Finished reading “No God but God”, Reza Aslan’s book recently, and it is an excellent read. It charts out the entire history of Islam, dating from pre-Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Arabia and consequent developments, making it simple for the layman to comprehend origins of the Shiite-Sunni divide, how Islam is not homogeneous since there are multiple interpretations of its theology and practice. Two points struck out:

First, the description of Sufism, which as we know is the mystical understanding of Islam, the nafs (desire) that longs for unattainable union with God the Creator, and insatiable love. In the story of Layla and Majmun, the lovers are initially banned from seeing the other, and after years of separation, develop the sort of deep, aching love that even upon finally meeting, cannot actuate. The intense longing is best left as it is, since proximity would be too intoxicating for either party. The Conference of the Birds outlines the birds who travel far and wide to discover wisdom, only to find that it is the journey itself that has developed their characters that way inclined. Sufism is the mystical journey towards full knowledge of God, best described but not defined.

The second is that the Muslim world has struggled for centuries to come to a thorough understanding of the governance of an Islamic state. Prophet Muhammad himself attempted this model, and years later debates ensue on the best practice of a society based on rules of justice, fair governance permeating all levels of public life. It also struck me that the author says, what we have today is not as much an external problem between the Muslim and Western worlds, but rather - an internal struggle within Islam.

Finally, the author states in an almost enlightened manner the following:

Democracy, if it is to be viable and enduring, can never be imported. It must be nurtured from within, founded upon familiar ideologies, and presented in a language that is both comprehensible and appealing to the indigenous population.

I think this is a wise saying, not because I disagree with international standards and international laws. I do agree with these principles, but it is more true that until and unless democracy is driven by the local community for which it will serve, and birthed out of such a context, then importation of ideals will never work (even if to the pleasure of a minority community). I may be lambasted for these, but I believe these are debateable points yet.

This is all the more pertinent as I observe workings within the Muslim world here. The Ummah is considered the “People of the Book”, but some agree it is to include all of humanity i.e. God’s creations. The call is for all to work together in securing peace and harmony. There are few people who would disagree with principles of democracy but there are ways in which one announces it, or fights for it, that is less subversive for the host country. Feeling the pulse of the nations here, Islamic democracy has a chance to flourish and it must be given its own space and chance to do so.

Cambodia is a sweet, slow moving country about ten years behind Vietnam. It still lives, however, in the shadow of its past Khmer Rouge in several senses. First and most prominent to me is that it has an over reliance on foreign funding. Many developed countries applaud the UNTAC agreement as helping to establish some level of governance in the country, but the reality is it did what it could, then wiping its hands clean in the interim period, post conflict and pre Cambodian self rule.

The Cambodia People’s Party has almost absolute power in the country, giving the strongest opposition party Sam Rainsy Party a hard time. The foreign community has poured tens of thousands of dollars into the local community, through international NGOs and partner NGOs within the country. They work closely on a number of core issues, mainly on human rights, advovacy and capacity building on development, youth, education, and so on. This has created a sort of buffer effect for the Government. Whenever a particular issue emerges, the international community acts as an in between for the Government and local NGOs. Donor aid is lucrative and so good relationships have to be maintained between them.

It is the strength of the CPP party that bulldozes its way through, perpetuating corruption within Government and not having to answer for any of its mismanagement practices. They are still very popular amongst the rural folk, because they never fail to promise greater development to their local communities. They also invoke the past - bringing up their ability to correct the mistakes of the Khmer Rouge regime - to instill fear amongst the people (forgetting that many of the leaders within Government were themselves party to the violence instated). Note: The Khmer Rouge Tribunal is taking place right now, although money from the Cambodian Government is running out.

Visiting the Killing Fields and Tuol Sleng Prison, one can only envision the torturous cries of the people. One particularly poignant story told was that of a friend whose relatives were completely wiped out during the Khmer Rouge years, and wanting to experience fully what took place, camped out on the corridors and rooms of Tuol Sleng alone. Imagine the kinds of emotions coming upon him that night; the terror of the mind, the rising sadness of a fast-fading memory.

What perturbs me is the divide between the foreigns and locals, even if they are fighting the same cause. Although all work incessantly on transparency, human rights, democracy and so on, the international community tends to adopt a slightly elitist attitude. They hang around the same posh pubs and restaurants, whilst the locals go to different pubs and eateries. Sometimes I really wonder which community it is that runs the country apart from the CPP (at local levels).

They are still a very cermonial country, with the Royal Palace taking the primary spot of property in the city of Phnom Penh. And the parks, a heritage of the French, are peppered all over the city, creating a relaxing environment for locals to hang around and take wedding pictures at. These are long strips of grass with benches and flowers, near roundabouts and wide roads with cars that go at snail pace - another reason why there are no accidents despite the horrible driving there!

Restaurants and little boutique shops are shaped out of old bungalows along little roads, and are the most quaint places to stop at. I can understand a foreigner’s fascination with this place - a hub for tourists to hang out and chill. The arts community is really quite creative as well. This is the right country for someone who wants to spend a couple of months finding him/herself, with relatively cheap cost of living.

Whether or not foreign aid in Cambodia is sustainable is the question nigging at my mind. I’m not sure whether this model works, but having said that, numerous Cambodians have been individually equipped with skills and expertise. Also the rise of local groups and organisations working on developmental issues is impressive. I just hope they will be able to sustain themselves in the long run. Reliance, or over reliance, on the foreign community is perhaps not the best model.

This was first published on the ROH Malaysia website, at www.rohmalaysia.net

Commentary on Malaysia’s 12th General Elections 2008
For Revolution of Hope (RoH Malaysia)

by Tricia Yeoh
April 2008
For those who have toiled many years fighting injustice in Malaysia, the results of the 12th General Election was considered vindication. Growing frustration with the administration led to what has been called a “political tsunami”, leading to the stronghold Barisan Nasional coalition losing its two-thirds majority at Parliament level. More shocking was its loss of four states, leaving the loose Opposition coalition to lead five State Governments in total, also unprecedented since Malaysia’s independence in 1957.
There were certainly a host of factors leading to this watershed event. Touted very much as an elections in which people exercised punishment votes, the percentage of popular vote for the coalition Government fell from 63% in 2004 to 51.2% in 2008, showing only slightly more than half of Malaysia’s voting population showing support for the present administration. These “push” variables have been charted out in analytic terms, listed in simple order as state corruption, inflation, displeasure with the New Economic Policy and its accompanying preferential policies for the Bumiputera community (made up of Malays and natives of the land) resulting in gross intra-ethnic socio economic disparity, issues of religious freedom, the economy, and the general perception of institutional and structural failures (the judiciary and police are two in particular).

One of the more significant “pull” factors was Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s ex-Deputy Prime Minister, who, after his recent release from seven-year imprisonment, went on massive rounds all across the country to rally for candidates in his party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat, originally formed on the premise of highlighting political injustice that was served him in 1998). Anwar’s ambition is to shoot for power, namely as head honcho of the state, and observers see these results as steadily laying the bricks in that very direction. The fact that the nation’s ex-Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed (arch enemy of Anwar), launched a series of strong criticism against the present Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi added fuel to the fire.
In a complexity of sorts, Malaysians had a plethora of issues and platforms to choose from, in voting against Barisan Nasional. All seemed to work in favour of the opposition, even if this was not considered a viable alternative. If one were not necessarily an Anwar supporter, one would weigh carefully the once-considered-wisdom of Dr Mahathir. If one were not necessarily an advocate for human rights and social justice, one would cite the dwindling economy as a reason to awaken the seemingly slackening Government. In either corner one turned, one was hit smack in the face with endless issues 360 degrees all around. The degrees and complexities to which each issue lent itself to the fabric of dissatisfaction remains to be explored. Some, for example, have argued that the Government’s last-minute decision to withdraw the use of indelible ink (earlier promised tooth and nail to enhance transparent election processes) was the straw that broke the camel’s back, proving the insincerity and potential fraudulence of the system.
As results streamed in steadily on a late Saturday night, into an early Sunday on March the 9th, Malaysians awoke to a new dawn. This new Malaysia was one characterised by an empowerment that although ironically belonged to the people, was also unrecognisable. For so long had frustrations simmered silently, until no longer could a storm in a teacup remain still. Despite initial hiccups, political instability within the opposition groups (PKR, DAP, PAS) and Government (UMNO, MCA, MIC, and others), this momentous event marks a positive step for Malaysia’s democratisation process as a whole. People now acknowledge their role as participatory citizens in the future of the nation, the very element necessary in any democracy.
Perseverance and longsuffering take on a new meaning in light of this new Malaysia. Many strived towards achieving a goal, although this goal was nowhere near in sight. Underlying this was a belief, real or imagined, that someday their work would reap good fruit. Now, whether or not these results would have been harvested in one’s lifetime is irrelevant, since dedication to a cause (for social, economic and political justice) should not be influenced by one’s belief in its ease of attainment. No, many should (and would) have continued working anyway, in creating a better society, whether or not the Elections resulted in opposition obtaining zero or 82 Parliamentary seats.
The point is, sweet victory was tasted and it is a welcome reminder that little “kingdoms on earth” can be exemplified right here, right now. Why the results of the Elections are considered a victory is not because Barisan Nasional lost numerous seats, nor was it because the Opposition control five out of 13 state Governments, a fivefold achievement. It is because Malaysians are now pointed in the direction of democratisation, an equitable society, social justice, principled governance (over and above race-based politics), public accountability, and freedom of expression. For all political parties to recognise this is a giant step for the country. Now begins the actual work in putting rhetoric into practice. Malaysians are holding their breath, but they acknowledge this. That this outcome has been a blessing of the most extraordinary kind.

During the Minda Muda Launch in KL a week or so ago, I was asked by a member of the audience whether there were any other countries that we could compare Malaysia with. I said yes, South Africa is the closest one could think of. Indeed, a friend is doing his PhD in comparative economic analysis between the two countries.

How similar, though, the two countries were, I wasn’t sure until an enlightening conversation today.

We compared the political and economic systems of the two, and agreed that both were living under a time bomb that if not addressed immediately, would implode soon, scarring the country and its occupants permanently.

Ironically enough, South Africa was duly impressed by the affirmative action policy in Malaysia, so much so that it adopted it wholesale in 1994, giving a twenty year period for its implementation. Back then, the freedom fighters released the country from its repressive apartheid system, oppressing the black community. Today, preferential policies are given to the advantage of the blacks over the whites in almost all spheres of public life. This is an exact replica of what we have in Malaysia.

Affirmative action policies come in the form of: Requirements for the blacks at managerial, employment and shareholders’ levels, where 25% of shareholdings should come from blacks, 40% of employment. Procurement should also be given to black service providers, such that many white companies conveniently promoted their black sweepers to become CEOs immediately, but merely as puppet leaders since they have little decision-making abilities.

Just like Malaysia, economic power is concentrated on a small number of black families. Where banking rules require 25% of the shares to be owned by blacks, 16% of this has already been sold off to a group of 5 rich black businessmen, who own 90% of this wealth (the remaining 10% is distributed equitably, but this means only 1.6% of the banking wealth is benefiting 250,000 blacks). The other 9% yet to be sold off is being bidded by a team of 3 very rich black guys as well.

The principle is that whilst a percentage of corporate equity is intended to be distributed to the marginalised community in a country, it should be done such that all members would benefit. Instead, affirmative action policies merely transfer wealth from one elite community to another. The same has taken place here.

They were wise in installing a time factor to their policy, but the bad thing was: They achieved in 10 years what they were to have in 20. The argument is therefore that the policy should stop right now. The same can be said of Malaysia, but worse - it was supposed to have ended in 1991, but it is now 2008 and it does not look like anything will change under a Barisan Nasional government.

Policies aside, their political leaders have equally scary similarities as well. Thabo Mbeki has been losing his popularity because positions himself as a highflying intellectual, cream of the crop from London, surrounding himself with a team of Londoners. Zuma on the other hand emerged from the ranks of the people, considered a left wing peoples representative, close to labour unions and the social democrats. Within the party support is growing for Zuma, and many suspect next years’ national Elections will mirror closely what happened in Malaysia this year.

Mbeki’s government is in utter denial of the real situation in South Africa. My conversant quipped, “Mbeki claims nobody has died of AIDS, and technically he is correct!” (People do not die of AIDS itself, of course - it is an influenza attack that kills you off, after the HIV virus has so weakened your immunity system. They are under an illusion that there is no crime in the country - when in reality, people live daily with thick walls, high gates, security guards, alarm systems, and rapid response teams. The Foreign Affairs Minister is camping in China, when in reality the situation in Zimbabwe needs dealing with urgently instead. This is reminiscent of BN that was unable to deal with the public’s sentiments before March 8th 2008. (things are supposed to have theoretically changed…. but…)

Drawing parallels, responses have varied significantly, some people blaming implementation of the policy instead of the policy itself. I emphasise that the policy itself is at fault. Attaching race to any affirmative action policy is suicide for any country, because it lays the ground and provides great room for wastage, abuse and corruption - based on its very technical definition. Better it would be for needs to be considered the qualifying factor.

Shame on Malaysia for preaching this suicidal policy to South Africa. Woe betide any other country that is even considering “learning” from us. Whilst there are certainly short term gains for the marginalised community, its long term liabilities will be destructive, and I caution against it wholeheartedly.

It’s my first time in the Middle East, and understandably am trying to absorb as much as possible with all senses. Kuwait is an interesting first country in the Middle East to visit, since it has probably one of the best human rights records amongst its neighbours. It also boasts a relatively independent and outspoken media, willing to challenge the Government.

My first observation was that there are numerous foreigners working here, mainly Indians and Filipinos. My suspicions were true, since based on statistics there are 1.2 million foreigners in Kuwait, out of a total resident population of 2.9 million (estimated). 80-90% of the workforce here is made out of non-citizens, which sounds pretty much like Dubai as well.

My second observation was the utter dryness of the city. As you land from the plane, all you see is brown sand everywhere stretched across the lands. Date and palm trees are replanted all across to “greenify” the place. The heat is sometimes unbearable, reaching 41 Celcius in the day and 35 at night. Skin gets dry and scaly without lotion. A reaction is for the air-conditioning to go the reverse, blasted till I am almost frozen indoors.

Since I am here for the 4th World Islamic Economic Forum (www.wief.org.my), I am acutely aware of the way Islam (or religion in general) is practiced here, drawing comparisons with what we have at home in Malaysia. It’s interesting now being in the minority of people who are not covered by the Niqab. This of course is a culture sociological heritage where in the past sandstorms compelled people to don cloth to cover their faces. (There was a sandstorm just before I arrived). 80% of Kuwaitis practice Islam, and have not yet had full conversations on their understanding of Allah. There are still a sizeable number of Christians in the country (300,000) and on Friday there were throngs of Lebanese Christians traipsing to the traditional Church behind my hotel. Coptic Christianity is evident as well, based on the little tattoo I observed on the hand of one, a mark of their community. This is reminiscent of the way Islam, Christianity and other religions blended harmoniously in the Middle East and Spain before.

Women are less conservative here than in Saudi Arabia, or so I am told. There is a variance, of course, with some dressed in sleeveless tops and dresses. They are certainly very visible in public life, many driving big luxury cars in the city (the ones you cannot find in Malaysia). Of course men still take primary leadership positions and women were only given the right to vote in 2005 (just three years ago!).

Traditional gear is the popular wear here. Men wear white; women stark black. In the souq (market/bazaar) today, shops were displaying rows and rows of flowing material. Compared to Pakistan which I visited for the 3rd WIEF and had the most colourful fabric I’ve ever seen, it was almost initially amusing to find that one cloth would sell white/pale yellow/cream cloth alone; and another plain black alone. From a Malaysian perspective, one sniggers to think of homogenous clothing as outfits that dehumanise a person.

That may be valid, but upon closer inspection I may have reason to change my mind. The black traditional dress has variation in patterns, embroidery, edging, stitching, motifs, cloth texture and so on. It is actually a test of creativity, which tailors unbelievably live up to. How many shadows of black could one possibly innovate, right? But yes - they each have their own uniqueness about them. Really fascinating world, this.

Kuwait’s architecture must be commended! Their skyline is spotted with beautifully designed buildings, each with their own incredible shape. It is a modern city, very clean (it’s just the dust that gets to you), tinged with sophistry. I envision this place becoming a second Dubai in a decade. Their waterfront overlooking the sea - part of the Persian Gulf - is a favourite for locals on weekends (Friday & Saturday) to go fishing, sit alongside on benches to chat, go shopping and chill out.

Yes of course, there are McD’s, KFC, Subway, Starbucks, Costa Coffee and all galore. But local cuisine beats all else flat. The flat breads, chickpea and bean paste, fresh yoghurt, fruits, lamb, saffron rice are going to contribute to an exponential hike in my weight.

In all, Kuwait is a great introduction to the Arab world. Learning Arabic here is easy too, since people are responsive and friendly when attempting to speak phrases here and there. I think this will be a good trip, overall. Alhamdullilah!

My friendly anonymous friend Abc wrote in to say the following.

Many thanks for clarifying that the contentious statement (in the context of IHT’s story) was not what you had said.

As for your  ’wish you would have had the courtesy to leave your name’, I regret that II cannot fulfil your wish much as I would like to.  Pseudonym is, like democracy, a freedom of choice, not necessarily an issue of courtesy.

All is well and good. Such is life in Malaysia. Everyday is an elections day, with great sensitivities surrounding our discourse on politics, race, and democracy.

Responsible e-mailing means leaving your name when you provide comments on my quotes. I received the following in the mailbox today. A rather interesting but highly inaccurate reading of what I had said.

“This term of office (by a Chinese, multiracial and Islamic party) is a make or break for them.” Tricia Yeoh, Centre for Public Policy Studies (reported in International Herald Tribune (IHT), 10/3/0

Note: Notwithstanding the perceptive observation by Tricia Yeoh, her reference pertaining to Democratic Action Party as a “Chinese party” is factually incorrect (unless it is misquoted in IHT), because DAP had fielded Indian and even Malay candidates in the 12^th General Election.  In its website, you will read Lim Guan Eng’s press statement (9/3/0 as follows - “DAP wishes to emphasis that we will be an inclusive government that represents all Malaysians. No one will be discriminated or victimised even if they had supported the BN. We want to be the government as well as a responsible and constructive opposition in other states for all Malaysians.  DAP will continue to build up on our success in winning Malay votes in significant numbers to win seats we otherwise would not have won. We want to prove that we fight for the interests of all Malays, Chinese Indians, Kadazans and Ibans so long as they are Malaysians.” http://dapmalaysia.org/english/2008/mac08/lge/lge865.htm

Thank you, “Abc Abc” for leaving this comment, although I do wish you would have had the courtesy to leave your name, so that I could contact you and explain in further detail. Nevertheless, I am happy to elaborate on my blog the reasons for your error.

Firstly, I commend you for your obvious desire for a multiracial Malaysia. I too believe strongly in a country that transcends bigoted racial politics, a system that has unfortunately for umpteen years dominated the very socio-cultural fabric of the country we know and love. Indeed, the political parties that advocate a multiracial approach are the ones that have emerged the unsuspecting victor in many constituencies. You and I both were probably very surprised at the outcome, one that nevertheless marks well for a democratic future.

However, please be very careful. You do not want to present false information. This is precisely the thing we want to avoid during this politically heightened period of time.  First of all, please read the ORIGINAL article. You can find the link here. (Title of the International Herald Tribune article is: “Malaysian Opposition’s Gains Signal Era of Change”) To my enlightened reader, this is how you read an article. This part of the story was NOT what I said.

The opposition as a whole must show that a Chinese, multiracial and Islamic party can work together on national issues - no mean feat, given their religious and ethnic differences.

The following part of the story (the part with actual inverted commas, i.e. this symbol “) is.

“This term of office is make or break for them,” said Yeoh of the Center for Public Policy Studies.“What is essentially needed is for them to get down to the negotiating table, work out common policies, work out the nitty-gritty administrative details,” Yeoh said.

I’d like to remind everyone that we should strive as far as possible to refrain from making false accusations. This principle applies to any rumour that we hear about any political leader. Verify our sources of information before sending them out on SMS. Do not be rumour mongers. At this stage, the best is to maintain calm, and not be pulled into any fiery conversation that would result ultimately in slander and unnecessary criticism. We must maintain a rational state of mind, to even dialogue and discuss what’s happened over the last couple of days in Malaysia.  

But thank you kindly for your message. And please continue advocating for a Malaysia that recognises the interests of all Malaysians alike, whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Iban or otherwise. Racial identities should exist for cultural reasons, but insofar as economic access and opportunity are concerned, we should be colour blind, the oft-quoted phrase of late.

The Star Forum yesterday had a full crowd. But I have to say, another additional negative about the newspaper was its inability to quote people correctly. This is what I was quoted as saying:

“The forum was fair as it allowed the people to present all their views. We have a good panel here and it is necessary to hear the views from across the spectrum. 

“This is the time when Malaysians need to sit down and reflect upon a very significant turning point of our country. We need to come together to decide what we want for the future.  

“The Star has provided a good model to be followed by the state governments and the cabinet to make a civil society.” 

How can “state governments and the cabinet” MAKE civil society??

I said “state governments and the cabinet to meet civil society.”

Come on, Star! Honestly… I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. I think I should just laugh, along with Comedy Court’s excellent renditions of recent songs.

There are two trends that I am wary of seeing take place post-Elections. Sure, we have all celebrated the cause of Democracy reigning in, this time. But now the real work begins, people settle back into their offices and rooms to be accustomed back to normal living.

Trend no. 1 is that DAP, traditionally feared by the Malays but this time supported because of its relationship with PKR, might be considered by the Malays as not standing up for their rights. This will be an unfortunate trend because the DAP needs the Malays as much as it can. It will be a horrible first start for DAP if the Malays are not convinced enough that DAP is looking out for their interests. It should be perceived to live up to its theoretical rhetoric of a Malaysia for all Malaysians.

Trend no. 2 is that the media is putting a horrible spin on PAS wanting to implement hudud law, which was quoted out of context. This is sending shivers down the spine of Christians and non-Muslims. However, we cannot be fooled into some of the misquotes and misinformation given to us any longer. We should be as vigilant as possible, put on thinking and questioning caps customary of journalists, and ensure that we get as much information as possible to form a complete picture. The bad thing resulting from this would be that the Chinese and Indians are alienated from PAS. The reality is that PAS itself is divided on its interpretation of Islamic state (which by the way they dropped from their manifesto because they know they have to be more relevant to the non-Muslim community), and have said outrightly that they would defend the rights of minorities. 

My hypothesis is that PAS has not actually had the opportunity of proving itself to any of us Malaysians. Aside from in Kelantan, the rest of us Peninsular folk have always held a distant suspicion of PAS, one that is at times not validated. What has happened is that PAS was a formidable enemy to UMNO in the past, for the Malays. UMNO being the Malay saviour party had to become more of an Islamic party as well, to win back the Malay sentiment. As a result UMNO has had to go under tremendous pressure to go along more of an Islamic trend, putting into place Islamic principles.

So this may sound strange coming from a Christian, but maybe it’s high time we looked at giving PAS a chance to prove itself? Sure, they come up with silly little things (wanting all women in Malaysia to wear a hijab - that was some time ago) but at least, guys, they’re HONEST and clean… I think I’ll be writing something proper on PAS and Christianity soon. I think this is a theme that all of us Christians need to explore in depth.