are related in one way or another to some of the cardinal moral positions on leadership, government and authority embodied in the Quran and the Sunnah.
One, have Islamic states made sincere efforts to alleviate poverty and improve the lot of the downtrodden?[6]
Two, have Islamic states sought to curb opulence and ostentation among their elites?
Three, does any Islamic state show any promise of reducing the gap between the ‘have-a-lot’ and the ‘have-a-little’?[7]
Four, have Islamic governments made a serious attempt to check abuse of power and eradicate elite level corruption?[8]
Five, how many Islamic governments are prepared to investigate and expose sexual misdemeanours among the elites themselves, without any pressure from the people or from other quarters?
Six, how many Islamic states uphold the rule of law and respect the independence of the judiciary?[9]
Seven, do contemporary Islamic governments observe the canons of public accountability?
Eight, do Islamic governments make it a practice to consult their citizens on laws, policies and programmes meant for them”?[10]
Nine, do Islamic governments regard it as their cardinal duty to protect and preserve the freedom and responsibility of the human being to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong?[11]
Ten, are there Islamic states which are totally committed to protecting and enhancing the rights of non-Muslims, on the basis of the principle that we are all human beings?[12]
Poverty; Opulence
If, for a start, we reflected on the record of certain Islamic states in the eradication of poverty, we would be grossly disappointed. Afghanistan and Sudan, for instance, are among the poorest countries in the world. Though their inability to combat poverty effectively in the last two or three decades is understandable — Afghanistan was a victim of external aggression and foreign occupation and was later embroiled in a civil war while Sudan continues to face an armed rebellion in the south — it appears that both countries have chosen to accord greater importance to proving their Islamic credentials than to attending to some of the basic needs of their people. For the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan ensuring that the poor are fed, clothed and housed is not a priority, compared to enforcing an ultra-conservative, even an unIslamic, dress code upon women.[13] Similarly, the elite in Khartoum are more deeply enmeshed in factional feuds than in addressing the problem of health care for the poor in the vast rural hinterland.
Of course, there are Islamic states which have succeeded in reducing absolute poverty, improving the life expectancy of the people and in raising the standard of education. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, among other such states, have chalked up these achievements largely because of their massive petroleum wealth. But even some of these countries, given their economic prosperity, could have done much more to better the lives of their people.[14]
Besides, the elite in almost all these oil-rich states, supposedly based upon the Sharia, are distinguished by their opulent lifestyles and their ostentatious display of wealth.[15] Luxurious palaces at home and lavish shopping sprees abroad have earned them the unsavoury reputation of ‘decadent Arab Sheikhs’. It is because so much of oil wealth which by right should belong to the people is controlled by an elite that the gap between the have-a-lot and the have-a-little is so stark in countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain.
Corruption; Sex
Just as ruling elites in a number of Islamic states are not inclined towards redistributing wealth in an equitable manner, so are they reluctant to fight corruption and abuse of power, especially within the upper echelons of society. Allegations of corruption on the part of influential wielders of power in both rich and poor Islamic states have been circulating for a long time.[16] Even elements within the religious elite stratum of the Islamic Republic of Iran — it has been suggested — are not averse to dipping their hands into the public coffers.
To these allegations of corruption, one should add the lurid tales of sexual escapades involving the elites of certain Islamic states.[17] True or not, there have been very few instances of highly placed Saudi or Kuwaiti public personalities, alleged to have committed some sexual wrongdoing, being prosecuted in a court of law. On the other hand, one often comes across cases of some ordinary citizen or some foreign worker in these and other states, being stoned to death for adultery or being subjected to some other form of punishment for some sexual crime or other.
Law; Judiciary
An even more significant illustration of the lack of genuine commitment to moral standards in public life would be the general Islamic elite attitude towards the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. If justice and equality for all, without discrimination is one of the cornerstones of the concept of the rule of law, then there is perhaps not a single Islamic state today that fulfils this criterion. It is not just institutionalised discrimination against women and non-Muslim minorities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan and Iran that makes a mockery of the rule of law; it is the manner in which the law is often applied to protect elite interests which is equally disturbing. Needless to say, one of the main reasons why this happens is because the judiciary, whose independence is a cherished canon of Islamic jurisprudence, is invariably under the thumb of the ruling elite.
Accountability; Participation
It follows from this that there are very few Islamic governments that are accountable to the people. Even the most elementary expression of accountability, namely, ruling with the consent of the people — consent obtained through democratic elections — is alien to most governments that call themselves ‘Islamic’. Sometimes, a religious elite imposes its rule upon the masses as a consequence of a civil war — as in the case of Afghanistan. True to form, the Taliban has erected a harsh, dogmatic, authoritarian system of governance which denies the people any say in the affairs of the nation.[18] It is this system which it defends in the name of ‘a pure and pristine’ Islam.
Most other Islamic states also do not encourage free, active political participation on the part of the citizenry. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is run by a family, buttressed by an appointed advisory council, the Majlis. Kuwait is also helmed by a royal family, with a parliament elected by only male voters serving as its prop. A family dynasty is in power in Bahrain as is also the case with Qatar.
It is perhaps only Iran that allows some space and scope for popular participation in the political process. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has, on a regular basis, and, in the most trying circumstances, held parliamentary and local elections. However, the people’s ability to shape their destiny is severely hampered by an individual and an institution that sit at the apex of the system. The Supreme Spiritual Leader exercises direct or indirect authority over the Judiciary, the Executive and even Parliament. The armed forces are under his command. There is also a Council of Guardians, the Wilayat-e-Faqih comprising leading Islamic jurists who are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that state legislation, policies and even crucial appointments are in line with Islam as interpreted by the Council. The power that the Council and the Supreme Leader wield curbs and curtails the will of the people, as it is becoming even more obvious now, in the aftermath of the recent Presidential election.[19] Though the reform minded Mohamed Khatami secured 77 percent of the popular vote, he has been hindered and impeded at every turn and corner from implementing policies which would ensure that the state is more accountable and the people have greater political and social freedom by a religious elite bent on perpetuating its grip over the levers of power.
Good; Evil
Clerical power, in that sense, is a repudiation of the freedom of the human being to ‘enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong’ of his own volition, as an individual, or through cooperation with other human beings. This right, nay responsibility, that is embodied in the Noble Quran, is part and parcel of that larger trust that the human being is expected to fulfil as vicegerent — a trust he/she had agreed to bear at the time of creation. It is ironical that it is in Islamic states which have vowed to uphold the Quran and the Sunnah that the human being’s responsibility to truth and justice, embodied in a pledge to Allah, should be usurped by the religious elite!
It is not just in Iran that there is this usurpation of the human being’s role and responsibility. The Taliban, who have appointed public officials to ensure that good prevails and evil is eradicated in matters of personal morality, have been even more doctrinaire in their interpretation of Islamic rules and regulations. Indeed, in every state where religious elites are preponderantly powerful they have become the custodians of morality arrogating to themselves the sole privilege of interpreting the divine truth and thereby denying the individual the right to consciously understand, absorb, articulate and disseminate values pertaining to what is good and beautiful in life.[20]
Non Muslims
Because they have established a monopoly over the truth, the religious elites’ interpretation of each and every aspect of governance, insofar as it is linked to theology, is accepted as sacrosanct. Thus, in Afghanistan, the aborted attempt to distinguish the Hindu minority from the Muslim majority by requiring its members to carry yellow stickers in their pockets was regarded in certain Muslim circles outside that country as an Islamically correct injunction.[21] Though this may be an extreme example of religious bigotry, Islamic governments elsewhere have also not been as accommodative of non-Muslims as the religion demands. In Sudan, for instance, an underlying antagonism towards Christians and animists engendered by the Islamic revivalism of the last 30 years or so, has exacerbated inter-community relations. In Saudi Arabia, the ‘religious other’ is the invisible other whose right to practise and profess his faith is circumscribed by various dogmatic prohibitions imposed by the elite.
What explains all this? Why is it that on a whole spectrum of moral concerns — from the failure to accord priority to poverty eradication to the inability to ensure that justice is done to non-Muslim minorities — Islamic states have not been able to meet the standards set by the religion itself? To put it differently, why isn’t morality in public life one of the outstanding hallmarks of Islamic elites?
Self-interest
There is no doubt at all that narrow self-interest is one of the major reasons for the moral malaise of Islamic elites. If ostentation bolsters one’s ego, why should one be modest or humble? If corruption benefits one’s family, why should one be honest? If ruling with an iron hand is going to help perpetuate one’s power, why should one observe public accountability and encourage popular participation?
It is perhaps a little difficult to accept that self-interest defined in such a myopic manner could be so pronounced among elites presiding over an Islamic state. And yet we should not be surprised. Right through history, in Islamic as in non-Islamic societies, individuals and groups speaking and acting on behalf of religion have been known to pursue their own selfish interests at the expense of the well-being of the larger community. In Muslim history the pragmatic Muawiya was perhaps the first Ruler who was more inclined towards the selfish pursuit of his own interests rather than selfless service towards the poor and powerless.
Repression
Islamic elites, who are inordinately self-centred, it should be clearly understood, are as capable of resorting to the most ruthless and repressive methods of preserving and perpetuating their power as any of their non-Islamic counterparts. There are many instances of dissidents in Islamic states demanding accountability of the ruling elites being jailed, tortured, exiled and even assasinated.[22] It is a tragic commentary on the parlous state of affairs in Islamic societies that peaceful attempts to ensure that the government adheres to ethical principles are crushed mercilessly by the very people who profess to uphold morality in public life. The continuous use of strong arm tactics to destroy dissent and to obliterate legitimate opposition to the ruling elites is one of the factors responsible for the failure of Islamic states to emerge as beacons of lofty moral conduct.
As a result of this — the elimination of those seeking to make the ruling elite morally responsible and upright — the environment that has developed in a number of Islamic states makes it easier for governments to ignore or downplay fundamental moral concerns. It is an environment where there is no independent media to expose the elites’ opulence, no civil society organisations to reveal the corruption of the powerful, no autonomous judiciary to ensure that the Executive upholds the rule of law. In fact, most of the time, as we have alluded to obliquely, there are not even opposition political parties to keep the government on its toes. Parliament, when it exists, is sometimes so effete that even its presence goes unnoticed. When there are neither formal institutions nor informal forces in society to check the abuse of power, it is quite conceivable that the elites will not be compelled to ensure that moral standards are upheld.
Culture
It is not just the social milieu that is incapable of challenging Islamic elites to maintain a degree of moral uprightness. The elites know that the political culture that prevails in many of their societies allows them to perpetuate their power, without giving due consideration to the moral dimension of governance. The neo-feudal culture — a culture of unquestioning loyalty to authority expressed through the apparatus of the modern state — encourages the ruled to accept the dictates of the Ruler.[23] It is a culture that is rooted in the feudal ethos that developed within Muslim civilisation after the first four righteous caliphs. For long centuries in almost every Muslim empire, Rulers were regarded as sacrosanct, as infallible, the ’shadow of God on earth’. Sultans and Caliphs themselves sought assiduously to cultivate this feudal idea of kingship. Though there were principles in the Sharia which placed Rulers within the ambit of the law, in reality, they were more often than not above the law. To question them or to examine their conduct was an unforgivable act of sacrilege.
This feudal concept of the Ruler and of the relationship between Ruler and Ruled continues to exercise tremendous influence upon the Muslim mind. Even in states which claim to be based upon the Quran and Sunnah — such as Saudi Arabia — Rulers expect their people to be unquestioningly loyal to them. And the majority of the populace in turn are not inclined, culturally or psychologically, to subject their Rulers to scrutiny. Since a Ruler will not be questioned about his moral misdeeds — at least not by a significant segment of society — there is no compulsion on him to rectify his mistakes.
One can go further and argue that in so-called Islamic states where religious elites are integral to the power structure, this neo-feudal culture of uncritical acceptance of authority may even be stronger. This is because traditional Islamic scholarship on the whole (with the exception of some subordinate trends) emphasises unquestioning obedience to religious elites and slavish adherence to their edicts. In a situation where religion legitimises political power, it reinforces the culture of unquestioning loyalty to authority.
As an aside, it should be noted that in spite of the prevalence of this culture, the Iranian masses have revolted against rigid clerical strictures. In the first and only state established through an Islamic revolution in modern history, there is a popular challenge to the authority of the clerical elite in power. It is, in a sense, a challenge to the very notion of unquestioning loyalty to both religious and political elites. This is the larger significance of the movement for reform and freedom in Iran today to the Muslim world as a whole.
Approach to Morality
Apart from political culture, the environment, political repression and self-interest, the Islamic elites’ understanding of, and approach to, morality has also contributed towards the present situation — a situation where ethical standards in public life are found wanting. While these elites are aware that poverty, corruption, the absence of accountability and antipathy towards ‘the religious other’ are legitimate issues that should be addressed, they do not regard them as central to morality in public life. As we have hinted, women’s attire and other preoccupations of theirs, such as gender interaction, sexual norms, prohibition of liquor, hudud (Islamic criminal law) and the status of the murtad (apostate) are far more important to them in defining Islamic morality and identity. This is why every time an Islamic state is instituted, it is these aspects of the religion which are projected as the most urgent and immediate items on the agenda.
Why is this so? Why do Islamic states appear to adopt a tunnel vision of morality? There are perhaps a variety of explanations. We shall highlight a few of them.
Taqlid
One, the colonisation of the Muslim world by the West created a situation whereby Muslims lost control over various spheres of life. They could not apply the moral principles contained in the Sharia about politics and economics, for instance, to their societies since the colonial power in question was in command of those areas.[24] It was only in relation to rules and regulations pertaining to the individual, inter-gender relations and the family that Muslims had some say. They clung on to these in the hope that Islam as a faith linked to laws and precepts rooted in the Quran and Sunnah would be able to withstand the colonial onslaught.
In the post-colonial era, the Islamic elites, seeing themselves as the inheritors and defenders of the Islamic tradition have chosen to give prominence to rules and regulations, prescriptions and prohibitions, connected to the individual and family as they express themselves in Fiqh (rules and directives that constitute Islamic jurisprudence). Thus, female attire, relations between the sexes, the consumption of liquor and other similar concerns which are essential aspects of personal morality have become very important to the Islamic elites.
At this point one would be justified in asking: why didn’t the post-colonial religious elites operating in a different environment from their colonial predecessors, try to develop a contemporary Islamic jurisprudence in areas such as the economy or public administration, instead of merely preserving a tradition? One explanation is their tendency to just imitate, to regurgitate the past. This is the taqlid attitude which has dominated fiqh for centuries, ever since Western colonialism and perhaps even before that, in the aftermath of the Mongol invasions of 12th and 13 centuries that destroyed the great centuries of Islamic learning from Bokhara to Baghdad. It has been suggested that this traumatic experience for the Muslim world gave rise to a timid, conservative outlook which inter-alia, manifested itself in the fear of innovation and creativity in various spheres, including law and jurisprudence.[25]
It explains why contemporary Islamic jurists have failed to re-interpret the spirit of the Quran and the Sunnah with the aim of developing an all encompassing vision of morality. Consequently, they are obsessed “with the formalistic application of the penal law …”[26] … This approach evoked strong criticism from the distinguished Egyptian scholar, the late Sheykh Muhammad al-Ghazali more than 50 years ago. He observed that, “When Muslims recently awakened and resolved to return to Islam in their laws and beliefs they started their search for the truth at the wrong end, seeking to restore the branches [al-Furu] before the principals [al-usul]” Ghazali was of the view that “so long as the evils of despotism and economic disparities between the ruling rich and the masses persist in the Arabian Peninsula and so long as people are struggling to assure their sheer existence, there can be no talk of the application of Islam or the Sharia in these lands.”[27]
A formalistic, mechanistic approach to Islam and its laws which sidelines the fundamental challenges facing Muslims — itself a product of taqlid — is therefore one of the root causes of that narrow, limited view of morality prevalent in a number of so-called Islamic states.
Identity
Two, taqlid is also partly responsible for the preoccupation with the protection of what is perceived as Islamic identity. Here again, Western colonial rule had challenged the identity of the Muslim by erecting an infrastructure of power which repudiated the values and institutions that were the quintessence of Islamic civilisation. Western secular education in particular played a major role in the transformation of the Muslim’s outlook and orientation. Because the very worldview of the community had undergone such a drastic change, Islamic revivalists in the colonial period felt that preserving religious identity was vital to their struggle. However, given the taqlid approach to Islam, they interpreted identity in a somewhat superficial manner.
This is why after Independence, states claiming to be rooted in the Sharia have sought to emphasise those elements in Islamic identity that make them different and distinctive from the other. It is as if by asserting one’s uniqueness one is proclaiming one’s arrival to all and sundry. Thus, forms and symbols, rather than the essence and substance, of the religion have become overly important for the champions of an Islamic state. The hijab for women and to a lesser degree skull-caps and beards for men are today the defining symbols of Islamic identity.[28] Women, in particular, are perceived as the defenders of the religion’s identity and tradition. For women more than men, help to preserve what is distinctive in a certain culture or religion. Witness for instance, how women in many post-colonial Asian societies, whether Muslim or not, continue to use their own traditional attire even when doing office work in the cities while their menfolk don Western clothes. Since identity is linked to values and values are at the core of morality, women are expected to play a special role in upholding the moral code of the community. Hence the preoccupation among Islamic elites with protecting and safeguarding female morality.
The relationship between identity and morality is of course far more complex than what religious elites have made it out to be. A particular dress-form may reflect modesty — a highly cherished virtue in Islam — but attire alone does not prove that a person is modest. Modesty, like other character traits, evinces itself through actual deeds. By the same token, it is not a person’s attire but her conduct which determines whether she is morally upright or not.[29]
Power
Three, the Islamic elites’ perception of morality has also been shaped to some extent by the question of power.[30] As with the issues of taqlid and identity, it was colonialism which deprived Muslim rulers and societies of their legitimate power and authority. In re-establishing their place in the world after Independence, some Muslim groups — specifically Islamic elites and jurists — have chosen to fall back upon laws which in their thinking best illustrate the religion’s strength and might. This is perhaps why hudud has become so important in defining an Islamic state. It is seen as a measure of Islam’s ability to exercise authority, to command obedience, to prosecute and to punish. The same mentality is reflected in the interpretation of the law on murtad. For most Islamic states today, an apostate should be put to death. Islam, they opine, can protect its moral integrity only by imposing capital punishment on those who leave the faith.[31]
If the moral ballast of Islam is dependent upon its power to punish then these Islamic states have done a terrible disservice to the religion’s concept of morality. Islamic morality, as we have indicated, is not only all-embracing; it has to be brought to fruition through the conscious cultivation of time-tested virtues.
In this regard, is the emphasis upon power and punishment in relation to morality a reflection of the desire to dominate — especially after one has been dominated for long centuries? Likewise, is there a germ of truth in the assertion of certain feminists that restrictions imposed upon women ostensibly to safeguard their moral integrity are nothing more than a devious strategy designed by male elites to control and dominate them?
The notion of morality subscribed to by most Islamic states, it is obvious, has been influenced to a considerable degree by the colonial experience. Taqlid, the assertion of identity and the projection of power are connected in one way or another with the trauma of colonial dominance. Consequently, a vision of morality with a strong commitment to social justice and the public good has been reduced to rules revolving around individual behaviour, proper sexual conduct and the penal code.
How can we break out from this mould of thinking about Islam and morality? How can we re-capture the all-encompassing morality of the Quran, the Sunnah and the Righteous Caliphs which we referred to at the beginning of this essay?
In order to answer these questions, we shall focus upon one, the changes that should be wrought to the overall environment that will facilitate the transformation that we seek and two, the new attitudes and approaches that should be adopted vis-à-vis religion so that it will emerge as the foundation of a collective moral ethic.
Environment
From our analysis it is only too apparent that the rule of law, an independent judiciary, an effective, functioning parliament, and an efficient, professional bureaucracy, among other institutions that will ensure public accountability, are the essential pre-requisites for strengthening morality in the public arena. At the same time, the media should be free of executive control and the influence of big business; political parties should enjoy space and scope to put across their views; civil society organisations should have access to both the public and the government to enable them to act as interlocutors on behalf of a range of social concerns. Only if these channels are available would the citizen be in a position to check the excesses of the elite and hold the state responsible for its misdeeds.
What this means is that ethical conduct in the public arena is possible when accountability is institutionalised and when there is a political and social environment that allows and encourages the citizen to interrogate elite power. This requires democratic reform. The mere proclamation of an ‘Islamic state’, as our study has shown, will not lead to morality in public life. On the contrary, it may even become a camouflage of sorts, concealing the need for genuine change since a pious platitude can sometimes delude people into believing that public morality already exists. A moral ideal, however appealing, it should be remembered, is no substitute for real changes.
Seen in this light, the struggle in Iran today for democratic reform led by President Mohamed Khatami is an eye-opener for states founded in the name of Islam and for the Muslim world in general.[32] It is because the Islamic state of Iran has failed to adhere to the rule of law and uphold public accountability, that the people are demanding freedom and democracy. The Iranian experience shows us that in the struggle to create a moral social order — which is one of Islam’s lauded aims — democratic reforms should take precedence over the enforcement of some strict code of sexual morality or of punitive laws which create in people a fear of the religious elite rather than a love of God.
Of course, the structures of democratic accountability that the Iranian reformers intend to build will be guided by an Islamic worldview, by Islamic values and principles. The reform they aspire to achieve would be carried out within the framework of Islam. But for Islam to play a meaningful role in the transformation of society, there will have to be a major metamorphosis within the religion itself.
Reorientation
The taqlid conditioned notion of morality will have to yield to a concept of ethics which articulates in crystal clear terms the Islamic commitment to justice, compassion, freedom and equality. Caring for the disadvantaged and the dispossessed; restructuring economic and social relations so that they are more egalitarian; nurturing honesty and integrity as norms of private and public behaviour; ensuring that public officials and corporate figures are responsible and responsive to the people’s needs and aspirations; and encouraging the citizenry to challenge authority, would be as crucial and as critical to Islamic morality as observing modesty and restraint in inter-gender relations. Such a view of morality, there is no need to emphasise, would be a true embodiment of the spirit of the Quran and Sunnah.
For this understanding of morality to emerge as a dominant trend, Muslims everywhere will have to reorientate their thinking on Islam. They should develop greater empathy with the universal, perennial moral principles in the Quran. The Sunnah would then be seen as the expression of these principles in the life of the Prophet. The Sharia would also be viewed in a different light — as it should be viewed. For the Sharia, as Ibn Qayyim describes it is “all Justice, Kindness, Common Good and Wisdom. Any rule that departs from Justice to injustice … or departs from common good (maslaha) to harm (mafsada) … is not part of Sharia, even if it is arrived at by literal interpretation.”[33] This perspective on the Sharia should in turn be the basis for approaching fiqh — discarding what is no longer relevant and antithetical to the Sharia and the spirit of the Quran and Sunnah while retaining what is still useful and valid.
Is it possible to arrive at such an understanding of Islam and morality today? Will globalisation help, or will it hinder, the process?
Before we look at globalisation in relation to Islam and morality, let us acknowledge that a universal, inclusive, accommodative approach to the religion and its ethical dimensions is not new. Today, as in the past, there are individuals and groups, even after the colonial epoch, who refuse to confine Islamic morality to certain elements of individual behaviour. In fact there are scores of intellectuals and even religious elites in a number of Muslim majority societies who are averse to the idea of an ‘Islamic state’ precisely because of its tendency to provide a narrow interpretation to law and morality, and to issues such as the rights of women and non-Muslim citizenship.[34] The question is: will the community of Muslims who espouse a more all-encompassing vision of Islamic morality grow and expand under the impact of globalisation?
Globalisation
Globalisation, it must be admitted, could undermine some of the prevailing notions of individual mores, of inter-gender relations, of sexual morality which Muslims in general hold dear. For those of us who advocate a more all-embracing morality, these aspects of personal behaviour would still be important. It should be clear from our essay that it is a preoccupation with them, to the exclusion of other major moral concerns which we take umbrage at. Seen from that perspective, globalisation which involves a massive transfer of tastes and lifestyles from the centres of power in the West to the non-Western, including the Muslim, world could result in drastic changes in individual behavioural patterns. In concrete terms, more Muslims may take to consuming liquor or some young Muslim couples may choose to live together without getting married. Similarly, the legitimisation and normalisation of a gay and lesbian culture within conspicuous pockets of the West may encourage Muslims to adopt a similar lifestyle. This may prompt individuals to experiment with same sex unions. If globalisation leads to this it would have upset the balance that the proponents of change seek to maintain, between personal morality and a more holistic morality, as conceived by Islam.
In yet another sense also globalisation could have a negative impact upon the Muslim mind. There are computer websites which adopt an ultra-conservative position against women’s rights and inter-gender interaction, repudiating what Islam itself permits. Internet has also become a channel for the propagation of bigoted attitudes directed against non-Muslims. Needless to say this goes against the teachings of a religion whose accommodation of the other is, as we have seen, one of its moral axioms.
But internet also brings to the fore the positive side of globalisation. Through websites which argue that the eradication of poverty, the elimination of corruption, the strengthening of public accountability, the legitimisation of dissent and the recognition of the rights of the non-Muslims are more fundamental to an ethical Islamic society than hudud, the computer revolution has helped to broaden Muslim perspectives.[35] The conventional view of what constitutes an Islamic state — which we have examined in some detail in this paper — has been subjected to intense scrutiny through internet discussions and debates. To get an idea of how the net has facilitated vigorous re-assessment of certain retrogressive stances on issues which are central to the all-embracing morality we profound, one just has to look at the websites for Muslim women. Apparently there are over a 100,000 sites for them, some of which “endeavour to break misconceptions about Muslim women. For instance, www.jannah.org says, ‘Misinformation about Muslim women proliferates in the world today among non-Muslims and Muslims. We hope that instead of falling into the typical stereotypes and cultural innovations, the information here will pique your interest and help you to understand the true stance Islam takes on gender issues and the role of women.’”[36]
What is significant about accessing the net for information on women, morality and Islam is that a Muslim, as an individual, on her own, selects and digests information, communicates with other net users, forms opinions and perhaps conveys them to yet others. In the process, she circumvents that entire structure of information and knowledge associated with religious elites that has for ages enabled them to preach and propagate in a mechanical manner what is prohibited and what is permitted in Fiqh to the Muslim masses. Equally important, learning about Islam for the internet user becomes a personal journey of trying to understand the truth, of connecting with the religion’s eternal, universal values, of linking up with its great heritage. And often it is a voyage of discovery that one undertakes of one’s own volition, through communion with others in a manner that is refreshingly egalitarian.
Since the computer as a medium of communication is so pivotal to globalisation one can perhaps say that globalisation can also be a liberating force in our quest to develop a more holistic morality in public life. But whether it frees the mind or stultifies the soul, a great deal will depend upon the individual. As even more dramatic developments take place in the field of information and communication technologies in the future, the question of whether one acquires or rejects spiritual values, develops a moral or amoral outlook on life, will, to a great extent, lie within the purview of the individual. This is not to deny that market and state, school and family and other social institutions will continue to shape our choices — and our destinies.
The possibility of greater individual autonomy in matters pertaining to religion and morality should not frighten us. For Islam is a religion which on the vital question of faith and belief has endowed the individual with freedom of choice. And in the practice of religion, in setting one’s moral compass, the individual does not go through any intercessor. This direct link to Allah through the eternal Quran, elevates the individual to the loftiest plane of existence.
This is why the individuality of the Muslim will always be different from the individualism borne of the European Enlightenment. For it is an individual who has an unchanging, immutable centre — Allah — and a lucidly defined circumference — the Quran and the Sunnah. It is this centre and this circumference which will determine the moral values and principles that will guide the individual in the private realm as well as the public sphere in whatever society and in whatever epoch.
Postscript
Reaffirming our commitment to that centre and that circumference as the fulcrum and the foundation of morality in public life has become even more critical today — in the wake of the terrible tragedy of September 11. It is a tragedy that has brought to the fore two vital principles of public morality. One, a person should never ever separate means from ends in the pursuit of one’s cause. Two, it is only if there is justice would it be possible to ensure that moral standards are maintained in public life.
Whatever their goals and whatever their motives, the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people at the World Trade Centre (WTO) in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C, consciously, deliberately and wilfully chose to separate means from ends. It should be emphasised again and again that massacring civilians — men and women who are non-combatants — is a heinous crime in the eyes of Islam. It is a dastardly deed that has been condemned by every leading Muslim theologian in the world. The September 11 carnage has denigrated Muslims and demeaned Islam. At the same time, it has shown us how dangerous it is to pursue one’s goals, however noble they may be, through means which are ignoble. The entire moral edifice of one’s cause collapes under the weight of cruel barbarism and wicked expediency.
Nonetheless, the underlying anger, outrage and despair which prompted the terrorists to launch assaults against the WTC and Pentagon are the result of deeply felt grievances shared by millions and millions of Arabs and Muslims the world over. The suppression and subjugation of the Palestinians who for decades have been struggling for an independent and sovereign state and the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children as a direct or indirect consequence of economic sanctions, have created a huge reservoir of frustration and even hatred in the Middle East against the United States whose hegemonic power is perceived as one of the main causes of the sorrow and suffering of the people.
In fact, American hegemony over global politics, the global economy and global culture is viewed as one of the most formidable obstacles in humankind’s quest for a just world. It is partly because of the type of unjust global system that has evolved in recent decades with the US at its helm that 1.5 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; that 3 of the world’s richest men earn more than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 48 of the world’s Least Developed Countries (LDCs); that the gap between the top 20 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent of the planet’s population has widened from a ratio of 1:30 in 1960 to 1:74 in 1997.
There must be the will and the determination to transform this unjust global system into a just and peaceful world. Otherwise, desperate, angry and vicious elements on the fringes of society will have no compunctions about resorting to acts of violence and terrorism to achieve their notion of justice. 11 September, in that sense, was perhaps a rude wake-up call.
Will we now be awake and alert to the plea for justice from the dispossessed and the disenfranchised, the poor and the powerless or will we once again continue to sink and slumber into complacency? Will the tragedy of 11 September jolt us into building a new future for the whole of humankind or will we remain trapped in the morass of the present, wallowing in the politics of power, violence and destruction?
The ancient Chinese used to say that a tragedy is also an opportunity. Let us resolve here and now that out of the debris of death we shall bring forth the light of life. Let us pledge that we shall bequeath to the unborn generation of tomorrow a
Dr Mahathir was able to bring about a semblance of unity and economic progress during his tenure due to his dictatorial grip on all institutions of governance. He was willing to share the wealth with the leaders of BN component parties as long as they acquiesced to his Ketuanan Melayu stipulation. It is no surprise that MCA and MIC leaders became immensely rich but had to sell out their communities as part of the deal.A dictator in the real sense Dr Mahathir was not, at least not in the realm of the abovementioned gallery of villainy, but a benevolent autocrat he certainly was, marshalling and goading the Malaysian masses into great self-confidence and self-pride to take on the world while whipping everyone at home – the rogues, the whiners, the desperados, the beggars, the backstabbers, the recalcitrants, and the ingratiaters – into fighting shape. Without Dr Mahathir’s prying, Malaysian politics would have degenerated into back-alley catfights of political tribalism dominated by ego-driven overlords and self-styled warlords. He still did not full succeed. If because of these aspects that deemed Dr Mahathir as a dictator, he’d probably take it with a wholesome chuckle.Najib assumes a tad of dictatorship in the realm of Dr Mahathir’s autocratic style. Malaysians, whether they like to admit it or not, need this kind of firm father figure discipline, seeing how badly behaved most of us are. We get wrecked into 6,000-odd fatal accidents annually; we refuse to follow traffic rules or switch our cell phones in theatres, or behave decently in Parliament, what with vicious and vulgar name-calling,But the the police are free to do to anything to keep najib in power?
No comments:
Post a Comment