Of Allah, Anwar and False Consciousness

Since the past few weeks, my fingers have been itching to put my thought to paper on the current issue of Kalimah Allah. I only have a window of opportunity tonight, and I will do so without qualms.

To begin with, as a Muslim, I do not subscribe to the argument which says that it is correct for non-Muslims to use the word Allah to refer to the Christian god simply because the Christian Arabs have been using the word prior to the Islamic era. This argument is lame and lacks intellectual rigor.

Though the Christians have been using the word Allah, or any of its variants, to refer to the Christian god since the pre-Islamic era, the word has been “Islamized” with the coming of Islam.

Surah Al-Ikhlas rectified the error of the usage of the word Allah by the Christians. Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.

Allah is the one and only God. This is what Islam means by the word Allah. This is what the Muslims understand by the word Allah. If someone believes that god has a son, or not the One and Only, that god is not Allah. This particular belief cannot be justified in Islam.

There is no truth in saying that the Muslims are monopolizing the word for the sake of monopolizing, for their failure to understand the faiths of other people. Even the Christians say that “Allah” does not mean God in Christianity. Dr. Louis A. Turk, a lead translator of the Bible into the Indonesian language, in his article “A Sharp Two-Edged Sword for Indonesia”, has this to say:

“Allah is not the common name, and does not mean God. Instead, Allah is a proper (personal) name for Islam’s God”

“So what a word means to the Muslims here (Indonesia) is important – when they read an Islamic term in the Bible, they are going to think it means what it commonly means to the vast majority of the vast population. This is especially true for the word Allah. It is wrong for a translator to try to make a word mean something different than what the word means to 88 percent of the population”.

The Muslims are not blindly possessive of the word for their own ignorance. Even right-minded Christians do not think and believe that Allah means God in Christianity.

Those Muslims who are adamant to say that the word Allah means other than what the vast majority of Muslims understand are resorting to its usage in the pre-Islamic era, the period of the jahiliyyah. Those who have received the light of wisdom, of hikmah, will never do so unless out of desperation, albeit a political one.

Now, I shall turn to my main subject.

In essence, the crux of the issue is not about the right of non-Muslims to use the word Allah, or the exclusive rights of Muslims to claim possession of the word. It is more than this. It brings to the fore the inevitable eruption of the tectonic plates of the political madness that for a long long time have been lying underneath the Malaysian political landscape.

To elucidate this point, let us see what Zulkifli Noordin, the PKR Member of Parliament for Kulim Bandar Baru had to say in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times today (27 Jan 2010).

“When this issue (the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims) came out, Anwar called me and said he knew my stand, but tried to be polite. But I told him, Datuk Seri, you are a Muslim leader with Islamic credentials and people never forget that. You know very well there are two contrasting views, so why didn’t you take a neutral and non-partisan stand?”

Well, everybody knows that Anwar had not taken a neutral and non-partisan view about the issue. Anwar even accused Zul Nordin of going off the limit when the latter lodged a police report against Khalid Samad, the MP for Shah Alam, for insulting Islam.

But Zul Nordin goes on to say:

“At the moment, I still limit (myself). You never see me criticize Anwar. I still appreciate that he is my boss although in this “Allah” issue, the pressure is so enormous on me to criticize him, but I say no. But if it is fated that I am out of PKR, may be it will be a different ball game altogether”.

The one million dollar question is - what is the current “political ball game”?

Zul Nordin is a seasoned politician by now and he must know what he exactly meant.

This is my version of the political ball game.

Many Islamically-inclined PKR enthusiasts believe that Anwar is a credible Muslim leader. Anwar for them, in flesh and blood, is an ardent Muslim activist. He will never, they believe, abandon the Islamic cause for which he was known to be its main exponent before. His relationship with Muslim scholars like Totonji, Qardawi, Jamal Barzinji, just to name a few, reinforces this belief.

But what about his relationship with Paul Wolfowitz - the well known neo-con architect in the Iraq war? The Islamically-inclined Anwaristas will say: “We know that very well. Wolfowitz is a criminal of the highest order. But Anwar’s relationship with him is just a ‘political ball game’. Anyway, Anwar is the one and only moderate Muslim political leader in the world who can relate well to the West. He is doing a great contribution to the Ummah, especially at this trying time. In flesh and blood, he is still our brother in Islam, syeikh”.

I will take this excuse with a pinch of salt. What if I say Anwar is the one and only friend of the neo-con who can relate well to the Muslim world? What if I say, in flesh and blood, Anwar is no longer an ardent Muslim activist who die-hard Anwaristas used to believe before?

Well, this may sound a bit too harsh to some people. But I believe many out there hold this view. And Anwar knows about this too.

But more than this, even if Anwar is not a neo-con darling, and he is very much still an ardent Muslim activist, which I wish he is, will he be able to do what the Islamically-inclined Anwaristas want him to do?

I will say NO he CANNOT. Why?

The brand of politics that Anwar is espousing for now will not allow this to happen. This brand of politics will only survive on the pretext of promoting unbridled ‘universal’ human rights, sheer disregard of ethnicity and religion as the main marker of group identity and solidarity, and full acceptance of western secularism.

Even when his staunch supporters in the former ABIM or his critics in the more conservative camp in the current PAS or his loyalists in the more Islamically-inclined faction of PKR want him to champion for the cause of Islam that they understand, Anwar will never be able to do so. And, even if he so does, he will fail miserably. So he will not.

The point is the brand of Islam that these Anwaristas believe in does not fit well into the brand of the “new politics” that Anwar is espousing.

But why do many Islamically-inclined Anwaristas fail to understand this?

I guess I have the answer. I may be wrong, but I will state my case anyway.

The Marxists believe that the proletariats have long suffered from a kind of mind subjugation that frustrates their vision for a worldwide revolution of the workers. This subtle subjugation is called “false consciousness”. The proletariats understand very well that the more they succumb to capitalism, the more they are alienated and oppressed.

However, they resolve the experience of alienation and oppression under capitalism through a false understanding of the natural need to compete with others for limited goods. By doing so, consequently, workers all over the world failed to unite and pin capitalism down.

I am not a sympathizer of Marxism, let alone a Marxist. But I believe the Islamically-inclined Anwaristas are enduring a similar fate of being in the state of “false consciousness”.

This “false consciousness” is perpetuated by Anwar through his charming charisma; sometimes little words he borrowed from Qardawi or Zuhaili to lend Islamic legitimacy to his political stance – rejecting other more authoritative and intellectually sound arguments; and the rumblings of organic intellectuals like Khalid Samad and Zaid Ibrahim.

The Islamically-inclined Anwaristas realize that there is something wrong somewhere, that they are in a great dilemma, that they risk abandoning their fundamental conviction about the religion, about the da’wah, the politics. But the more they think about it, the more they ponder upon it, the sense of confusion, of desperation, of hopelessness, will set in.

They resolve this state of confusion by staying true to the promise of reformation, to the hope of the return of the past glory, to the good faith they have in brother Anwar.

But sadly, those who fail to get rid from this quagmire will slowly be sucked into the black hole of intellectual corruption and perpetually immersed in the hollowness of the arguments of the organic intellectuals, who are in not for a revolution (I believe the word revolution used by Zul Noordin in his NST interview is too noble a word to be applied in that context), but an intellectual conspiracy to corrupt the minds of unsuspecting believers – Muslims or Christians alike.

These organic intellectuals – be they Muslims or Christians or Buddhists or Hindus – share one thing in common. Religion. They truly believe in the sanctity of unbridled universal human rights and freedom over and above anything else. This is their Religion.

Only those who take the time to pause, have a deep breath, and listen carefully to what their conscience wishpers will find a way out from this predicament, this false consciousness.

Perhaps, this is what Zul Nordin and others who are in the same ‘political ball game’ have to do. And the time is now.

Otak di Lutut

P. Gunasegaram dalam ruangan “Question Time” di akhbar The Star bertarikh 28 Ogos 2009 mengkritik hukuman sebat ke atas peminum arak di bawah undang-undang jenayah syariah di negara ini. Kononnya undang-undang ini adalah lapuk dan perlu dihapuskan.

Untuk menguatkan pandangannya, dia memetik hujjah "ilmuwan Islam" yang mengatakan tiada dalil al-Qur’an yang menetapkan hukum sebat ke atas peminum arak.

Malah, katanya lagi, semua undang-undang yang menghukum “jenayah moral”, iaitu “jenayah” yang dilakukan dalam ruang peribadi serta tidak menyakiti orang lain, perlu dihapuskan. Dia menyenaraikan beberapa bentuk jenayah seperti liwat, seks oral, zina dan khalwat.

Saya ingin melihat kedua-dua isu yang dibangkitkan dari kedua-dua sudut perundangan Islam dan Barat.

Dalam perundangan Islam, Al-Qur’an dan Hadith adalah dua sumber primer undang-undang. Jika terdapat dalil dalam mana-mana sumber ini mengenai kesahihan sesuatu undang-undang, maka ianya adalah undang-undang yang sah.

Hukuman rotan ke atas peminum arak memang tidak disebut dalam al-Qur’an, tetapi disebut dalam hadith yang sahih. Jadi, ianya adalah satu bentuk undang-undang yang sah.

Tujuan hukuman pula bukanlah untuk menzalimi atau menyakiti. Ia sekadar satu iktibar kepada si pesalah dan orang lain. Disyaratkan si perotan tidak boleh mengangkat tangan melepasi paras ketiak ketika merotan. Ini menunjukkan kaedah merotan yang ringan dan sivil. Berlainan pula dengan hukuman rotan dalam undang-undang sivil yang nampaknya kurang sivil.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, model yang dijatuhi hukuman rotan kerana meminum arak pun, dengan sukarela ingin menjalani hukuman kerana dia tahu hukuman itu adalah untuk memberi iktibar kepadanya dan orang lain, bukan untuk menzaliminya.

Hanya penulis-penulis dalam Wall Street Journal, New York Times dan The Star yang mengkritik hebat hukuman rotan dalam undang-undang Islam tidak faham maksud undang-undang Islam atau sengaja buat-buat tidak faham.

Soal samada pesalah moral patut dihukum atau tidak pula adalah debat lapuk dalam jurisprudens Barat. Debat ini tidak akan membawa kita ke mana-mana.

Malah kalau diikutkan pandangan kuno bahawa seseorang itu hanya patut dihukum sekiranya dia menyakiti orang lain, kita akan dapati banyak juga undang-undang yang telah diterima umum oleh masyarakat moden pada hari ini menjadi tidak sah.

Bukan sahaja mereka yang meliwat tidak patut dihukum, mereka yang memberi dan mengambil rasuah juga tidak patut dihukum. Penerima dan pemberi rasuah tidak menyakiti antara satu sama lain. Kesalahan mereka hanyalah kesalahan moral.

Begitu juga dengan undang-undang yang mengharamkan pengambilan dadah. Penagih dadah tidak sepatutnya dihukum menurut piawai kuno ini kerana mereka tidak menyakiti sesiapa. Mereka bahkan seronok apabila khayal. Kesalahan mereka hanyalah kesalahan moral.

Seseorang yang cuba membunuh diri juga tidak patut dihukum. Dia tidak menyakiti sesiapa melainkan menyusahkan pihak polis dan bomba. Undang-undang yang menjadikan cubaan membunuh diri sebagai satu jenayah adalah tidak sah.

Banyak lagi undang-undang lain yang boleh disebut. Tetapi Gunasegaram hanya menyebut undang-undang liwat, zina, khalwat dan minum arak!

Saya fikir, apabila kita menulis, otak kita patut diletakkan di kepala, bukan di lutut.

Mungkin lebih banyak ""Question Time" perlu diberikan kepada seorang penulis untuk bertafakkur sebelum dia mula meletakkan mata pena di atas kertas.

Mansuh PPSMI: Mengapa Keliru?

Pengumuman YAB Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Timbalan Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Pelajaran untuk memansuhkan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) mulai 2012 disambut baik oleh ramai pihak. Para pejuang bahasa terutama sekali menarik nafas lega dengan pengumuman ini.

Namun begitu, ada juga pihak yang tidak sabar menunggu sehingga 2012 untuk memansuhkan PPSMI. Mereka ini sebaliknya menggesa agar dasar PPSMI dimansuh mulai 2010.

Antara yang paling lantang menyuarakan hal ini ialah Sasterawan Negara Datuk A. Samad Said. Beliau malah menggunakan pentas PAS semasa kempen Pilihanraya Kecil Permatang Pasir baru-baru ini untuk mengutuk kerajaan berhubung “penangguhan” keputusan memansuhkan PPSMI.

Akhbar Harakah keluaran 28-30 Ogos 2009 mememetik kenyataan Pak Samad yang menyifatkan “keputusan kerajaan menangguhkan pemansuhan dasar PPSMI di semua peringkat sehingga tahun 2017 sebagai penghinaan berterusan terhadap bahasa kebangsaan”.

Saya tidak pasti samada Pak Samad tersalah faham atau wartawan Harakah tersalah lapor. Yang saya pasti, PPSMI akan dimansuhkan secara berperingkat mulai 2012 di mana murid Tahun 1 dan Tahun 4 di sekolah rendah, dan Tingkatan 1 dan Tingkatan 4 di sekolah menengah akan mula mempelajari Sains dan Matematik dalam bahasa Melayu. Murid Tahun 1 dan Tahun 4 di SRJK(C) dan SRJK(T) pula akan mempelajari kedua-dua mata pelajaran tersebut masing-masing dalam bahasa Cina dan Tamil.

Tidak timbul soal penangguhan pemansuhan PPSMI sehingga 2017. Yang saya faham, pemansuhan PPSMI secara berperingkat akan sempurna pada tahun 2017. Ini bermakna, pada tahun 2017 nanti, semua murid di sekolah rendah dan menengah kebangsaan akan mempelajari Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Melayu. Semua murid di SRJK(C) dan SRJK(T) pula akan mempelajari kedua-dua mata pelajaran ini dalam bahasa Cina dan Tamil. Inilah yang dinamakan pelaksanaan berperingkat. Ketika PPSMI diperkenalkan dahulu, pelaksanaannya dilakukan secara berperingkat juga.

Dalam melaksanakan dasar yang sepenting ini, perkara utama yang perlu diambil kira ialah kepentingan murid, bukan sentimen. Kejayaan pelaksanaan sebarang dasar awam bergantung kepada persiapan yang rapi dan kesiapsiagaan pelaksana dasar. Sentimen yang berapi-api perlu ditolak ke tepi. Isu pelaksanaan dasar perlu dilihat dari sudut pandang yang praktikal.

Pemansuhan PPSMI ini misalnya melibatkan beberapa isu praktikal seperti penggubalan kurikulum, penyediaan buku teks, latihan mengajar dan kesediaan murid. Perlu diingat bahawa pemansuhan PPSMI bukan sekadar “kembali mengajar dalam Bahasa Melayu” tetapi juga pengenalan Dasar Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia dan Memperkukuh Bahasa Inggeris (MBMMBI) yang melibatkan pengenalan beberapa mata pelajaran baru, penggubalan kurikulum baru dan perubahan jadual waktu.

Bukan sahaja waktu pembelajaran dalam bahasa Melayu akan bertambah dengan pemansuhan PPSMI, malah komponen sastera Melayu juga akan diberikan penekanan. Justeru, saya tidak nampak berlaku pengkhianatan berterusan terhadap bahasa Melayu. Pemansuhan PPSMI dan pengenalan MBMMBI sebenarnya merupakan sebahagian daripada langkah untuk meletakkan kembali Bahasa Melayu di tempat yang sewajarnya dalam sistem pendidikan kita.

Kesemua ini memerlukan perancangan dan persediaan yang rapi. Penyediaan buku teks umpamanya. Tidak cukup sekadar menterjemahkan buku-buku sekarang, atau mencetak kembali buku-buku sebelum 2003 untuk digunakan di sekolah-sekolah. Kementerian Pelajaran mungkin perlu menggunakan buku-buku terbitan baru untuk disesuaikan dengan silibus baru. Alang-alang hendak mencetak buku teks baru, kandungannya pun elok diperkemaskan lagi.

Benar PPSMI diperkenalkan dalam masa yang singkat. Tetapi lihatlah apa hasilnya. Pelaksanaan secara tergesa-gesa merupakan satu faktor mengapa dasar ini tidak berjaya mencapai matlamat sebagaimana yang dihasratkan.

Untuk memastikan pemansuhan PPSMI dan pengenalan MBMMBI tidak dibuat secara tergopoh-gapah, kerajaan mengambil pendekatan soft-landing. Kedua-dua mata pelajaran tersebut akan diajar dalam dwi-bahasa mulai tahun 2010. Ini bermakna, secara tidak langsung, langkah awal pelaksanaan dasar baru ini sudahpun ‘bermula’ pada tahun 2010.

Di samping itu, murid kohort terakhir PPSMI akan dibenarkan mempelajari Sains dan Matematik dalam dwi-bahasa. Ini adalah untuk mengurangkan sebarang kesan negatif yang mungkin timbul akibat perubahan dasar secara drastik.

Mereka adalah murid yang akan berada di Tahun 4 pada tahun 2012, 2013 dan 2014; Tahun 5 pada tahun 2013, 2014 dan 2015; Tahun 6 pada tahun 2014, 2015 dan 2016; Tingkatan 4 pada tahun 2012, 2013 dan 2014; dan Tingkatan 5 pada tahun 2013, 2014 dan 2015.

Ini bermakna proses pemansuhan PPSMI akan lengkap seratus peratus pada tahun 2016 di sekolah menengah dan 2017 di sekolah rendah. Dengan strategi soft-landing ini, pusingan lengkap pemansuhan PPSMI mengambil masa selama lima tahun di sekolah rendah dan empat tahun di sekolah menengah.

Pusingan lengkap pelaksanaan PPSMI pula mengambil masa selama enam tahun. Jika dibandingkan, pemansuhan PPSMI mengambil masa yang lebih singkat berbanding pengenalan dasar itu.

Ada juga pihak yang meragui keihklasan kerajaan untuk memansuhkan PPSMI. Akhbar Harakah keluaran yang sama memetik kenyataan seorang pemimpin mahasiswa yang bimbang kerajaan tidak akan memansuhkan PPSMI.

Saya tidak fikir begitu. Setelah bersusah payah meyakinkan rakyat bahawa PPSMI bukanlah satu dasar yang baik, adalah tidak masuk akal untuk meneruskan dasar ini menjelang 2012. Ini satu tindakan membunuh diri.

Malah, bukan sesuatu yang mudah bagi sesebuah kerajaan untuk mengakui kelemahan sesuatu dasar yang telah dilaksanakan bagi tempoh yang agak lama. Apakah keberanian politik yang telah ditunjukkan dengan keputusan memansuhkan PPSMI hendak disia-siakan begitu sahaja? Saya sekali lagi tidak fikir begitu.

Bangun Potensi Pelajar Secara Seimbang

Berikut adalah pandangan saya mengenai had 10 matapelajaran SPM yang disiarkan di ruangan rencana Utusan Malaysia pada 10 Jun 2009.

BANYAK yang telah diperkatakan tentang keputusan Kementerian Pelajaran untuk mengehadkan jumlah 10 mata pelajaran yang boleh diambil oleh para pelajar dalam peperiksaan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM). Dalam sistem terbuka yang diamalkan sebelum ini, tiada had tertentu ditetapkan.

Di samping pandangan-pandangan yang bersifat konstruktif, yang paling banyak diperkatakan ialah keputusan ini kononnya membatasi potensi pelajar untuk menunjukkan kecemerlangan mereka dalam sebanyak mungkin mata pelajaran yang diambil.

Jika sebelum ini kita boleh berbangga dengan pencapaian anak Malaysia memperolehi 19A atau 20A, selepas ini tidak lagi.

Penulis ingin melihat aspek potensi ini dari sudut yang berbeza. Benar bahawa sistem pendidikan di mana-mana negara pun perlu mengenal pasti dan mengasah potensi pelajar. Setelah potensi ini dikenal pasti, para pelajar akan dijuruskan ke dalam bidang yang paling serasi dengan potensi mereka.

Dengan yang demikian, kita boleh mengasah potensi modal insan dalam bidang-bidang khusus yang terbaik, baik bagi diri mereka, sekaligus memajukan negara.

Prinsip ini bukanlah sesuatu yang baru. Teringat penulis tentang falsafah pendidikan Plato ketika mengajar subjek pemikiran politik di universiti dahulu. Menurut Plato, sistem pendidikan perlu dirangka untuk mengenal pasti sama ada seseorang itu layak dikelaskan sebagai golongan artisan (pekerja) atau golongan guardian (pemerintah).

Pendidikan rendah bagi Plato bermula dari umur tujuh hingga 20 tahun di mana para pelajar diajar ilmu gimnastik dan muzik. Kedua-dua ilmu ini penting untuk mengenal pasti potensi fizikal dan minda pelajar.

Bagi pelajar yang cemerlang, mereka akan meneruskan pengajian di peringkat menengah di mana ilmu logik dan astronomi diajar. Kedua-dua ilmu ini khusus untuk mengasah potensi intelek para pelajar bagi mempersiapkan mereka sebagai golongan pemerintah. Yang paling cemerlang antara mereka akan menjadi raja-filasuf (philospher-king).

Bagi pelajar yang menunjukkan pencapaian yang lebih cemerlang dalam kemahiran fizikal, mereka akan menjadi golongan pekerja yang menghasilkan barangan keperluan terbaik untuk kegunaan masyarakat.

Baik golongan pemerintah atau pekerja, kedua-dua golongan ini memberi sumbangan yang besar kepada negara dengan melakukan pekerjaan yang paling sesuai dengan potensi mereka.

Peranan sistem pendidikan ialah untuk mengenal pasti dan mengasah potensi insan agar setiap orang melakukan perkara yang terbaik bagi mereka. Matlamatnya ialah untuk mewujudkan kemajuan, keseimbangan dan ketertiban dalam negara.

Bukanlah maksud penulis untuk bernostalgia dengan falsafah klasik Plato. Namun, jika direnungkan Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan kita pun membicarakan tentang aspek potensi dan keseimbangan.

Menurut Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan, yang ingin dibangunkan oleh sistem pendidikan kita ialah insan yang seimbang dari segi potensi akal, jasmani, emosi dan rohani. Ini bererti, yang ingin dibangunkan ialah insan Kamil yang cerdas akalnya, cergas jasmaninya, cemerlang budi pekertinya dan jitu rohaninya.

Dengan menetapkan jumlah maksimum 10 mata pelajaran yang boleh diambil oleh pelajar dalam peperiksaan SPM, sistem pendidikan kita sebenarnya berada pada landasan yang selaras dengan hasrat Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan.

Para pelajar tidak akan dibebankan dengan sistem yang terlalu berorientasikan peperiksaan sehingga mengabaikan aspek perkembangan potensi jasmani, emosi dan rohani mereka.

Kita sering mendengar keluhan ibu bapa tentang anak-anak mereka yang tidak mempunyai masa yang cukup untuk beriadah dan melakukan aktiviti-aktiviti yang boleh meningkatkan kemahiran hidup dan sosial mereka kerana terpaksa menghadiri tuisyen demi tuisyen atau melakukan kerja rumah yang bertimbun.

Apabila tiba musim peperiksaan, ada ibu bapa yang terpaksa mengambil cuti untuk memastikan anak-anak mereka mengulang kaji pelajaran dan melakukan latih tubi sebagai persediaan untuk menghadapi peperiksaan.

Ada juga anak-anak yang terganggu emosi mereka kerana bebanan akademik yang melampau dan harapan ibu bapa yang menggunung terhadap mereka.

Saya fikir, sekarang inilah masanya untuk kita memperbetulkan keadaan ini. Jangan menganggap bahawa potensi pelajar hanya boleh dibangunkan secara maksima dengan membenarkan mereka mengambil seberapa banyak jumlah mata pelajaran yang terlarat. Kita tidak akan ke mana dengan pemikiran megalomania ini.

Kita seharusnya memberi tumpuan juga kepada perkembangan potensi pelajar dalam aspek kemahiran hidup, sahsiah dan sosial mereka melalui kegiatan ko-kurikulum, kerohanian dan sukan. Transformasi pendidikan yang tidak terlalu berorientasikan peperiksaan perlu dimanfaatkan sepenuhnya untuk melahirkan insan Kamil.

Bagi penulis, tujuh atau lapan mata pelajaran sudah mencukupi untuk mengasah potensi intelek pelajar dalam bidang bahasa dan kesusasteraan; kemanusiaan dan kemasyarakatan; dan sains dan teknologi.

Di negara-negara yang lebih maju, seperti di Singapura, para pelajar biasanya mengambil tujuh atau lapan mata pelajaran dalam peperiksaan GCE "O" Level, yang setara dengan peperiksaan SPM. 10 mata pelajaran yang ditetapkan oleh Kementerian Pelajaran adalah lebih daripada mencukupi.

Adalah lebih baik sekiranya sistem pendidikan kita mengasah potensi ilmiah pelajar secara mendalam dalam bidang-bidang yang tertentu daripada membiarkan mereka membuat pilihan secara rawak.

Yang penting ialah potensi pelajar perlu dibangunkan secara seimbang sejajar dengan hasrat Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan yang memandu sistem pendidikan kita.

Mengenai kerisauan sesetengah pihak bahawa beberapa subjek teras, termasuk sejarah dan pendidikan Islam/moral, terpaksa dikorbankan sekiranya had 10 mata pelajaran ini dilaksanakan, saya fikir baik juga kita menunggu keputusan Kementerian Pelajaran mengenai hal ini.

Saya percaya bahawa apa jua keputusan yang diambil, aspek keseimbangan dalam pembangunan insan, termasuklah apresiasi sejarah dan penghayatan rohani, tidak akan diabaikan.

The Perak DUN Ruckus: Democracy Overworked

I was at the Perak State Legislative Assembly on an official duty on 7 May only to witness the ugliest scene in Malaysia's legislative history. It was expected that some kind of ruckus would happen in the DUN on that fateful day but what I witnessed was beyond my imagination.

I was shocked to see DAP and PKR assemblymen crossed the aisle (a very unparliamentary act) to harrass BN and Independent assemblymen and prevented them from speaking.

The shove and scuffle in the Dewan, which lasted for more than five hours, with intermittent break in between, made similar experience in Taiwanese parliament a storm in a tea pot.

By now, the Malaysian public already knew the what and how of the ruckus. What matters now is how they perceive it. Let me deal with some of the perceptions and give my own eyewitness account.

1. Sivakumar was deprived of his right as a Speaker.

No, it was not true. Nobody stopped Sivakumar from doing his job as a Speaker when the Dewan convened. He entered the Dewan and sat on the Speaker's Chair. He then ordered the seven BN assemblymen who had earlier been suspended, including the MB, and the three Independents to leave the Dewan. This was despite the court's decision which declared the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen was illegal. No reason was given as to why he ordered the ten assemblymen to leave. He also refused to allow Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli who had been standing for more than 15 minutes to speak. As the Speaker, he was the most powerful man in the Dewan he said. This means he is 'untouchable" and could do anything he wanted in the Dewan. So who deprived whose right?

2. The sitting was never convened because Sivakumar refused to begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan.

Yes, Sivakumar did say that he would never begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan. But he erred in law. Order 13(1) of the Standing Order clearly states that the order of business begins with the entry of the Speaker. Speaker's announcement is item no 4 in the order of business. So when Sivakumar entered the Dewan, sat on the Speaker's Chair and made "announcements" that the 10 ADUNs should leave the Dewan, the Dewan was already in sitting.

3. If Sivakumar was not deprived of his right as a speaker, then why was his microphone turned off?

Get the fact right. The microphone was turned off only after the motion to remove Sivakumar as a Speaker was duly passed by the Dewan. This means, when the microphone was turned off, Sivakumar was no longer the Speaker. He therefore had no right to speak as a Speaker. He should have honourably left the Speaker's Chair and taken his seat as an ordinary ADUN. By refusing to vacate the Speaker's chair, he actually obstructed the new Speaker from discharging his duties. In fact, it was a necessity that the microphone was turned off. Sivakumar kept shouting "saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa" when Menteri Besar YAB Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir moved the motion to remove him. Don't we think that it was an obstruction of the business of the Dewan?

4. The Speaker cannot simply be removed.

If an MB can be removed, why can't a Speaker? A Speaker can be removed by a motion passed by a majority of the members of the house. On May 7, the MB used his authority under Order 13(2) of the Perak DUN's Standing Order to move a motion to remove the speaker. It is as simple as that. And it would be against the public interest if a Speaker cannot be removed.

5. The BN wanted to remove the Speaker because he is a member of the Opposition. This is unfair.

How would you run a westminster system of parliamentary government if a Speaker who is a member of the Opposition cannot be removed. The scenario would be like this. Whenever the government wants to introduce a Bill in the Dewan, the Speaker will find fault with government assemblymen and suspend them for one or two weeks, or worse still, for 12 or 16 months. (Don't rule out the possibility of arbitrariness in suspending the assemblymen as this is what Sivakumar exactly did in the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen previously). The Speaker will make sure that the number of government assemblymen he suspends would be enough to reduce them into a minority. No government Bill can be passed. What if the Bill is a Supply Bill. The government will be in a "loss of supply" position, i.e. having no money to spend constitutionally. Don't we think that this will lead to the collapse of a constitutional government? Removing the Speaker in the Perak case is a matter of necessity.

6. The police had acted arbitrarily by dragging Sivakumar out from the Dewan.

The police had been very cautious in taking action aginst the trouble makers. I bumped into a high ranking police officer outside the Dewan during the recess. Someone asked him why the police did not go in to stop the ruckus. His answer was that the police had taken enough heat in handling the protesters outside the Dewan. Interfering in the business of the Dewan would only worsen public perception toward the police. But why did the police finally come in and dragged Sivakumar out of the Dewan? The answer is simple. The situation was totally out of control. A Bentara was injured when he was trying to remove Sivakumar from the Speaker's Chair. The Speaker had no choice but to call the police in. And that was after five hours of shove and scuffle in the Dewan. My hunch is the PKR and DAP assemblymen purposely wanted the police to come in as part of their perception play. In fact the whole drama is just part of their perception play.

7. Democracy is dead

No. Democracy is not dead. It just overworked. Some people had just stretched the limit of democracy. In fact, it is bordering on anarchy. Yes, I mean it. It is anarchy with some leftist-leninist strand! Are some people slowly showing their true colors now?

But throughout the ruckus, I was wondering why PAS assemblymen sat quietly in the Dewan. Some were SMSing and others just looked poker faced. Hmmmm ....

Note: All views expressed in this article are solely of my own and not of the institution(s) that I am currently attached to.

If - Rudyard Kipling

In my final days at ANU, Rudyard Kipling's beautiful poem "If" was a source of inspiration to me. As thesis submission deadline was approaching, and I as was not so sure what the future holds for me, the poem's soothing words calmed my nervous self. I shared the poem with my wife and friends. Here is the poem,

If

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you

But make allowance for their doubting too,

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise.

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,

If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools.

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much,

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

- Rudyard Kiplling

With new reponsibilities that I am shouldering now, I will have to remember Rudyard Kipling's soothing words even more.

Vote of No Confidence

One of the most pertinent legal questions to be answered in relation to the recent change of government in Perak is whether the loss of confidence in former Pakatan's Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin can only be expressed through vote of no confidence in the State Legislative Assembly.

Two local cases on the same issue are relevant here. First is Stephen Kalong Ningkan v. Tun Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli [1966] 2 MLJ 187. Stephen was former Chief Minister of Sarawak who was removed from his office by the then Sarawak Governor Tun Abang Haji Openg on the ground that the former had lost the “confidence” of a majority of members of the Council Negri. The Governor formed his opinion on the basis of a letter signed by 21 out of 42 members of the Council Negeri expressing their loss of confidence in Stephen. The Governor then proceeded to appoint Penghulu Tawi Sli as the new Chief Minister.

Article 7(1) of the Sarawak Constitution said:

If the Chief Minister ceases to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Council Negri, then, unless at his request the Governor dissolves the Council Negri, the Chief Minister shall tender the resignation of the members of the Supreme Council (Cabinet).

The question is whether lack of confidence may only be demonstrated in the legislature. Harley Ag CJ held that “confidence” was to be tested on the floor of the legislature. The learned judge departed from the Privy Council decision in Adegbenro v. Akintola, a Nigerian case, which considered a letter signed by a majority of the members of House of Assembly expressing their loss of support in the Premier as a sufficient proof of loss of support.

Distinguishing Adegbenro, the learned judge said:

“The measurement in Nigeria was a measurement of "support", not of "confidence". The Sarawak Constitution is dated subsequent to the decision of Adegbenro v. Akintola, and it does seem to me that the "confidence" of a majority of members, being a term of art, may imply reference to a vote such as a vote of confidence or a vote on a major issue”.

The second case was Datuk Amir Kahar Tun Mustapha v. Tun Mohamed Said Keruak [1994] 3 MLJ 737. Datuk Amir Kahar was a member of Sabah State Cabinet formed after Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) won the Sabah state election in 1994. As a result of defection of several PBS assemblymen to Barisan Nasional, Chief Minister Pairin Kitingan lost the confidence of a majority of the members of State Assembly and subsequently tendered his resignation. There had been no vote of no confidence or defeat of substantial bill in the State Assembly to signify the loss of confidence in Pairin.

In this case the Judge rejected the notion that there is any difference between “confidence” and “support” and that the lack of confidence can only be expressed through vote of no confidence in the legislature. He said:

“… once a Chief Minister in fact knows that he has lost the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly, he should not wait for a vote of no confidence to be formally tabled in the Assembly but should immediately take the honorable way out by tendering the resignation of his Cabinet. Under the circumstances, if the Chief Minister refuses or does not tender the resignation of the members of the Cabinet which includes himself, or if he tenders the resignation of himself alone, the fact remains that the Cabinet is dissolved on account of him losing the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly and it is not necessary therefore for the Yang di-Pertua Negeri as a last resort to remove the Chief Minister and the other members of his Cabinet. This is not only the effect of the Constitution but it is the established convention.”

Commenting on these two cases, constitutional law expert Professor Andrew Harding in his book “Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia” (1996) said:

“The confinement of the meaning of words such as ‘support’ or ‘confidence’ to the operation of politics on the floor of the legislature is in fact problematical, because, if advice to summon the legislature is not forthcoming - and a Chief Minister who may have lost support will not be eager to summon it - there will be no opportunity for the politics of the legislature to come into operation, and a stalemate will result. To this extent, the Ningkan decision is unfortunate, and a service is done by Kahar Mustapha in casting doubt on the reasoning, if not the result, of the Ningkan case.’

If we were to follow the decision in Kahar Mustapha, there are no two Menteri Besars in Perak at the moment. The former MB had vacated his position, eventhough he refused to honorably tender his resignation, and his cabinet dissolved by virtue of him losing the confidence of a majority of the members of the State Legislative Assembly.

The one and only legitimate Perak MB at the moment is Barisan's Datuk Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir who was appointed by the Sultan of Perak to the position after His Highness formed his opinion that Zambry commands the support of a majority of the members of the State Legislative Assembly.

It should also be noted that the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, who himself was a former Chief Justice, had summoned all 31 assemblymen to have audience with him to ascertain whether or not they had confidence in Zambry as the new MB. No one can say that the Sultan had been cavalier in exercising his discretionary power under the state constitution in the appointment of the MB.

Whether we like it or not, this is the rule of political game in the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Abiding by this rule is also democratic.