Google

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Ezam: Politik Baru dan Bad Samaritans

Baru-baru ini saya sempat hadir dalam satu acara diskusi bersama Sdr. Ezam Mohd. Noor, Pengerusi Gerak Malaysia yang juga bekas Ketua Angkatan Muda Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Yang menarik perhatian saya ialah bicara Ezam mengenai “politik baru”.

Sudah ramai orang membicarakan tentang perkara-perkara baru dalam pilihanraya umum ke 12 yang lalu. Tetapi bagi saya Ezam agak istimewa. Beliau merupakan antara orang yang terawal mempopularkan “politik baru” - yang didefinisikan sebagai politik pelbagai kaum - melalui penglibatannya dalam Parti Keadilan Nasional (keADILan) ketika parti itu mula dilancarkan pada tahun 1999. Tetapi, tujuh tahun kemudian, setelah melalui onak dan duri dalam politik pembangkang, termasuk meringkuk dalam tahanan di Kamunting, beliau akhirnya membuat keputusan untuk meletakkan semua jawatan dalam parti.

Sebagai seorang yang pernah mempelopori idea “politik baru”, dan sekarang berada di luar wadah yang diperjuangkan dahulu, agak menarik untuk melihat bagaimana Ezam melihat perkembangan politik semasa. Apakah jawapan beliau kepada persoalan samada PRU 12 merupakan manifestasi politik baru sepertimana yang digagaskan hampir sepuluh tahun yang lalu?

Jawapan Ezam ialah tidak. Beliau menghujjahkan bahawa sejak kebelakangan ini, politik Malaysia menjadi semakin bersifat perkauman. Perdebatan mengenai hak kebebasan beragama, isu tuntutan HINDRAF, perungkaian kontrak sosial, penolakan terhadap Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dan isu negara Islam - walaupun diolah menggunakan bahasa demokrasi - masih merupakan isu-isu kaum. Pola mengundi juga menunjukkan kewujudan dikotomi kaum. Sementara berlaku peralihan drastik undi bukan Melayu kepada parti-parti pembangkang, perkara yang sama tidak berlaku kepada undi Melayu. Justeru, bagi Ezam, politik baru rentas kaum sepertimana yang digagaskan pada tahun 1999 tidak berlaku dalam pilihanraya kali ini. Malah, tegas Ezam, pilihanraya kali ini merupakan pilihanraya yang paling bersifat perkauman dalam sejarah pilihanraya Malaysia.

Saya fikir penegasan Ezam dalam hal ini wajar diteliti. Kemunculan politik baru rentas kaum dianggap oleh ramai orang sebagai sesuatu yang tidak dapat dielakkan lagi. Keputusan PRU 12 seolahnya memberikan “hukuman mati” kepada ideologi dan sistem politik berasaskan kaum di Malaysia. Politik bukan berasaskan kaum sudah pasti menjadi paksi kepada masa depan politik Malaysia. Tiada alternatif lain lagi.

Teringat saya kepada TINA dalam wacana globalisasi. There is no alternative. Mahu tidak mahu dunia ini harus melalui proses globalisasi yang ditandai oleh pasaran bebas dan sistem politik demokrasi liberal. Itulah satu bentuk ortodoksi yang diseru oleh kelompok neo-liberal di dunia ini. Walaupun tesis korelasi antara pasaran bebas, demokrasi liberal dan kemakmuran ekonomi disanggah di serata dunia - dengan fakta kuantitatif dan kualitatif - para pendokong faham neo-liberal, dan teman-teman neo-cons mereka di Bretton Woods Institutions dan Rumah Putih, galak mengajar kepada dunia bahawa pasaran bebas dan negara dengan kuasa minimal merupakan satu-satunya resipi kemakmuran. Mereka ini digelar “Bad Samaritans” oleh Ha-Joon Chang, seorang warga Korea dan ahli ekonomi pembangunan di Universiti Cambridge dalam bukunya Bad Samaritans: Rich Nations, Poor Policies and the Threat to the Developing World.

Adakah wujud “Bad Samaritans” ala Malaysia? Apakah politik baru rentas kaum - yang turut membawa bersamanya idea-idea demokrasi liberal, pertarungan bebas, perungkaian kontrak sosial berasaskan kaum, kebebasan beragama (atau kebebasan daripada agama?) dan lain-lain yang seumpamanya merupakan rentetan daripada ortodoksi neo-liberal yang problematis itu? Apakah idea-idea ini akan (atau telah) menjadi satu ortodoksi baru di Malaysia?

______________________________________________________________________

MARZUKI MOHAMAD ialah pensyarah sains politik di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia. Pandangan beliau mengenai isu-isu politik semasa boleh didapati di http://marzukimohamad.blogspot.com.

Views on 'Syariah'... the word, the meaning and other ideas

I have no problems with christians using the word 'Allah' in their translation of the bible, as it is argued that the word means 'god' derived from the arabic language. Justified intentions for such 'uproar' of the 'issue' by muslims and christians alike is debatable.

I would also like to point out that 'syariah' as in Syariah Law, also comes from the arabic language and isn't necessarily exclusive to Islam. I'm unsure of what its literal translation is, but from wikipedia.org, it states:

"There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad and his companions), Ijma (consensus), Qiyas (reasoning by analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

The 'syariah system' may have its origins in Islam (Qur'an & hadith), but its concepts and principles are universal (consensus, reasoning by analogy, debate, interpretation & precedent). Similarly to 'Islamic' banking which is developed based on the principles in Islam, but is universally appealing that even non-muslims use Islamic banking.

Even the many fields of Islamic studies which includes theology, mysticism, philosophy, sociology, science, jurisprudence, art, literature and many more are universal in nature. These fields of studies are not 'Islamic'-specific but are broad human studies and search of knowledge. It's classified as Islamic studies just because they are done by muslims or founded by muslims. Whereas they have counterparts from people of other religion pursuing the same field of study. It is a known fact that modern mathematics, medicine and other fields of science have their foundations or have contributions from muslim academics and scholars of times past. My point is not that these field of studies have to be credited to Islam, but that the studies of these fields were in the spirit of humanity; knowledge to be shared for all humanity. Please look up 'Islamic studies' in wikipedia.org to find out more details.

Many more 'terms' found in Islam are merely words in arabic, yet the definition behind it, the principles that govern it, the concepts that shape it; can be beyond any 'religion'. Syariah Law, Civil Law, Common Law; the name doesn't matter. What matters is the system and whether it is fair and just to all.

Syariah Law is not merely about Islamic divorce and Islamic family law, or just deals with sex out of wedlock, not fasting during Ramadhan, apostasy; all issues related to muslims. It is much more than that. There should not be any problem with there being only 'one' Court of Law in Malaysia, but it can be divided into many divisions such as criminal, commercial, family, muslim-related etc. As I've said before; consensus, reasoning by analogy, debate, interpretation & precedent; can be used when deriving and defining the law and its system. Whether to term it Syariah Law, Civil Law, In-Law, My-Law... is besides the point.

The process of deriving and defining such laws should not just involve muslim scholars and academics, but also non-muslim scholars and academics; representing any or every religion, level of society and related fields of interest. Use & apply reasoning & precedent; debate the matter and issue; interpret with wisdom; and decide on consensus.

One Court of Law, but separate clauses in the law for muslims or non-muslims if applicable. This may seem as practicing double standards, but I think it's fair considering matters like alcohol drinking, gambling, sex, adultery, divorce and so on, where people of other religion may have different principles, views and ideas on fairness, justice, enforcement or morality. keyword: consensus. Such issues like hudud or not, keyword: debate, interpret & consensus.

Apostasy in Islam is a sensitive matter that has been politicized as a religious issue. However, I view it as a personal matter between the apostate and God. In Malaysia, it never really was a religious issue, but a legislative, authoritative and administrative matter. Why? Because the issue originates from someone wanting to change the religion stated on ones identity card (administrative) so that one does not fall under the authority and purview of Islamic law (legislative) and enforcement (authoritative) when dealing with marriage, divorce and so on. If one does not wish to be a muslim; after counsel with an Imam or someone with the right knowledge and wisdom (not 'brain-washing' or 'degrading the person' type of session); then let it be. Trust and have faith in God. What is meant to be will be. In the end, all shall be judged by God.

The fact of the matter is, don't be overzealous in brandishing or harping on the 'name'or 'term' just for the sake of promoting 'Islam'. Neither should you be afraid or overreact in such negativity to such 'name' or 'term' just because its 'Islamic' nature. 'Syariah' is just an arabic word. Seek knowledge and apply wisdom. Take the good; leave the bad. Positive over negative. Is it really that hard?

I hope someone who is more knowledgeable and a lot wiser than I am, can expand further on my arguments, views and ideas with more facts, examples and further discussions. To agree or to disagree, it doesn't matter as long as it is constructive.

By backs, just another Malaysian

Comments on “Melayu Bersatulah” (Dari Jelebu)

I think “Dari Jelebu – Melayu Bersatulah” is a good analysis, but it still remains unfinished. To be complete it needs to be explained how the economic interests of the various groupings are advanced and how they clash with each other as well as how one group triumphed against others.

I do not think it is enough to assign class background to individuals to be analytically convincing. To be fair, analysis developed in such a manner would properly occupy a whole book and not just a short article.

For example, what class was Onn Jaafar? What class was Tunku Abdul Rahman? Why did Tunku triumph instead of Onn Jaafar? What class was Tun Razak? Tun Hussein Onn? What class forces achieved enough power, and how, to push out Hussein Onn in favour of Mahathir? How did policies affect the development of various class forces? How did the class forces develop, starting with the newly formed and fresh UMNO to current day UMNO?

What was the role of the old MCA. What is its role now? What class does the PAP represent? What class rules Singapore? What class does the DAP represent? Is the political struggle in Malaysia limited to changing government and national policies and practices, or does it also require a class struggle as well?

Is Anwar Ibrahim a comprador and national bourgeois who was kicked out of UMNO? Or does he truly and honestly represent small capitalists and peasants? How do the policies of PKR advance the class interests of the members it represents?

What classes do RPK and Hishamuddin Rais represent? And how do their individual and personal struggles advance the interests of the classes they represent?

My understanding is that the basis of the “Dari Jelebu” analysis is absolutely true – each individual acts in his own economic interests. This after all is the basic assumption of ALL economic theories.

In the case of Malaysia, contending individuals act our their economic interests, but the class movements are still immature and not fully formed and each political party contains a gamut of different individual and class interests which may not be fully class conscious yet. These individuals and weakly formed, not fully conscious classes compete and contend with each other for power within the political parties themselves as well as with other political parties.

Political parties are therefore not fully pure and homogeneous in their class content. At least not one single class wholly and completely dominates each political party in Malaysia. The rulers or government of Malaysia, therefore, like rulers in other new states and countries are still wholly tribally or racially-based political parties, not class-based rule. Even in China and Vietnam, the state is ruled by a tribe called “communists” and the government is monopolised by a political party called the communist party.

Even though communist parties started off as representing revolutionary workers almost purely, different class interests crept into these parties and their character changed as a result of internal contention and struggles with revolutionary workers losing out in almost all communist parties. Rule by the majority is still not a realisable reality compared to rule by a small, powerful and well-organised minority.

I think it is purely because it is easier to have a small disciplined minority which can cooperate within themselves and thus organise themselves as a formidable force than a large nebulous mass cooperating and organising themselves to form a government.

The same thing happens in Malaysian political parties too, with the difference that they are still very much in the early and immature stages of class development and have not advanced much due to the wide use of racial and religious divisive factors. The only classes that have advanced their class interests with great strides are those of the comprador, bureaucrats and bourgeoisie (in that order) while even the feudal classes have slipped in competition against these classes. Feudal traditions now only provide a veneer of respectability for the compradors.

In this sense, UMNO is the most well-developed class-based party. It is probably already conscious of its class background and class interests but hides it even from its own rank and file members.. It is therefore good that UMNO is exposed as a comprador, bureaucrat and bourgeois party which does not have at heart the interests of the majority of the people in Malaysia.

This does not mean however that the policies UMNO follows will not serve the interests of the majority of the people well. It is completely possible that the leadership of the comprador under current global conditions may well serve the interest of the majority of people in Malaysia well (besides the interests of UMNO cronies). Criticism of UMNO therefore also has to be targeted at how its policies go against the both individual and national economic interests as well as the whole national well-being of the majority of Malaysians.

I do not write this to negate Hishamuddin Rais’s article which I think is excellent, but hope to advance the arguments and debate on what the actual conditions in Malaysia are. I myself do not have the answers to many of the questions I have posed and am desperately seeking answers. I do not even know whether these questions have answers or that they are the right questions in the first place.

By batsman

The 12 Golden Rules for MPs

The elections have come and gone and we now have 222 MPs to represent us in Parliament. This time round, we have a lot of new faces who are first time MPs while there is also a good number of MPs who have served several terms (including those who have served too many terms).

Irrespective of whether they are old or new faces, what these 222 people do or don't do will affect the future of the country and all Malaysians. While, they as MPs, should know how to play their proper role (otherwise, they're not fit for the position), it is nevertheless worthwhile highlighting to them what the Rakyat expects of them, just to make sure that we are all on the same page.

I've listed down here my expectations which I've called the "The 12 Golden Rules for MPs" and I hope MT readers can chip in with what else they think should be included in order that we would have fully effective MPs who would do a brilliant job to progress the country. Following that, perhaps MT or RPK can formalize a proper, official document to submit to all these MPs so that "due notice has been served on them".

Here's my list of the "Golden Rules" :

  1. You report to the Rakyat, not your party leader or coalition leader or any other bosses. Just to "repeat one more time", you report to the Rakyat.

  2. The word "MP" does not mean "Many Perks" or "Master of the People". It stands for "Most Principled" ( It would also help greatly if you are also "Most Pleasant" as a person). For an MP, it's a privilege to serve and it's not privileges from serving.

  3. Don't just talk; let us see positive action as well. We don't need any more hot air – the millions of cars on the roads and all the factories around produce enough of that already.

  4. Like gold, your performance must shine. Being an MP is like running a maternity ward or a courier company --- you have to deliver. We did not put you there to make the numbers or to warm the seat in Parliament. Chair warming is just as serious an issue as global warming. MPs who just warm their seats will soon find their asses on fire.

  5. No, we don't expect you to die for the country (because we know yours is an undying love) but we expect you to be committed and to work hard as well. This is not an unreasonable expectation because the future of the country and the welfare of more than 25 million people depend on what you do or don't do.

  6. We do not require you to have the intelligence of a rocket scientist but you need to be well-informed on issues and you must also have the pulse on what is going on. (This is just in case we are being observed by some extra terrestrials and we need to uphold "Malaysia Boleh" and show them that there are signs of intelligent life forms in the Malaysian Parliament ).

  7. Your words must be worth their weight in gold. And don't ever forget your election promises. We are not saints who will forgive and forget.

  8. We need you to be accessible so that we can raise issues and give feedback to you. MPs must not be like the Olympics that you get to see only once in every 4 years.

  9. You do not need to outdo Mother Theresa to be a living saint but MPs must have a certain "gold standard of behaviour" and have the proper decorum, especially in Parliament. People who cannot fit into the shoes of a good and respectable MP will definitely get the boot.

  10. Always remember the "Yes" and "No" principle – you say "Yes" to all those things that are good for the country and benefit the rakyat while you firmly say "No" to all those things that don't. It's as simple as that.

  11. Don't ever misappropriate our gold.

  12. Finally," NO", you cannot bend the above rules. Remember, they are golden rules, not made of rubber.

By Political Doctor

Google