...I hate racism.
...I hate corruption.
...I hate typso.
...I hate prejudice.
...I hate loud chatter in elevators.
...I hate stupid people.
..which means I hate most people other than me (although some days I deserve to be hated by myself)
...I hate spam emails.
...I hate rainy days when I'm outdoors.
...I hate sunny days when I'm stuck indoors.
...I hate doubters, especially since I doubt myself enough.
...I hate friends who expects me to be entertaining, even when I am not.
...I hate thin people who complains about being fat.
...As of today, I really hate motorcyclist who flouts the traffic rules, and yet when an accident occurs, they are well protected by the legal and insurance systems.
...I hate boredom, and boring people (i.e. people who are boring, and situations where I bore people)
Shining a harsh light on modern living, modern society and my life in my society.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Financial Crisis: A History of Greed (Speech)
The following was presented as a toastmaster speech Project No 3 on 15 November 2011 at Menara Great Eastern.
Ladies & gentlemen,
In 2008, the world witnessed the collapse of financial markets around the world. Organizations like Lehman Brothers, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, previously unheard of outside the United States of America, were thrust into public consciousness in the aftermath of their disintegration.
The effect of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, better known in this part of the world as the “GFC”, was felt throughout the entire world. In China alone, it is estimated that almost 20 million jobs were lost as a direct result of the GFC. Closer to home, Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia suffered extreme slowdown in GDP growth and weakened currencies.
Many Malaysians were of course also impacted on a personal level. Companies introduced cost cutting measures such as salary and promotion freeze, lower bonuses and elimination of funding for non-essential activities such as sports. Some companies even resorted to retrenchment to stay afloat.
Three years on, many believed that the worst is over. Financial markets seem to have stabilized. The increase in consumer spending and the return of the stock market to pre-crisis level have raised hopes that although the United States and Europe are still mired in economic stagnation and debt crisis, the Asian countries have finally made a successful decoupling from the Western economies, and will see many better years to come.
I sincerely beg to differ.
First and foremost, let us examine the reason why crisis such as the GFC occurs.
In the years preceding the GFC, in the US Government’s attempt to encourage home ownership, banks and mortgage companies started offering cheap mortgages to people who would usually not be able to afford them. The huge influx of cheap credit led to the creation of a housing bubble, and when home prices suddenly dipped, many people realized that the amount that they owed the banks were substantially higher than what their houses are now worth, a situation known as “under-water” properties.
These sub-prime mortgages, so called because they came with a higher risk of default by the debtors, were then sliced and diced through a process called securitization and then resold to other financial institutions and investment funds. Venerable institutions such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns bought truckloads of these securitized assets, deceived by the high interest returns it generates and the false safety of AAA ratings from various reputable rating agencies.
Then, when the proverbial house of cards collapsed, it brought to their knees the aforementioned two banks, and because of the pervasiveness and interconnectivity of our global financial framework, its impact was even felt in Indonesia, where renowned economist and author, Joseph Stiglitz spoke to a fund manager who felt guilty exposing her clients to the shaky American market via purchases of the securitized assets.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me share another cautionary tale.
On June 2009, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of an estimated 18 billion dollars. A Ponzi scheme is one where the monies from new investors are used to pay the returns of earlier investors, with little or no actual investment activity to generate legitimate returns.
Bernie Madoff was able to attract investors with promises of a consistent return even in times of financial market turmoil. Although red flags were raised as early as 1999, they were ignored by both the regulators and the investors as long as Bernie Madoff’s fund continued to pay the returns it promises and furnishes the required records and documents of its operations (these documents were later found to have been falsified).
Ladies and gentlemen,
Besides the loss of savings and livelihood of the victims, there is another common thread that runs through the two examples that I’ve just shared, and that is:
“Human greed”
Whether corporate greed, or individual greed, such recklessness were evident throughout the entire finance fiasco:
- The mortgage companies who earn a commission regardless of the quality of the mortgages it creates.
- The bankers who securitizes the mortgages and sells it to investors.
- The rogue investment fund managers such as Bernie Madoff who runs massive financial scams
- Even the investors who allows their own judgment to be clouded by promises of high rates of returns, no matter how unrealistic they may be.
Another prime example of greed ruining societal progress is the ongoing debt crisis in Greece which is rooted in the mismanagement of resources and excessive borrowing by their government in their attempt to sustain unsustainable public spending, which had, in years before the crisis, helped its citizens to one of the highest standards of living in the world. This included lavish bonuses for employees of its civil services (which size is highly bloated) and one of the lowest retirement age in the European Union. Corruption was rife, and there were even allegations of sweetheart deals to contractors to build infrastructure for events like the 2006 Summer Olympics.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Have we done enough to prevent another financial crisis of this magnitude?
Have we demanded that our elected policymakers and legislators enact regulations to ensure that such corporate greed is reined in?
From my personal observations, the answer is an unequivocal “NO”.
Prior to the GFC, senior executives of large banks were paying themselves handsome bonuses every year, both in cash bonuses and stock options. The Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Lloyd Blankfein, took home in 2007 nearly 68 million dollars, the largest ever bonus given to a Wall Street CEO, one year after setting the same record in 2006 for a bonus of 54 million dollars. When the crisis hit, Mr. Blankfein forfeited his bonus in 2008 (anything else would be unacceptable, as the bank had just received tax payer’s money in the form of government bailout). However, post crisis, the bank quickly reverted to its old habits, by awarding Mr. Blankfein with 9 million dollars in 2009, and doubling it the next year to 18 million dollars.
This culture of high bonuses is not isolated to just the United States, as even the UK government is having a torrid time fighting to exert control over the banks compensation and bonuses, to bring it down to a “reasonable level”.
Corporations which were deemed too big to fail, such as the aforementioned Goldman Sachs, grew even bigger after the crisis, as the bailout funds given were perceived to indicate that in the event of any future crisis, the government will step in to ensure the survival of these organizations, i.e. a blank check guarantee.
New regulations which were supposed to accompany the bailout were quickly lobbied against and forgotten, and these organizations which caused the systemic collapse of the financial markets in the first place found themselves back in a position not quite so different from before the crisis.
On the local front, Malaysia has been running a deficit for the past 15 years, with no signs of abating, and similar to Greece, has a big civil service which recently came under the scrutiny of the Opposition party. Also similar to Greece is the persistent corruption which has led to the coining of the terms “crony capitalism” and Malaysia Incorporated. The Auditor-General’s Report released last month highlighted numerous wastages and mismanagement of public funds in many government departments and ministries.
Are we being too greedy as a country? Are we so addicted to subsidies and a welfare state that we are blinded to the risks that have been illustrated by the downfall of Greece?
Ladies and gentlemen,
I wish that I would be able to offer solutions to all that are afflicting our financial markets and the real economy, but that would require a little more than the time that I’ve been allocated, as well as an expertise that I admit I do not currently possess. However, from what I’ve shared, I hope that I have made it clear that at the heart of all the mess that we find ourselves in, and the reason that I believe we are not out of the woods yet, is that human greed still dictates the way the world and the markets are managed, and our leaders do not have the political will to introduce regulations to reduce the possibility of another collapse.
To quote an often used movie line by Gordon Gecko in the 1987 movie, Wall Street, “the point is, ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good”, and although the fictional character Mr. Gecko ends up jailed, his real life counterparts are laughing all the way to the bank, and no doubt has no intention of ever renouncing the “greed is good” doctrine.
Thank you.
Ladies & gentlemen,
In 2008, the world witnessed the collapse of financial markets around the world. Organizations like Lehman Brothers, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, previously unheard of outside the United States of America, were thrust into public consciousness in the aftermath of their disintegration.
The effect of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, better known in this part of the world as the “GFC”, was felt throughout the entire world. In China alone, it is estimated that almost 20 million jobs were lost as a direct result of the GFC. Closer to home, Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia suffered extreme slowdown in GDP growth and weakened currencies.
Many Malaysians were of course also impacted on a personal level. Companies introduced cost cutting measures such as salary and promotion freeze, lower bonuses and elimination of funding for non-essential activities such as sports. Some companies even resorted to retrenchment to stay afloat.
Three years on, many believed that the worst is over. Financial markets seem to have stabilized. The increase in consumer spending and the return of the stock market to pre-crisis level have raised hopes that although the United States and Europe are still mired in economic stagnation and debt crisis, the Asian countries have finally made a successful decoupling from the Western economies, and will see many better years to come.
I sincerely beg to differ.
First and foremost, let us examine the reason why crisis such as the GFC occurs.
In the years preceding the GFC, in the US Government’s attempt to encourage home ownership, banks and mortgage companies started offering cheap mortgages to people who would usually not be able to afford them. The huge influx of cheap credit led to the creation of a housing bubble, and when home prices suddenly dipped, many people realized that the amount that they owed the banks were substantially higher than what their houses are now worth, a situation known as “under-water” properties.
These sub-prime mortgages, so called because they came with a higher risk of default by the debtors, were then sliced and diced through a process called securitization and then resold to other financial institutions and investment funds. Venerable institutions such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns bought truckloads of these securitized assets, deceived by the high interest returns it generates and the false safety of AAA ratings from various reputable rating agencies.
Then, when the proverbial house of cards collapsed, it brought to their knees the aforementioned two banks, and because of the pervasiveness and interconnectivity of our global financial framework, its impact was even felt in Indonesia, where renowned economist and author, Joseph Stiglitz spoke to a fund manager who felt guilty exposing her clients to the shaky American market via purchases of the securitized assets.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me share another cautionary tale.
On June 2009, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of an estimated 18 billion dollars. A Ponzi scheme is one where the monies from new investors are used to pay the returns of earlier investors, with little or no actual investment activity to generate legitimate returns.
Bernie Madoff was able to attract investors with promises of a consistent return even in times of financial market turmoil. Although red flags were raised as early as 1999, they were ignored by both the regulators and the investors as long as Bernie Madoff’s fund continued to pay the returns it promises and furnishes the required records and documents of its operations (these documents were later found to have been falsified).
Ladies and gentlemen,
Besides the loss of savings and livelihood of the victims, there is another common thread that runs through the two examples that I’ve just shared, and that is:
“Human greed”
Whether corporate greed, or individual greed, such recklessness were evident throughout the entire finance fiasco:
- The mortgage companies who earn a commission regardless of the quality of the mortgages it creates.
- The bankers who securitizes the mortgages and sells it to investors.
- The rogue investment fund managers such as Bernie Madoff who runs massive financial scams
- Even the investors who allows their own judgment to be clouded by promises of high rates of returns, no matter how unrealistic they may be.
Another prime example of greed ruining societal progress is the ongoing debt crisis in Greece which is rooted in the mismanagement of resources and excessive borrowing by their government in their attempt to sustain unsustainable public spending, which had, in years before the crisis, helped its citizens to one of the highest standards of living in the world. This included lavish bonuses for employees of its civil services (which size is highly bloated) and one of the lowest retirement age in the European Union. Corruption was rife, and there were even allegations of sweetheart deals to contractors to build infrastructure for events like the 2006 Summer Olympics.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Have we done enough to prevent another financial crisis of this magnitude?
Have we demanded that our elected policymakers and legislators enact regulations to ensure that such corporate greed is reined in?
From my personal observations, the answer is an unequivocal “NO”.
Prior to the GFC, senior executives of large banks were paying themselves handsome bonuses every year, both in cash bonuses and stock options. The Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Lloyd Blankfein, took home in 2007 nearly 68 million dollars, the largest ever bonus given to a Wall Street CEO, one year after setting the same record in 2006 for a bonus of 54 million dollars. When the crisis hit, Mr. Blankfein forfeited his bonus in 2008 (anything else would be unacceptable, as the bank had just received tax payer’s money in the form of government bailout). However, post crisis, the bank quickly reverted to its old habits, by awarding Mr. Blankfein with 9 million dollars in 2009, and doubling it the next year to 18 million dollars.
This culture of high bonuses is not isolated to just the United States, as even the UK government is having a torrid time fighting to exert control over the banks compensation and bonuses, to bring it down to a “reasonable level”.
Corporations which were deemed too big to fail, such as the aforementioned Goldman Sachs, grew even bigger after the crisis, as the bailout funds given were perceived to indicate that in the event of any future crisis, the government will step in to ensure the survival of these organizations, i.e. a blank check guarantee.
New regulations which were supposed to accompany the bailout were quickly lobbied against and forgotten, and these organizations which caused the systemic collapse of the financial markets in the first place found themselves back in a position not quite so different from before the crisis.
On the local front, Malaysia has been running a deficit for the past 15 years, with no signs of abating, and similar to Greece, has a big civil service which recently came under the scrutiny of the Opposition party. Also similar to Greece is the persistent corruption which has led to the coining of the terms “crony capitalism” and Malaysia Incorporated. The Auditor-General’s Report released last month highlighted numerous wastages and mismanagement of public funds in many government departments and ministries.
Are we being too greedy as a country? Are we so addicted to subsidies and a welfare state that we are blinded to the risks that have been illustrated by the downfall of Greece?
Ladies and gentlemen,
I wish that I would be able to offer solutions to all that are afflicting our financial markets and the real economy, but that would require a little more than the time that I’ve been allocated, as well as an expertise that I admit I do not currently possess. However, from what I’ve shared, I hope that I have made it clear that at the heart of all the mess that we find ourselves in, and the reason that I believe we are not out of the woods yet, is that human greed still dictates the way the world and the markets are managed, and our leaders do not have the political will to introduce regulations to reduce the possibility of another collapse.
To quote an often used movie line by Gordon Gecko in the 1987 movie, Wall Street, “the point is, ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good”, and although the fictional character Mr. Gecko ends up jailed, his real life counterparts are laughing all the way to the bank, and no doubt has no intention of ever renouncing the “greed is good” doctrine.
Thank you.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Week In Review 1: Making Sense Of Nonsense
Round up of all the crazy in Malaysia and around the world.
"Have Orgies, Ghost Style" says Obedient Wives Club
The Obedient Wives Club (OWC) is a club that just keeps giving, not just to their husbands (obviously) but also to the media and the public at large for their penchant for making crazy statements, some downright ridiculous but mostly laugh out loud funny.
Their latest book, the wordily titled "Seks Islam - Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia" (Sex in Islam - Wage War Against Jews To Return Islamic Sex To The World) preaches, according to the club's founder and the author of the book, Hatijah Aam, that a Muslim man can apparently channel the super human powers of Multiple Man (Marvel copyrighted), and "appear in multiple apparitions and have sex with his wives even though they are in separate locations"!
She continued by saying that they "never said that a man can have an orgy with all his wives on the same bed. That is not allowed".
So apparently, according to OWC, orgies are only allowed when you are f**king your many wives with an imaginary d**k.
Man...to think that I was about to throw my whole support behind OWC a week ago when they first touted the idea that orgies should be commonplace as a "f**k you" towards the Jews.
Raising Our Own Toilets & Flushing Our Own Kids
We as Malaysians have not done either for so long, we've forgotten which to raise and which to flush, and this is primarily due to our dependency on foreign maids.
Well, it is time for us to whip out those parenting manual because we have apparently abuse one too many Cambodians and Indonesian maids.
With Indonesia rightly not lifting the moratorium on their ban of sending their country folks to Malaysia, Cambodia followed suit and announced recently that they will no longer be sending any maids here, citing alleged abuses, rapes and murders of Cambodian maids at the hands of Malaysian slave drivers.
Many have stood up to defend our country from such allegations, but I suggest that we not only understand the positions that Indonesia and Cambodia find themselves in, but also to learn from the actions that their governments are taking. The direction that our economy and ringgit is going, it may not be far-fetched that decades down the road, instead of importing labor, we may find ourselves exporting our sons and daughters as construction workers and maids to these countries.
Himpun: A Gathering Of A Million In A Stadium That Seats 69,372?
Talk about failing mathematics. 'Nuff said.
A Death In China: A Wake Up Call For The Rest Of The World
Today, a week after being struck by two vans in Beijing, with both drivers fleeing the scene, two-year old Yue Yue has succumbed to brain and organ injuries.
Accidents like this happen every day, but the astonishing bit of this tragic incident is the fact that it was witnessed by no fewer than 18 passers-by, and not a single one went to the toddler's aid until it was too late.
A similar incident happened in New York, March 13 1964, when the murder of Kitty Genovese shocked America not just because of the brutality of the crime and sexual assault, but also because there were allegedly 36 potential eye-witnesses who were in the opposite apartment beside the pavement which was the scene of the stabbing, but none of them did anything to try halting the attack, or at least to call the cops.
A few theories were suggested to explain why none of the witnesses in the Genovese murder were willing to help the woman.
Some opines that it proved the moral decline of society and the increasing apathy that breeds in a fast moving industrial nation. Others theorises the "Bystander Effect", where contrary to common expectations, larger numbers of bystanders decrease the likelihood that someone will step forward and help a victim. The reasons include the fact that onlookers see that others are not helping either, that onlookers believe others will know better how to help, and that onlookers feel uncertain about helping while others are watching.
The unwillingness of the passers-by to help Yue Yue as she lies dying on the road was, however, attributed to their fear of facing court action should they be blamed for the accident itself.
A preposterous notion and an unacceptable defence, until you hear of documented and widely reported cases in China where good Samaritans who came to the aid of elderly folks who were involved in auto accidents being sued by the victims of the accidents, and losing the court decision because, as one of the sitting judge states in a suit brought against one such Samaritan, Peng Yu, "one wouldn't come to the aid of another unless one is guilty of injuring the victim in the first place".
My take on this? Well, if you have to waste precious seconds to consider the risk of legal action while a child lies in front of you, bleeding and barely clinging on to life, I think you have already lost a huge part of your humanity. It doesn't take someone good or kind to do something to help. All it should have taken was for someone with a semblance of common sense and an instinct to protect and save a young life.
Sigh.
Lin Dan & His Patriotic Sense Of Duty
In this year's edition of Denmark Open, badminton extraordinaire Lin Dan of China crashed out in the quarter final stage to Wong Wing Ki of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
The number of times where Lin Dan concedes walkovers to his mainland China compatriots has raised suspicion that there is a conspiracy to manage the ranking of the Chinese players to field their strongest and largest contingent to the Olympics. It seems like his patriotism extends beyond mainland China to even the Special Administrative Regions ("SAR") of China.
In the words of a friend, Jay Ween, "after helping China players, now helping Hong Kong players. Macau players next?"
"Have Orgies, Ghost Style" says Obedient Wives Club
The Obedient Wives Club (OWC) is a club that just keeps giving, not just to their husbands (obviously) but also to the media and the public at large for their penchant for making crazy statements, some downright ridiculous but mostly laugh out loud funny.
Their latest book, the wordily titled "Seks Islam - Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia" (Sex in Islam - Wage War Against Jews To Return Islamic Sex To The World) preaches, according to the club's founder and the author of the book, Hatijah Aam, that a Muslim man can apparently channel the super human powers of Multiple Man (Marvel copyrighted), and "appear in multiple apparitions and have sex with his wives even though they are in separate locations"!
She continued by saying that they "never said that a man can have an orgy with all his wives on the same bed. That is not allowed".
So apparently, according to OWC, orgies are only allowed when you are f**king your many wives with an imaginary d**k.
Man...to think that I was about to throw my whole support behind OWC a week ago when they first touted the idea that orgies should be commonplace as a "f**k you" towards the Jews.
Raising Our Own Toilets & Flushing Our Own Kids
We as Malaysians have not done either for so long, we've forgotten which to raise and which to flush, and this is primarily due to our dependency on foreign maids.
Well, it is time for us to whip out those parenting manual because we have apparently abuse one too many Cambodians and Indonesian maids.
With Indonesia rightly not lifting the moratorium on their ban of sending their country folks to Malaysia, Cambodia followed suit and announced recently that they will no longer be sending any maids here, citing alleged abuses, rapes and murders of Cambodian maids at the hands of Malaysian slave drivers.
Many have stood up to defend our country from such allegations, but I suggest that we not only understand the positions that Indonesia and Cambodia find themselves in, but also to learn from the actions that their governments are taking. The direction that our economy and ringgit is going, it may not be far-fetched that decades down the road, instead of importing labor, we may find ourselves exporting our sons and daughters as construction workers and maids to these countries.
Himpun: A Gathering Of A Million In A Stadium That Seats 69,372?
Talk about failing mathematics. 'Nuff said.
A Death In China: A Wake Up Call For The Rest Of The World
Today, a week after being struck by two vans in Beijing, with both drivers fleeing the scene, two-year old Yue Yue has succumbed to brain and organ injuries.
Accidents like this happen every day, but the astonishing bit of this tragic incident is the fact that it was witnessed by no fewer than 18 passers-by, and not a single one went to the toddler's aid until it was too late.
A similar incident happened in New York, March 13 1964, when the murder of Kitty Genovese shocked America not just because of the brutality of the crime and sexual assault, but also because there were allegedly 36 potential eye-witnesses who were in the opposite apartment beside the pavement which was the scene of the stabbing, but none of them did anything to try halting the attack, or at least to call the cops.
A few theories were suggested to explain why none of the witnesses in the Genovese murder were willing to help the woman.
Some opines that it proved the moral decline of society and the increasing apathy that breeds in a fast moving industrial nation. Others theorises the "Bystander Effect", where contrary to common expectations, larger numbers of bystanders decrease the likelihood that someone will step forward and help a victim. The reasons include the fact that onlookers see that others are not helping either, that onlookers believe others will know better how to help, and that onlookers feel uncertain about helping while others are watching.
The unwillingness of the passers-by to help Yue Yue as she lies dying on the road was, however, attributed to their fear of facing court action should they be blamed for the accident itself.
A preposterous notion and an unacceptable defence, until you hear of documented and widely reported cases in China where good Samaritans who came to the aid of elderly folks who were involved in auto accidents being sued by the victims of the accidents, and losing the court decision because, as one of the sitting judge states in a suit brought against one such Samaritan, Peng Yu, "one wouldn't come to the aid of another unless one is guilty of injuring the victim in the first place".
My take on this? Well, if you have to waste precious seconds to consider the risk of legal action while a child lies in front of you, bleeding and barely clinging on to life, I think you have already lost a huge part of your humanity. It doesn't take someone good or kind to do something to help. All it should have taken was for someone with a semblance of common sense and an instinct to protect and save a young life.
Sigh.
Lin Dan & His Patriotic Sense Of Duty
In this year's edition of Denmark Open, badminton extraordinaire Lin Dan of China crashed out in the quarter final stage to Wong Wing Ki of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
The number of times where Lin Dan concedes walkovers to his mainland China compatriots has raised suspicion that there is a conspiracy to manage the ranking of the Chinese players to field their strongest and largest contingent to the Olympics. It seems like his patriotism extends beyond mainland China to even the Special Administrative Regions ("SAR") of China.
In the words of a friend, Jay Ween, "after helping China players, now helping Hong Kong players. Macau players next?"
Friday, October 21, 2011
The World Celebrates Gadhafi's Death
 |
| Gadhafi, Muammar 1942 - 2011 |
Today, in less than six months after the world "witness" the demise of Osama Bin Laden, we again celebrate the death of another man guilty of crimes against humanity and injustice against his own people, the sons and daughters of Libya.
Why then, if this man is so universally reviled and despised, do I feel uncomfortable that we are congratulating each other for his passing, his murder?
Why do I feel a tinge of sadness in how the whole Libyan revolution has unfolded?
Is it because I fear that violence begets violence, and the merciless disposal of the deposed despotic dictator will continue the cycle of killing and destruction?
How can millions of people come face to face with the picture of a bloodied corpse of a human being, either in the newspapers or on television, and yet continue tucking in their morning breakfast of cereal with milk and bacon?
Friday, October 14, 2011
Response to "Quotes From Malik Imtiaz Sarwar on Hudud Law"
The following is a reproduction of a comment from an old friend, Mr. Wilson Tay, a lawyer by profession, a fervent debater, and a fearless football goalkeeper, in response to an earlier post written by me.
I chose to re-post his comment verbatim for the excellent points that he made, and even though I may not agree with every single one of them, it provides an interesting insight on whether religion should play a role in governance of a country.
Thank you Wilson for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for allowing me to share it with others.
Justin,
Congratulations on a well-written article.
May I invite you to consider another perspective on the issue, as raised by the MP for Kota Raja in a letter which The Star (surprisingly) published on Sunday:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/9/focus/9662360&sec=focus
Mr Malik Imtiaz is a highly respected human rights lawyer, and given his background, I agree with you that "it's not surprising where he stands on this issue".
I want to suggest, however, that this idea of defining faith as "self-fulfilment" and "secular state" are characteristic of an attempt to relegate faith to a strictly individual level, and to deny any role for faith in matters of government.
This originates from a classically Western conception of "separation of church and state", particularly as enshrined in the United States where of late the First Amendment has been interpreted to require that the state refrain from being associated with all things religious.
Separation of church and state is however not a feature of governments based on the Islamic model, where Islam is described as "syumul", constituting in and of itself a complete and exemplary way of life to be aspired to. For Muslim governments and governments that aspire to be Muslim, there is not the same aversion to mixing matters of religion and matters of government; indeed, government is required to be based on the tenets of religion.
And this also brings me to another point I wish to make, which is that liberal Western society has entrenched the exclusion of religious values from the sphere of public decision-making. This is classically conceptualised in exhortations not to "impose one's religious principles on others". This is one way of looking at things. It may or may not be the right way.
Should decision-makers in government not be allowed to resort to religious imperatives in deciding public policies? What if a religion articulates principles that serve the public good, such as deterring crime and promoting public health - should these principles be viewed negatively simply because they emanate from religious foundations?
Lastly, I think many participants in this debate, on both sides, are "talking past each other" simply because they start from very different premises. Opponents of hudud tend to start by presuming that law must have secular content. However, this is not necessarily so for a Muslim legislator such as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. For either side to force the other to debate on its terms is akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole.
I chose to re-post his comment verbatim for the excellent points that he made, and even though I may not agree with every single one of them, it provides an interesting insight on whether religion should play a role in governance of a country.
Thank you Wilson for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for allowing me to share it with others.
Justin,
Congratulations on a well-written article.
May I invite you to consider another perspective on the issue, as raised by the MP for Kota Raja in a letter which The Star (surprisingly) published on Sunday:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/9/focus/9662360&sec=focus
Mr Malik Imtiaz is a highly respected human rights lawyer, and given his background, I agree with you that "it's not surprising where he stands on this issue".
I want to suggest, however, that this idea of defining faith as "self-fulfilment" and "secular state" are characteristic of an attempt to relegate faith to a strictly individual level, and to deny any role for faith in matters of government.
This originates from a classically Western conception of "separation of church and state", particularly as enshrined in the United States where of late the First Amendment has been interpreted to require that the state refrain from being associated with all things religious.
Separation of church and state is however not a feature of governments based on the Islamic model, where Islam is described as "syumul", constituting in and of itself a complete and exemplary way of life to be aspired to. For Muslim governments and governments that aspire to be Muslim, there is not the same aversion to mixing matters of religion and matters of government; indeed, government is required to be based on the tenets of religion.
And this also brings me to another point I wish to make, which is that liberal Western society has entrenched the exclusion of religious values from the sphere of public decision-making. This is classically conceptualised in exhortations not to "impose one's religious principles on others". This is one way of looking at things. It may or may not be the right way.
Should decision-makers in government not be allowed to resort to religious imperatives in deciding public policies? What if a religion articulates principles that serve the public good, such as deterring crime and promoting public health - should these principles be viewed negatively simply because they emanate from religious foundations?
Lastly, I think many participants in this debate, on both sides, are "talking past each other" simply because they start from very different premises. Opponents of hudud tend to start by presuming that law must have secular content. However, this is not necessarily so for a Muslim legislator such as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. For either side to force the other to debate on its terms is akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
"When Death Came To Me Last Night"
Death came to me in a dream last night,
In his black cloak He stood by my bed's side.
Strangely, there were neither fear nor fright,
As I stared at this foreboding aphotic sight.
He spoke in a voice not unlike my own,
Ominous and certain, yet in a soothing tone.
He said, "Son, you are going to die today,
Unless you do exactly as I say".
"When dawn breaks, and the day begins ,
Go to the mirror and seek the person for which it contains".
"Tell him with conviction, with assuredness, in one single breath,
That you choose life, and not an early death."
"A life of purpose, a life of convivial,
And not merely one of survival".
The apparition disappeared, my eyes opened, I gazed at my lover,
But soon drifted back to sleep as I pulled her closer.
Though I'm convinced a dream was all it is,
or was it, do I dare not heed this warning of His?
As much as this poem is about death, it is also about life.
I found it interesting that in my dream, the one being that has been tasked to serve a reminder about the importance of living your life to the fullest, came from the Grim Reaper himself, the purveyor of death and the end of life.
Strange how this dream refuses to fade away.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Quotes from Malik Imtiaz Sarwar on Hudud Law
For many a month, I've avoided listening to the local business radion channel, BFM, in the morning on my way to work, due to the myriad of interviews with CEOs of various companies and conglomerates, who seemed more concerned with self promotion and reading from a prepared script about how great their companies are.
However, in this morning's segment before The Breakfast Grill, there was a brief interview with one Mr. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the President of Malaysian National Human Rights Society, discussing the current debate on the possibility of implementing Hudud Law in Malaysia.
Coming from a human rights lawyer, it's not surprising where he stands on this issue.
However, what made me nod vigorously in agreement and shouting "Yes" at the radio were some of the things that he said, and the way he said it.
"Faith is not about CONTROL. Faith is about self-fulfilment"
I wonder when will society wake up from its slumber and realises that religion has been hijacked by a minority to exert control and influence over the majority. This problem is not isolated to just one religion. From mosques to churches to temples, the lines between politics and faith has been blurred so much so that it is now easy for a politician to raise his profile. All he has to do is to choose between one of the many religion based issues and stir up the proverbial hornets' nest by playing to the peoples' emotions and blind faith and loyalty to their imams and pastors and temple leaders.
It is time for society to reject such posturing and recognise religion and faith for what it really is, a journey that can only be travelled by oneself, and not a tool to be misused by those with political ambitions.
Religion/race-based governance is becoming out of date, but in my opinion, just not fast enough.
"A secular country is not one which is empty, but one which is neutral. If the government can guarantee a secular state, then religion dialogue can be conducted in an amicable manner."
There is a growing need for dialogue among the various religions in the country. As the nation progresses, more and more issues on the co-existence of different religions are bound to arise. Based on the current emotionally charged environment, such dialogue is not possible, and will probably lead to some extreme sections screaming for blood and accusation of blasphemy or monarchy insults.
The government of the day must have the will to step in and ensure neutrality without fear of offending any of their voting base. I don't foresee this happening anytime soon though, since matters of religion have always been the easiest way to fish for votes, and you can see the same issues being highlighted and battled over the political sphere every time an election looms near.
A clear evidence of this is the current war of words over the implementation of Hudud Law. At first glance, most Malaysians seem horrified by the idea of our family and friends being subjected to a set of laws that includes stoning to death an adulterer, removing the hands of a thief, and a near impossible burden of proof on an alleged victim when he/she accuses another of rape. However, these negative views have been widely reported and propagated by the main stream media, which we all know is just another mouth piece for the ruling government, and may represent an unbalanced perception of the Hudud Law.
I challenge proponents of this law to come forth and explain to the masses what are the specific advantages of implementing a set of laws which will only apply to Muslims.
Thus far, the only defence I've heard is either:
The reasoned voices of people like Mr. Sarwar resonates loud and clear among the majority of Malaysians, and I hope, will continue to do so for as long as our Malaysian society of various background, race and religion, remains worthy of being fought for. If it ever gets drowned out by rhetoric from a few, then I guess it will be time to throw in the towel in your luggage bags, pack up and leave.
I pray that day never comes.
However, in this morning's segment before The Breakfast Grill, there was a brief interview with one Mr. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the President of Malaysian National Human Rights Society, discussing the current debate on the possibility of implementing Hudud Law in Malaysia.
Coming from a human rights lawyer, it's not surprising where he stands on this issue.
However, what made me nod vigorously in agreement and shouting "Yes" at the radio were some of the things that he said, and the way he said it.
"Faith is not about CONTROL. Faith is about self-fulfilment"
I wonder when will society wake up from its slumber and realises that religion has been hijacked by a minority to exert control and influence over the majority. This problem is not isolated to just one religion. From mosques to churches to temples, the lines between politics and faith has been blurred so much so that it is now easy for a politician to raise his profile. All he has to do is to choose between one of the many religion based issues and stir up the proverbial hornets' nest by playing to the peoples' emotions and blind faith and loyalty to their imams and pastors and temple leaders.
It is time for society to reject such posturing and recognise religion and faith for what it really is, a journey that can only be travelled by oneself, and not a tool to be misused by those with political ambitions.
Religion/race-based governance is becoming out of date, but in my opinion, just not fast enough.
"A secular country is not one which is empty, but one which is neutral. If the government can guarantee a secular state, then religion dialogue can be conducted in an amicable manner."
There is a growing need for dialogue among the various religions in the country. As the nation progresses, more and more issues on the co-existence of different religions are bound to arise. Based on the current emotionally charged environment, such dialogue is not possible, and will probably lead to some extreme sections screaming for blood and accusation of blasphemy or monarchy insults.
The government of the day must have the will to step in and ensure neutrality without fear of offending any of their voting base. I don't foresee this happening anytime soon though, since matters of religion have always been the easiest way to fish for votes, and you can see the same issues being highlighted and battled over the political sphere every time an election looms near.
A clear evidence of this is the current war of words over the implementation of Hudud Law. At first glance, most Malaysians seem horrified by the idea of our family and friends being subjected to a set of laws that includes stoning to death an adulterer, removing the hands of a thief, and a near impossible burden of proof on an alleged victim when he/she accuses another of rape. However, these negative views have been widely reported and propagated by the main stream media, which we all know is just another mouth piece for the ruling government, and may represent an unbalanced perception of the Hudud Law.
I challenge proponents of this law to come forth and explain to the masses what are the specific advantages of implementing a set of laws which will only apply to Muslims.
Thus far, the only defence I've heard is either:
- "To be a truly Islamic state/society, we need to apply the religion of Islam holistically, and that includes the application of Hudud Laws'. Any consequences or tangible benefits from its application is never mentioned, and remains vague at best; or
- "We suggest that those who do not understand Islamic laws refrain from commenting on it. Please enrol in any Islamic university and obtaining the relevant qualification prior to making any any comments against the implementation of Hudud laws".
The reasoned voices of people like Mr. Sarwar resonates loud and clear among the majority of Malaysians, and I hope, will continue to do so for as long as our Malaysian society of various background, race and religion, remains worthy of being fought for. If it ever gets drowned out by rhetoric from a few, then I guess it will be time to throw in the towel in your luggage bags, pack up and leave.
I pray that day never comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)