The Flaw of APEX

The verdict is out—USM has been awarded the APEX university status that is going to give it the competitive edge that is desired by all universities in Malaysia—the autonomy that is needed to give them the freedom to forge ahead. In obtaining this status, USM is promised autonomy in finance, setting up its own service scheme, running its own management, deciding on student intake, student fees and in determining its own top administrative leadership. This sounds like a winning formula for any institution. As to why USM alone should enjoy this freedom is beyond anyone. The fact that the government itself is emancipating the university is quite telling: it means that the government agrees that universities have not been able to excel thus far because of the control that has been exercised on them. It also means that the government agrees that the stringent controls are in themselves detrimental to growth and has now decided that it is going to conduct its own controlled experiment on USM.

As to whether USM will be able to achieve the expected ranking range that the government has arbitrarily set up remains to be seen, but what is a forgone conclusion is that any university that is given huge financial support and the freedom to chart its own future is going to do well. All nine that vied for this status are quite capable of producing good results if given the opportunity and their eagerness to be selected as the APEX university shows that they desired to be set free from the shackles of bureaucratic control. The thorough evaluation that was made on “each university’s state of readiness, transformation plan and preparedness for change” was what supposedly made the difference, though one could safely assume that all the universities had the necessary tools and qualification, and the decision was made on distinctions of very small degrees.

In giving USM the much coveted title of APEX university, the government has been successful in doing one thing: it has demoralized others. It has only proven that the decision was based on the ability of a university to sell itself on paper well, no doubt based on facts and real achievements. However, most, if not all, the others have equally impressive accomplishments to their name. The Minister of Higher Education said that the exercise was not about ranking, though most universities will read it as that, and the statement that “we are identifying one that can go leaps and bounds into excellence with government help” will not soothe any wounded egos, since all are striving to do the same.

The whole exercise of selecting an APEX university is also one that shows desperation: we want to get into the “good books” of education at all cost—without any serious deliberation over the matter—without fixing the problems that exists today which have contributed to the deterioration of tertiary education in the country or finding out why we have not been doing well. We cannot fault the government in wanting our universities to be amongst the best in the world. (Though the term Ivy League is synonymous with excellence, it is usually misunderstood since it does not include all the best universities in the United States. It refers to a conference of universities in a particular region and hence does not include Stanford or Berkeley and other prestigious universities in that country.) However, why are we obsessed with wanting to be in the top one hundred? There are many excellent universities in the world that do not make the cut, but are known for excelling in selected areas. Can we not be one of them?

The decision to make one university the best in the country by overlooking the strengths of others is downright insulting and shortsighted. The government should give all universities autonomy and give them equal opportunity to compete. Not equal opportunity to compete for labels, but funds, a much needed commodity to get things done. None should be disadvantaged by the government they serve. The answer does not lie in bringing in foreigners to run our universities, to give them administrative posts, under the assumption that the failure of leadership in local universities is the absence of qualified local candidates, especially when blame should be assigned to the political process of appointment. A selection done through a search will yield amazing results.

The present decision will give USM an unfair advantage over all universities in Malaysia in more ways than one: the funding will allow them to afford the very best: this includes students and faculty. This is an unfair advantage that is a recipe for destroying other even more established universities. If I were in the enviable position of USM, I would be extremely happy too with this present recognition, but the university must admit that this lop-sided policy cannot be good for the country. Before running every which way but forward, I suggest that the Ministry take a step back and re-evaluate its decision. This is one of the most disheartening decisions the government have made in the education field in recent times.

Sayyid Al-Aiderus

The Morality of Defection

Crossing over is too neutral. Let's call it defection.

I have forgotten the exact date of Dr Chandra Muzaffar's defection to the Barisan Nasional. He was a founding member of my party, yes, and deputy president too.

Was there any sweetener involved? Only God knows. He became a scholar again, and a BN public intellectual. For several years he was out of the limelight; for as long as he was a PKR leader, he was a bête noire to the BN media establishment.

He must have really missed the celebrity status. Now as the political scientist of the powers that be, he gives big-time interviews, and has regained his status as the expert commentator in the mainstream media and writes longish articles. He can speak the truth (all the time?), and this is the irony to the powerless.

I do not wish to repeat what has been said about him. Suffice for the reader to scan through the comments in this portal regarding his recent statement about Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's so-called obsession to become the next prime minister via the back door.

Unless he was bribed, Chandra must sincerely believe that his defection was virtuous. Let's grant him the benefit of the doubt. But what makes him think that he is the only person capable of virtuous defection?

Why deny the same adjective to 30, or even more, BN members of Parliament who wish to defect to the Pakatan Rakyat camp and thereby form a new government? Unlike our scholar whose defection could not be put to the test of the ballot box, these BN defectors and their wooers will have to face the wrath of voters in the next general election should their defection be later deemed wicked and villainous.

I really wish the BN had fielded him at Bandar Tun Razak, where he stood as the Keadilan candidate in 1999, against Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim on March 8. We would have seen the empirical result of his verbal peccadillo — Anwar as prime minister would be an unmitigated disaster for the country — on the eve of the political tsunami.

So our political doctor will continue, occasionally, to pontificate on behalf of the BN. With impunity? No, we shall hoist him on his own petard.

Why shouldn't BN MPs defect? And why can't their defection be as virtuous, if not greater, than Chandra's? They would not be betraying any friend who is languishing in prison, or destroying a movement for a just world, or the struggle for freedom and human dignity.

In any case, Chandra's defection has not resulted in the restoration of the independence of the judiciary (unless he has not seen the Lingam tape). Has he attempted to instil kesedaran, a movement he founded and drew many idealistic college students like me into activism three decades ago, into the A-G's office to put an end to selective prosecution and into the police top brass so there is no fabrication of evidence again?

Or does he still believe, like residual residents of a BN fool's paradise, that all top apparatchiks of Bukit Aman are angels? Has the economy improved since his defection? Or has he helped arrest the steep decline of our universities?

Suppose the voters remonstrate: "We voted you as the BN candidate, why now you join the PR?" What can these MPs reply? Any Baba or Dollah can reply, by asking rhetorically: "Didn't the BN government promise you all not to raise the price of petrol before the general election? They have reneged on their promise. Now all prices are going up. You still want me, your MP, to stick to the government that works against your interests?"

These are the cases for defection. The list can get longer as we put our little-used political imagination to work again. Why wait for four more years? The American slo-mo recession, to borrow the expression of Paul Krugman, has already begun to impact us.

We need to engineer an economic resurgence otherwise we all will suffer. The economy will contract and there will be more layoffs. Those who are working will see the value of their take-home ringgit shrinking.

The economy must be resurrected from the current stagnation. But first we need to restore confidence and hope. New confidence and hope can only come with new leadership. We need a Malaysian FDR.

So the defectors will not be pengkhianat after all. They are the penyelamat, the band of political white knights saving the country from the stagnation and slump. Those who still want to stay back will be on the wrong side of history.

Khalid Jaafar is a Parti Keadilan Rakyat supreme council member.

ISLAM BASHING

The recent debacle at the forum organised by the Bar Council reminds us of the affronts to the Muslims of Malaysia sometime ago and our response to it. This is what we wrote then:



INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO RECENT AFFRONTS TO ISLAM

The recent flurry of suggestions and comments on the conversion of Mohammad Abdullah (M. Moorthy) culminated in a history-making move by non-Muslim Cabinet Ministers who signed and sent an unsolicited memorandum to their boss, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, that has embarrassed the government and raised the eyebrows, concern and temper of Muslims, especially the Malays in this country. The action was seemingly taken because of a series of recent events that resulted in a spate of views expressed by a segment of society that feels that Article 121 (1A) should be reviewed or amended. The Cabinet Ministers appear to have been encouraged and emboldened by the heated rhetoric of a few. Their insensitive and callous act has naturally offended Muslims in this country and has raised suspicion and questions of intent—thus invoking feelings of distrust and misgivings, especially about the sincerity of component parties, a trust that has been a long time in building. This move is all the more curious since it was made by seasoned politicians who undoubtedly knew exactly what they were doing, but interestingly enough, preferred to take the issue to a public platform rather than to a closed Cabinet.

Since then, eight of the nine Ministers have agreed to withdraw the memorandum, leaving Tan Sri Bernard Dompok standing in defiance of the Prime Minister’s call to reconsider the submission. However, the deed is done and the act has served its purpose—to show supporters that an attempt had been made to force the hand of an unyielding government. Where the solidarity of the National Front should have been paramount on the agenda of the component parties, they opted to show fragmentation. Hence, the Prime Minister and his party found themselves standing alone.

The somewhat initial reticent response from officials, either in speech or action, appears now to have been interpreted to mean an admission of the inadequacy of the law or an attempt at a back-handed apology or an expression of guilt.

In a plural society, discussing some issues is like kissing the head of a cobra: the act itself is intriguing, but in itself, it possesses little merit—a side show is a side show no matter how you cut it. Rev. Wong’s statement, which was placed prominently on the first page, right next to the pictures of the nine Ministers, is nothing more than double-talk: a loaded declaration that implies more than it says: it has forked some lightning. It is worth pondering why his statement, and not that of any one of the Ministers, was displayed on the occasion. (He states, “It should not be looked at as only a religious issue. It is a social issue emerging out of a religious matter.” It is interesting that Wong Chun Wah in his column “On the Beat” concludes his article almost stating verbatim what Rev. Wong had said: “The issue should not be treated as a religious or racial issue but a social issue with social problems that have emerged out of religious laws.”) More amazing is Rev. Wong’s remark that some people are attempting to turn this to an emotional issue. What did he expect? This is the reason why there are certain forums in which certain discussions should take place.

There is a part of religion that rightfully abandons reason and embraces emotion. The act of sending the memorandum is an affront to all Muslims: it is unacceptable and shows a total disregard for the feelings of a peaceful majority. I am reminded of a heart-rending story of a forced conversion that took place in the United States in 1989.

An Albanian Muslim father in Texas, Sadri Krasniqi, was wrongly accused of molesting his four-year old daughter in public during his son’s karate competition. He was eventually found innocent by the court, when experts proved that the manner of his expression of love to his daughter was part of a 1500-year old tradition of a people who do not have a history of molesting children, let alone have sex with them. However, the system jumped the gun, and the children were put up for adoption by the Texas Child Protective Services before the father was cleared of all charges. The children were forced to become Christians and the civil judge who had presided over the case considered it the right decision, even though prosecutors called the verdict a “disgusting result.” The judge purportedly had even said that the children were better off growing up as Christians. To the parents’ dismay, their children were forced to eat pork, wear crosses, attend church and perform other duties of a Christian. The Krasnisqis, who had owned 5 restaurants, lost everything in the course of clearing their name and attempting to get their children back. The children were never returned to them. It was reported on the news that the Governor of the State of Texas was the only one who could have corrected the situation, but Governor George Bush (yes, the present president of the U.S. of A), a conservative Christian, chose to do nothing.

Mohammad Abdullah’s case is not at all like that of Krasniqi’s. At least, our government has been compassionate and considerate with Mohammad’s family and has done much to help ease their pain. In the eyes of the Syariah court Mohammad was a Muslim; there was no mala fide in the decision. The courts went by his declaration that he was a Muslim. The issue here is Kaliammal was denied the right to be heard, not the right to bury her husband as a Hindu which is an outcome that may or may not have taken place if she was given a hearing. She claims that he was a practicing Hindu. Who is to say that he was not a practicing Muslim? Islam gives those who are physically-challenged or in difficult situations a great deal of latitude. Such a person would have been exempted from having to go to mosques and could have performed his prayers at home by just gesturing with his fingers or moving his eyes.

In recent developments, the Syariah courts have been portrayed as institutions that cannot act impartially and that Islamic law does not accommodate non-Muslims. The Syariah courts may have to take some of the blame for the former perception because of their dismal and embarrassing handling of some divorce cases. What needs to be made clear here is that non-Muslims have a voice in Syariah courts.

All of us jealously guard our own. Even people who are not religious tend to feel strongly about conversions. Hence, it is not surprising to me that some people are reluctant to profess their new faith to their family members or friends, afraid of repercussions that may even amount to violence or loss of life. I know through firsthand experiences narrated by friends who had converted to Islam that their family members stayed angry at them for years, including some who have refused to reconcile to this day and those who were victims of verbal and physical abuse.

Declaring one’s faith to one’s family members is a private issue. No government or institution should interfere with this right of an individual. Only a convert should decide on the right time to announce such an important change in his life to his family, a decision that may anchor upon so many factors, including the ill health or age of family members or the degree of their reaction, revulsion or acceptance of such news: in handling such vicarious situations, it is sometimes all in the timing.

In the last few months, the media has highlighted a great number of subjects that have stirred the emotions of the people: one was an issue of rights that was racially-laced, that is, the squatting incident, the other, the Islamic Family Law Bill that invited solicited and unsolicited comments from all over, including a sweeping character assassination by the Director of the Sisters in Islam, Zainah Anwar, who called the drafters of the Bill “patriarchal” and “misogynists,” words that usually make up her repertoire. Her fury sent her lashing out in every direction, once again referring to the rights of a man to divorce his wife, beat her, in cases of disobedience and a host of other complaints. (Of course, we all know that good Muslims constantly remind their wives of such things to keep them in line. I have reduced my wife-beating activities to only once a week after over twenty years of marriage. For those who are dense enough to believe this, I have to state categorically, I have never beaten my wife in my life.) Heads of NGOs and citizens, who profess other religions, were encouraged to come to the aid of SIS, and in their zeal, more often than not, overstepped their boundaries by commenting on matters beyond their jurisdiction and scope, having found their courage in numbers and in the hasty retreat of Datuk Dr Abdullah Md Zin from the controversy. Then there is the incident of Jawi’s setting up of the Morality Policing Squad (The term “Snoop Squad” is a derogatory term and a misrepresentation of the purpose and intent of the program.) which elicited naïve and uninformed responses from even the President of the Bar Council, Yeo Yang Poh, who expressed shock that holding hands could be considered a sin in the year 2006, hence, shifting attention from the more severe acts of public indecency that was mentioned and describing the move as a preposterous and antiquated act, thus, ignoring the reality that promiscuity may result from innocent touches. (Yes, Yeo, in a divine religion, a sin 1400 years ago would still be a sin today, though holding hands would not involve capital punishment; in fact, the prescription would be to offer advice and encourage couples from desisting from acts that may lead to grievous sins or incurable maladies. Even the US has moved its position on sex from asking people to use contraceptives to abstinence--while here we are talking about using condoms.) We are all for a society that still maintains a certain degree of its conservatism and decorum in public.

The past few weeks have also brought out that highly western argument, in this case from Ivy Josiah, the President of Women’s Aid Organization, that women should not fear dressing in whichever manner they choose since this is their right, neglecting the fact that actions have consequences. If women choose to dress skimpily to attract attention to themselves, then, they should expect to be “complemented” accordingly—in the age old fashion of men. (No, we are not talking about harassment, but the kind of teasing and stares that invite hot-blooded, breathing individuals to life.) I doubt women wear mini-skirts to air out their legs or shove on fitting jeans to tighten their skins or squeeze out their fat or iron out their cellulite or wrinkles. The feminist activist Jac S Kee lamented that “Jawi has turned the quality of love and affection into a crime and social ill,” calling the program “ridiculous.” Public indecency is now described as a show of “love and affection” and to check such an expression is deemed “ridiculous,” and what does one call having sex in public these days—goodwill and romance?

Then, there was the issue of the hijab, brought up by a non-Muslim graduating student at IIUM. There was an uproar from certain quarters of the public that prompted the issue to be discussed in the Parliament: all this over a university graduation attire. When I was a student in the University of the Ozarks in Clarksville, Arkansas, all students, regardless of their country of origin, race or religion, were required to attend chapel seven times in a semester or else they would not be able to obtain their grades. We did not object to this unconstitutional requirement; we just went along. Here in Malaysia, races that have lived peacefully with one another have suddenly become Islamophobics and every expression of discomfort is treated like a major ailment.

The Syariah is the domain of Islam and should be off limits to non-Muslims. Shura on Islamic matters should not involve non-Muslims. Muslims do not need non-Muslims to tell them what is good or not good for Islam. People like Judith Loh-Koh, President of All Women’s Action Society, should not even contemplate the possibility of giving feedback on the Islamic Family Law Act as she expressed the government should recently in the papers. Zainah Anwar, who has the ear of the media and certain quarters in the government and the sympathy of the West, does not represent mainstream Islam or the views of the majority of Muslim women. The organization has ideas and opinions that are highly questionable as far as the religion is concerned. Yet they are included in high level negotiations on matters pertaining to Islam, even though Zainah’s biases are deep-rooted and of a dubious nature, including her opinions about polygamy.

In a recent interview in the paper she said that people she knew who practiced polygamy said that it was difficult--nothing like stating the obvious. No woman need remind a man that polygamy is difficult, and no woman need stand in the way of a man who has the God-given right to practice it. No pilot survey result, as mentioned by Zainah, for or against polygamy, should ever be used as the basis to abrogate God’s laws or discriminate against men.
Zainah’s statement that the young daughters of her friends are “declaring that they have no plans to marry or that they will not marry a Malay” is laughable. People do not get married to get divorced. What are these parents prompting their children to do—lead a life of celibacy or promiscuity? Marrying a foreigner too presents its own variety of challenges. Those who are feeding their daughters with horror stories about marriage are irresponsible parents. The marriage of their daughters, we pray to God, will turn out better than the failed marriages of their parents. (I hope these parents provide better counsel to their very Malay sons.) Those of us who are happily married sometimes wonder where this kind of animosity stems from and what bitter experiences in the lives of these angry women have caused them to view the world in such lugubrious terms and wasting their lives fighting a battle that cannot possibly be sanctioned by God or won through time. The issue of love is beyond anyone’s control: I seriously doubt that when love comes a calling, these young girls will be flipping through the pages of the Syariah laws before deciding on their future. (I propose a pre-nuptial agreement.) People do not venture into the sacred institution of marriage with a load of confounding “what ifs” that can only be answered by God.

There is a kind of extremeness expressed in our society that confronts decency. We are all for fair play and rights as given to us by the Creator, but there is a limit to everything, and the goings-on in recent weeks have tested our patience and honor sorely.

Sayyid Al-Aiderus

Political Debacles

The recent arrest of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which has come at probably the most inopportune moment for the government, promises predictable reactions and results from the public in the next election. It, more than anything else, guarantees the continued erosion of confidence in the Barisan Nasional government—a government which has not been able to halt the disaffection of people since the last election—some brought about because of the mishandling of situations, others because of an apparent insensitivity to the suffering of the public. The most blatant example is the decision to raise the price of petrol. The ferocity of the act will not go unpunished. The continued political upheaval the country is experiencing is the result of a kind of immature and unsophisticated running of the nation that is insulting to any reason-respecting individual. The bungling mismanagement of the Lingam tapes to the Altantuya case to the Saiful saga, all involving high profile figures, either imagined or real, is embarrassing. However, the déjà vu charges of Dato’ Seri Anwar has been timed to forestall the apparently real attempts by the de facto leader of Keadilan to take over the government. (At this point it is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the disenchanted).

The talk in the media of DNA evidence and mubahala, of charges in the Shariah and Civil courts, has brought about an interest in science and religion and a clash of tradition and secularism respectively. The subject has compelled me to consider the superiority of the demands of Islam, even in the light of the presence of DNA. We are aware from Anwar’s last trial that evidence can be manipulated in extremely creative ways. Anwar states that it is a fact that thirteen different blood spots that appeared on the mattress were introduced after-the-fact. This, he says, was admitted by the officer in charge who said he obtained the sample from the hospital and sprinkled it on the mattress. The details never came to light in the trial because Judge Augustine Paul expunged the right to introduce the DNA evidence—all this after the fiasco of transporting the mattress in and out of court for the whole world to see.

If Anwar’s claim is true, then we should grant him his paranoia and caution. This is the reason why we did not begrudge the Lingam case Royal Commission’s insistence on examining the original tape to ensure its authenticity. By the same token, in a case involving sexual impropriety, we can imagine that it would not be difficult to introduce DNA into a violated orifice to give credence to a fabricated claim. Fresh blood samples or sperm cells obtained through different means can be preserved to be used at a later date for any evil purpose. Technology isn’t everything.

Desperate situations cause people to come up with desperate measures to maintain their positions. History bears out this truism. Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi’s callous and naïve statements dismissing the conspiracy theory after having been part of a government that went to great lengths to prove miserably the guilt of Anwar Ibrahim are shocking. Is the Prime Minister willing to concede that Dr. Chua Soi Lek was embarrassed nationally through the revelation of a sex tape because of an elaborate plan to remove him from party and office? Should we speculate that Ong Ka Ting and his deputy is stepping down because of allegations of illegal spying activities? Will he be willing to concede that his predecessor, who has become today his greatest critic, carried out a vendetta to dismiss his deputy of which he himself, that is, the present Prime Minister, has unwittingly benefited from? Does he not find it suspicious that Dato’ Seri Najib, who initially said that the infamous Saiful, a dropout, had approached his office for a scholarship, and later, unwittingly, admit that he had met him prior to his making a police report in his residence?!! (I have a few things to discuss with the deputy Prime Minister myself; I wonder if he would be willing to meet with me?)

Personally, I do not care if Dato’ Seri Anwar is a bisexual or what his sexual preference is. My religion does not allow me to speculate on such things. The country is awry with rumours that surround cabinet ministers, UMNO and component party leaders and their purported sexual intrigues, their cover-ups, and their corruption at all levels. Are we now setting up an arbitrary disgust meter to gauge which sexual practices should be viewed as more despicable and that alleged womanizing and murder do not come even close to purported sodomy?

I am quite sympathetic with politicians and acknowledge the temptations that they have to thwart are almost humanly impossible. It cannot be easy to wield power and exercise it sparingly. The temptation to exert authority must be great. Few can win the battle against self—that has been described in Islam as the greatest jihad in life—the constant struggle to keep one’s desires and wants in place.

I am indifferent to the charges and at times livid and sickened by the media’s attempt to try him in the papers and sway public opinion. All this is going to backfire. The so called free media is too imbecilic to consider that the timing of the charge is too convenient and suspect. The media has not seized the opportunity to rise to the occasion and play fair. Just a few months ago they were showing how much they have grown under the leadership of Badawi; on the contrary, they have remained quite infantile in their coverage, especially the New Straits Time and Utusan Malaysia.

In my case that which would convince and satisfy me is the word of trustworthy men and women who are standup individuals in society—disinterested individuals who will not resort to mean and filthy ways to embarrass another for a gain. (Islam calls for the testimony of four witnesses who had seen the actual act, and they have to be just and upright citizens of a community.) Without getting into the technical aspect of this matter, we can say that the difficulty of this requirement is in finding upstanding people who would want to witness such things.

It is a Catch-22 situation. The issue of privacy in Islam is an important thing. (The peeping Toms of the Religious Department who eagerly go in search of khalwat acts do not represent the spirit of Islam.) The other issue here is that if the self-righteous Saiful did engage in sodomy willingly and is now admitting to his wanton ways than he has to be punished for it too. If he was coerced by a 61-year old man on many occasions to have sex with him, then the victim has a great deal of explaining to do as to why he continued to work for him and decide to reveal this now, and more over, why to Dato’ Seri Najib of all people? Has his revelation been induced by any promise or profit?

The government must be reminded that the country is tired and disgusted with this new allegation. It is playing with the sentiments of a people who have endured a little too much in such a short period of time. In the Prime Minister’s bid to ensure a smooth transition of power in the country to Dato’ Seri Najib, when the time comes, he runs the risk of having nothing to hand over. This fractured nation may not want to see an unwise government continue and risk for change for the wrong reason. We have yet to learn what an untested government can do for us, but such high stake games can yield nothing but loss to all of us, and the people who are fed-up with all this shenanigans may vote irrationally because of sheer mental exhaustion and frustration.

Syed Ahmad
Damansara