Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Umno riding on the slippery Mat Sabu bandwagon
- Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #81
- Cry of the silent millions goes unheeded
- The NEP and the downfall of Malays
| Umno riding on the slippery Mat Sabu bandwagon Posted: 05 Sep 2011 01:20 PM PDT It's OK if Mat Sabu has done something wrong. But the awful truth is that he has done nothing wrong. Mat Sabu has only exposed the myth that Umno is the only one who fought and gained Malaya's independence from the clutches of the colonial power. By Kim QuekIf you do not believe that Umno has already passed its expiry date as a potent political party, all you need to do is to watch how its entire leadership as well as its entire propaganda machineries have been fully engaged in the past week to indulge in an orgy of attacks against Mat Sabu – PAS' deputy president. It's OK if Mat Sabu has done something wrong. But the awful truth is that he has done nothing wrong. Mat Sabu has only exposed the myth that Umno is the only one who fought and gained Malaya's independence from the clutches of the colonial power. His illustrative mention of Muhammad Indera (fondly known as Mat Indera) as an independence fighter was only in the context of lambasting Umno for ritualistically twisting the Bukit Kepong assault incident on every Merdeka Day for Umno's self-glorification – as if it is the only body accountable for the country's independence. MAT SABU BASHING Pouncing on Mat Sabu's positive mention of Mat Indera, Umno bays for Mat Sabu's blood. It accuses Mat Sabu – and by extension PAS – of praising communists and glorifying communism and wanting to turn the country into a republic. While the entire might of Umno has been unleashed on a non-stop assault on Mat Sabu's alleged advocacy of communism, has any one of them paused to reflect that the word "communist" or "communism" was never mentioned by Mat Sabu in his entire speech? For the sake of truth, let us recapture the relevant part of Mat Sabu's speech, delivered in a ceremah at Tasek Gelugor, Penang, on Aug 21: "When it's near Merdeka Day (television programmes) on Bukit Kepong will be aired. The police who died in Bukit Kepong are police who belonged to the British. "Those who attacked Bukit Kepong were the ones fighting for independence. The one who attacked Bukit Kepong was Mat Indera (Muhammad Indera). He is a Malay, but this is not in the history books. Mat Sabu also criticised in his speech how Umno had perverted the essence of Merdeka Day into self-glorification and ignored non-Umno elements that had also contributed to the country's independence. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND For a better understanding of the issues, let me put the Bukit Kepong incident in its proper historical perspective. The time was 1950, two years after the declaration of Emergency (to deal with the armed insurgency by the Malayan Communist Party) and seven years before the country gained its independence. It was at the height of the guerilla war waged by the MCP to seek independence from the colonial master Britain. One night, on 23rd Feb 1950, a band of guerilla fighters attacked a remote police station at Bukit Kepong, Johor, and killed 25 persons who were mainly policemen and their family. The attack was led by Mat Indera, a Malay, and the policemen were also Malays, serving the British colonial government. This incident was only one of numerous skirmishes within in a larger war staged between the independence fighters led by the MCP on the one side, and the British colonial government determined to protect its colonial rule on the other side. NO FACTUAL BASIS The question we want to put to Umno is: since this is a guerilla war for independence, in what way was Mat Sabu wrong when he said Mat Indera was fighting for independence? And also, in what way Mat Sabu was wrong when he said the policemen who died belonged to the British? Weren't they serving the colonial government? Didn't they fight to protect the colonial power? Since no "communist" or "communism" was ever mentioned, how did Umno come to the conclusion that Mat Sabu was praising communists or glorifying communism? Haven't Umno leaders and Umno propangandists been taking a big flight of fantasy to conjure up the PAS – Communist nexus? Isn't it true that all Mat Sabu was saying was simply that Umno had used the wrong analogy to self-glorify on a false claim – that it alone has brought Merdeka? What Mat Sabu has uttered has nothing to do with communism. Neither was such uttering intended to downplay the contribution of Malay leaders to the country's independence movement – as wrongly accused by Umno leaders. With regards to the role of MCP in our independence struggles, we have to say this. While we might not like communists or agree to the communist ideology, there is no denying the fact that the MCP fought for Malaya's independence. In fact, it was the high toll caused by the MCP armed insurrection that had prompted Her Majesty's Government (Queen Elizabeth) to shorten the transition of power to its hand-picked successors to ensure continuity of its legacy. In that sense, the MCP struggle had hastened Merdeka. And even under the canopy of the MCP, not everyone was a communist, as many had joined the guerilla warfare not to serve the ideology of communism, but to fight to get rid of colonial rule. CONFLUENCE OF FORCES As for Umno's claim as the sole power that has brought this country independence, this is a far cry from the truth. Apart from MCP, other nationalist forces had been at work right after World War II (even before Umno was formed) to struggle for an independent Malaya. These were grouped under two umbrella bodies, namely, PUTERA (Pusat Tenaga Rakyat) comprising Malay-based organisations, and AMCJA (All-Malayan Council of Joint Action), a coalition of multi-racial bodies and unions, which included the MCP. These two umbrella bodies quickly joined forces then to press the British colonial government to grant independence to the then Malaya, for which even a draft People's Constitution was proposed in 1947. But the British rejected this proposition. In the subsequent crackdown on this joint political movement, during which many leaders were arrested, some Malay nationalist leaders, including Mat Indera, joined forces with MCP to continue their independence struggles through armed insurgency. As mentioned earlier, it is this armed struggle, which began in 1948 when Emergency was declared, that had served as the constant prod that pushed the British into a speedy hand-over of power. Thus, it was the confluence of forces that had brought Merdeka in 1957. Admittedly, the Alliance – a coalition consisting of Umno, MCA and MIC – as the political group favoured by the British, had played a major role in the negotiation that led to independence. But for Umno to claim sole credit for this independence achievement, as it has done in the country's official version of history, to the exclusion of even its own coalition partners MCA and MIC, would be to do a great injustice to all non-Umno Malayans who have contributed. Other nationalist movements, including those led by prominent leaders like Burhanuddin al-Helmy and Ahmad Boestaman, as well as the MCP, had also made significant contribution towards the speedy realization of Merdeka. From this perspective, Mat Sabu in raising the Bukit Kepong example has done the nation a great service in awakening the country from the great distortion of history perpetrated by Umno. A DESPERATE UMNO As for Umno's current campaign to vilify Mat Sabu, it is sheer vulgar propaganda aimed at critically damaging the electoral support for of PAS and through it, the entire opposition alliance of Pakatan Rakyat, as Umno's accusation is nothing but concoction of twisted accounts, unsupported by facts or logic. That Umno has to resort to such childish and untenable strategy to salvage its precarious political fortune clearly indicates that it has already lost its potency as a political force – it has neither the substance nor the confidence to compete on a legitimate political platform. |
| Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #81 Posted: 04 Sep 2011 09:26 PM PDT
M. Bakri Musa IFIs thrived in the first few centuries of Islam not because those early Islamic thinkers had found a magic way to dispense with the cost of funds and returns on investments, rather they used different terms (or more crudely said, put a different spin on the issue) to circumvent interests payments and earnings. Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life Reform in Islam Islamic Financial Intermediaries (Cont'd)
IFIs thrived in the first few centuries of Islam not because those early Islamic thinkers had found a magic way to dispense with the cost of funds and returns on investments, rather they used different terms (or more crudely said, put a different spin on the issue) to circumvent interests payments and earnings.
The modern version of Islamic banks was resurrected only in the last few decades. Despite its recent rebirth, its popularity has soared both in Islamic and non-Islamic countries. This recent history should serve as a ready caution. The system has not been tested. The system of auditing, accounting, and regulating has not been standardized. What I fear most is that should Islamic banks fail in an economic crisis, it would not only aggravate the situation but also set back people's trust in them. That in turn would severely shake Muslim's trust in their religion. A senior official of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which supervises the world's largest and most sophisticated banks, voiced his concern about this in his address to a meeting of Islamic bankers who were eager on introducing the concept to America. Through bitter experience America has wisely separated commercial banking from insurance and investment banking, and also banking from commerce. A century ago American banks were deeply involved with commercial enterprises much along the lines currently advocated by proponents of Islamic banking. The 1930 depression was blamed in part because banks were deeply involved in speculative share trading activities of companies they owned. Further, such co-mingling of banking and other commercial activities could lead to an unhealthy concentration of economic power. Banks would then cease from becoming an impartial arbiter of credit worthiness. Modern Western banking has been continuously refined over the past centuries. Banks today (at least in Western countries) are safer and offer better services. They have also contributed immensely to economic development. The challenge for IFIs is not simply to say that Western banks are un-Islamic but to offer comparable services to customers and thus serve the economic needs of society. Instead of trying to parse non-existent differences between interest and other costs of funds, modern Islamic bankers and economists should more productively focus their intellectual resources to differentiating the various kinds of lending. Islam rightly prohibits "making money on money," which I interpret as gambling and speculating, but encourages trade, which is taking risks in productive investments. There are certainly significant differences between my borrowing money to buy a Mercedes limousine to show off to my colleagues and neighbors, or to use it as a taxi. The economic multiplier effect of the purchase, for example in creating jobs at the factory as well as the car repair shops, is the same in both cases – the direct effects of consumer spending. From there the economically meaningful differences emerge. With the first instance I am using borrowed funds for consumption; the second for production or investment. With the latter I, as a borrower, would actually earn money (passenger revenues) as a consequent of the loan. And if I share my taxi with another driver, that would create yet another job (making a total of two taxi drivers). No such additional incomes or job creations would result with the first type of borrowing. Additionally, my taxi would provide a much-needed transportation service to the community. My private limousine would only create more pollution and envy from my neighbors. But the most important difference is that with the first borrowing, only the lender (bank) makes money out of the borrower; with the second, both lender and borrower make money. In either case money is being borrowed and interest (cost of funds) incurred. But with the second case the borrowing serves a useful societal purpose; it is in fact a form of trading. I trade my service or expertise as a taxi driver for the bank's capital. The first borrowing on the other hand, is purely for consumption. One can be easily persuaded that borrowing in the second instance should be encouraged as society as a whole would benefit from such activities. No such societal benefits would accrue from the first borrowing. Thus we could properly differentiate, as many recent scholars have suggested, between the costs of capital in the first type of lending as interest, riba; the costs in the second instance should be more accurately called profit on the trading of capital, which in this case is money instead of the usual assets such as goods and real estate. Muslims must remind ourselves that current accepted interpretations of terms such as riba and gharar (risky sale, speculation) are just that: interpretations. Indeed there are some scholars who interpret riba to mean excessive interest. Just as excessive profit is bad (and often illegal as they are usually obtained through such means as market manipulation, monopoly, or plain hoarding) so too are excessive interest rates. Likewise there is a conceptual difference between interests on "productive" versus "consumptive" loans. The latter would more likely fit the description of riba while the former as profit on the trading of capital. There is a comparable controversy on whether insurance, specifically life insurance, is halal or haram. Islam has its own version of managing risks, Takaful. (mutual aid). Again here it is the duty of its proponents to clearly differentiate their product, especially with respect to safety, security, and rate of returns from traditional insurance so consumers could be better informed and be able to "comparison shop" intelligently. In such important matters we must go beyond simplistic and legalistic changes of specific words but instead concentrate on deciphering the meanings and intent of such terms. Indeed Muslim shippers in Spain first started the very concept of takaful or insurance. They would collect levies on each shipper so they would have funds to support the unfortunate shipper who would meet untimely calamity along the way. Of course the concept has since developed a long way from there. When one traces the development of insurance from a mutual aid society, the ulama can easily understand and readily agree to the concept. I once explained to an alim who vehemently opposed life insurance, the concept of risk sharing. I described a community where when someone dies, the rest of the community would contribute some money to take care of the deceased's family. He readily agreed to the benefits of such deeds and went on to quote eloquently some holy passages to buttress his agreement. Then I suggested that instead of collecting the money only when someone dies, we would collect it regularly and put that cash in a pool ready to be distributed at the time of need, that is, the death of a member. Again, he readily concurred. Then I moved on and suggested that instead of giving the same amount of money for each family, we use our judgment and give more to those who die leaving behind young children as opposed to those whose children have grown up. Again, he readily agreed to the rationale that the expenses of a family with dependent children would certainly be greater and therefore they should get more. Then I made the leap forward by suggesting that instead of us or the village committee deciding how much money the deceased family would get, we let individual members decide how much to leave to their family when they die. Surely the individual is the best judge on the needs of his or her family. Those who want to leave more would of course have to contribute more; those who want to leave less would contribute less. Again he saw no problem with that. Then I surprised him by saying that is in essence the concept of life insurance. You decide how much your family would get when you die and you make your contributions (that is, pay your premiums) accordingly. Today, life insurance is much more complex as other risk factors like age and family history are considered. And instead of a village committee we have a team of professional actuaries who assess and price risks as well as invest the premiums. But cut to its core, life insurance is essentially a commercialized mutual aid society. The money contributed (premiums), instead of being left underneath the village headman's mattress, is being invested and thus further contributes directly to the economy. The ulama's prohibition on insurance, specifically life insurance, is simply based on their lack of understanding of the concept of risk sharing. They have this simplistic notion of life insurance as a bounty to invite some mischief on the part of the beneficiary in order to collect the cash. Well, such a scheme is a crime. One would be punished right here in this world for fraud and murder. Life insurance, like other forms of insurances, is merely a form of mutual sharing of risks. Nothing prevents a community, co-operative, or a "mutual" company from offering such investments. Indeed such co-ops and mutual insurance companies are among the biggest issuers of insurances in America. The Mormon Church has a similar insurance-like scheme by levying charges (tithes) on its members to take care of the sick and disabled amongst them. Next: Educating Ulamas on Modern Economics
|
| Cry of the silent millions goes unheeded Posted: 02 Sep 2011 11:12 PM PDT When the Malayan flag was hoisted in 1957, 'every person there did not represent one race, they were Malayans," recalls Mrs FR Bhupalan, who was then a 30-year-old mother of two. Having championed causes such as the anti-drug abuse movement, women's rights, education and social justice, Bhupalan was one of the earliest women involved in the fight for Malaysian (then Malaya) independence. Aneesa Alphonsus, Free Malaysia Today At the age of 84, Rasammah Bhupalan's eyes still light up at the mention of Aug 31, 1957. Her eagerness when sharing what she witnessed that momentous day is infectious and at times poignant. Known to many as Mrs FR Bhupalan, she was both a Malaysian freedom fighter and social activist. Having championed causes such as the anti-drug abuse movement, women's rights, education and social justice, Bhupalan was one of the earliest women involved in the fight for Malaysian (then Malaya) independence. At the age of 16, she joined the Rani of Jhansi Regiment, the women's wing of the Indian National Army, to fight the British. As founder president of the Women Teacher's Union, she fought for equal pay for women teachers and tried to bring a disparate teachers' unions under the same roof. With these achievements, which she described as, "modest", it is little wonder why she feels so strongly about the day Malaya was liberated and recalls the day with much clarity and enthusiasm. "It was the most exhilarating and happy period of the time. But it also came with the realisation that therein was a challenge (for me) as a citizen of an independent country and nation. "It made me think about how I must undertake certain responsibilities and have greater participation in the life of our country. I was 30 years old at the time." On the eve of Merdeka, Bhupalan made her way from Ipoh to be in Kuala Lumpur with two of her children in tow – a girl of five and a boy of three. Excitement and anticipation
Having been a student of history, Bhupalan felt it was important that when the Union Jack was brought down and our Malayan flag hoisted, she should be there in order for her to share with her children the value of liberty. So together with her cousins, Mrs Bhupalan arrived at what is now is known as Dataran Merdeka, as early at 9pm on Aug 30. She recalled that even at that time, a massive crowd had already gathered. There is pride in her voice when she recalls that the ambience that night was breathtaking. "People were chatting and there were happy shouts everywhere. I never saw anything like it. Then the Union Jack came down and it was the most poignant moment. "The clock struck 12 midnight and Tunku Abdul Rahman raised our flag. I was emotional with happiness because I felt that the future held great promise. "Here was a country previously under colonial rule but which was now free. "The whole spirit of that night was triumphant. Every person there did not represent one race, they were Malayans," she says, her voice catching. At this juncture, she pauses and shared a thought that had come to her mind while witnessing the historic moment. "My paternal grandfather came to Malaya in 1860 as a contractor and there I was standing as witness to this independence in 1957, three years short of a century. "This fact struck me at the time. For me, there was every hope that Malaya would achieve its independence with a unity in spite of our multi-racial, cultural, language, and socio-economic differences. "Tunku brought forth great hope. There would be no turning back now and as a nation, we would be moving forward," she said. When 'hope' was born
Bhupalan smiles when she recalls the Merdeka morning. She arrived at the newly constructed Merdeka Stadium very early and the first thing that caught her attention were flag poles upon which state flags flew. "The guest list was impressive, but we squeezed ourselves in. Yes, we were insignificant among the illustrious guests, but being there when our independence was declared made me feel very special. "It was a majestic and breathtaking sight to see our nine Sultans decked out in full regalia looking so strong and proud," she said. When asked about her stand on the monarchy and liberty, Bhupalan said she believes in the status of the Sultans. "I knew at the time that we were a constitutionally democratic country where we would have free elections. "There was hope that the nation of Malaya would uphold the constitutional monarchy within a democratic party. "That the government would assure that every man, woman and child would get their place in the sun. The whole concept of a democracy was there." She said she knew then that everyone had rights that would be protected by the constitution, and the government which the citizens would elect would have the power and responsibility to rule this new country. "Electing the government was one thing, but more essential was assuring that each person becomes major players in the various multi-faceted responsibilities. "It was the duty of a citizen to contribute to the progress and development of this new, young nation, " she said, adding that it is not enough to be a recipient of rights without understanding that with this comes both accountability and responsibility. True spirit lost When asked her views on the current situation in Malaysia, Bhupalan was biting. She didn't mince her words. "To be honest and forthright, I am greatly perturbed and disappointed that many aspects of life which we had dedicated ourselves to in the country have not received the same commitment and dedication from the vast numbers of persons. "Many men and women have lost the true spirit of sacrifice, but there are also others who are pushing forward for change. "In our country, we have… acquired a spirit of complacency. We have lost in part our spirit and determination to stand up without fear or favour. "Many have just chosen to accept instead of boldly stating what should be a strong impetus for the country and our people as a whole. "There is a streak of egotistical self-sufficiency, which has become a major part of our individual life. "There are millions in Malaysia who have seen minimal change. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is still with us. "The cry of the silent millions goes unheeded. From 1957 to 2011, could we the citizens have made a greater, positive contribution to the lives of the have-nots? "I ask myself this everyday." No unity now Bhupalan also feels strongly that a predominant part of our early history is tragically lost. She opines that rhetoric from politicians, leaders of corporate bodies, non-governmental organisations and from both men and women clearly shows that the much-needed action is ignored. The need for a strong proponent for unity in the country is unfortunately not present.
|
| The NEP and the downfall of Malays Posted: 01 Sep 2011 04:40 PM PDT The NEP may have caused an increase in the wealth of the Malay urban middle class but on the whole, many Malays remain poor. It was not just his work that was a sham. His private life was just the same. There was no personal responsibility and those Malays who entered into polygamous marriages with two or three families to support, invariably ended up with dysfunctional families. The kids would be feral, without a father figure and no role model in their lives. Mariam Mokhtar, Free Malaysia Today Dr Mahathir Mohamad came to the defence of the New Economic Policy (NEP) when economist Ramon Navaratnam and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim condemned the NEP for discouraging foreign investment and for promoting corruption. However, Mahathir failed to note that the NEP, like many of the government's other programs with catchy, meaningless acronyms are only publicity stunts which fail to address the underlying problems that face many Malaysians, principally the Malays. He said: "There may be corruption involved in some cases but the charge is not warranted because in most cases, the benefits of NEP have been enjoyed by almost every Malay and bumiputera. In fact, indirectly and, in some cases, directly it has benefited the non-bumiputera as well." The former prime minister's selective amnesia serves him well. The NEP's short-term benefits may have impressed his Cabinet colleagues but in the long term, the NEP has disadvantaged all other Malaysians. The warped policies have destroyed racial harmony and in East Malaysia, the bumiputeas are more desperate than ever. There is increasing resentment against the Malays who many believe, have squandered the benefits they have been given. The NEP may have caused an increase in the wealth of the Malay urban middle class but on the whole, many Malays remain poor. Despite the housing privileges and discounts, how many Malays can afford to buy houses? How many possess the business acumen to sustain a business without going bust in the first year? Undeniably, those who benefit the most are Umno cronies, whilst the majority of Malays remain marginalised, hoping that things will get better, only because Umno says so. Thus, many live in hope and some shun jobs because one day, they hope to become rich without putting in any effort. The business incentives may have given the Malays a kick-start in life but many did not use them wisely. They did not reinvest the money in the company but instead spent it on the teak desk, the gold watch and the Mercedes car. It was not just his work that was a sham. His private life was just the same. There was no personal responsibility and those Malays who entered into polygamous marriages with two or three families to support, invariably ended up with dysfunctional families. The kids would be feral, without a father figure and no role model in their lives. Many of the children do not have a family life to speak of and education is not an important factor in their lives. Many grow up lacking aspiration and become adults who are just as irresponsible. There are some decent people amongst this lot, but they are trapped in the system, with no way out. Moving forward together He failed to note that there were serious issues that have cropped up. Few of the children of the original Felda settlers want to make a living off the land like their grandparents or parents did.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan