Dr Maszlee Malik, Advisor, Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)
Dato’ Dr Musa Mohd Nordin, Director, MPF

Accountability of the ruler is often used synonymously with  concepts such as answerability, enforcement, responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. The concept of accountability is a condicio, crux of the ideals and the hallmark of good governance. The concept originated from the ethics discourse which had several meanings but its application and expansion has distanced it from its original meaning. In the modern usage, the term accountability is synonymous with ‘responsibility’ and ‘answerability’. Upon electing the executive into office with the mandate to rule, tax, spend, legislate and enforce policies and laws; the citizens demand of them accountability. It is thus a double edge sword to keep in check the political executive from abusing their power and to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of government operations.

Types of accountability
Accordingly, accountability functions as ‘the mechanism to control power, domesticating it and preventing its abuse under certain procedure by the governed upon the government which governs them’. The literature outlines eight types of accountability, namely: political accountability, administrative or bureaucratic accountability, judicial accountability, market accountability, managerial accountability, constituency accountability and professional accountability. Our focus is on political accountability, considering its relevance to our current political situation.

Political Accountability
Political accountability has been crucial in defining the rights of the citizen towards preventing injustice and tyranny by those in power. Its realisation will enshrine the very idea of good governance. It combines two major elements: enforcement and answerability. These two elements are often described as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ accountability respectively.

Enforcement
Enforcement ensures free and fair elections which are institutional prerequisites for democracy. The “freeness” is manifested in the freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to participate for every citizen; voter and party.

Free elections alone are not sufficient to guarantee the effective role of the accountability process. They must also be fair, whereby the rules and procedures are equally fair and protected from fraud and manipulation by those in power. For example, the elections should be held at regular intervals so that those currently in office cannot delay them indefinitely according to their political benefit.

Likewise, election as an agent of accountability empowers the voters to assess the policies and performances of their political leaders. Elected political leaders acquire their legitimacy through the voter’s voice. The result of elections might be understood simply as a declaration of who most deserve the honour of political authority.

Answerability
Answerability can be considered as the core function of accountability. Enforcement which is the foundation of parliamentary democracies, aims partly to make all parties involved to be answerable of their actions and deliverables before the people. To safeguard the answerability process, there must be ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’ in the governance process. These can only be achieved when two other major elements in an authentic ambience of accountability are present: a free mass media and  legislative scrutiny of the executive.

Freedom of the press is crucial  in any democratic country. It closely monitors the performance of the judicial, legislative and executive bodies. Thus, any abuse of office, corruption, malfunction of the system and its apparatus are reported to inform the public. An informed public would utilise its voting power to punish or reward politicians for their handling of the nation’s affair. A free press also creates an open space for the public and citizen groups to communicate with each other. Such communication undoubtedly plays a major role in a healthy democratic practice. It helps to raise political consciousness, enhances the free expression of ideas, stimulate proposals for reform, expose flawed thinking, reveal problems before they reach crisis point, mitigate errors, and articulate multiple facets of pressing national issues.

However, freedom of the media alone is inadequate without a proper mechanism to make the members of the executive answerable to the public. Answerability requires a legislative institution, which has the power to force the executive to explain its acts of omissions or commissions.  This requires the legislative to be constituted on the basis of three principles. First, the recognition of the legitimate right and role of the opposition in  all legislative matters. Second, the unrestricted parliamentary scrutiny of all policy matters, its formation, evolution and implementation. Third, the supportive role of parliamentary committees and government agencies. The active role of Anti Corruption Agency (ACA), Ombudsman or the Public Complaints Bureau in certain countries, Auditor General Office (AG), Public Accounts Committee, and other institutions must be allowed to undertake their task without any interference from the executive. Any regulation, act or law that restricts the freedom of these agencies is undemocratic and would jeopardise the accountability process.

In summary, accountability is the hallmark of good governance which embraces the enforcement of free and fair elections and answerability of the executive to the public in a political space of openness and transparency. The malfunction of any of these critical operating systems will retard national development and progress. However, the accountability system can only be highly efficient with the existence and support of other related concepts of governance such as rule of law, people participation and a higher degree of civil liberty. If political accountability is unheeded, neglected or dysfunctional, the citizen may inevitably resort to civil disobedience, street protests, rebellions or violent revolutions.

Islam and Political Accountability
Accountability in Islam derives from the concept of Amanah. Amanah as a political concept suggests that God has given the trust to human beings to deliver and promote His guidance through justice and fairness in their lives. Everyone becomes a recipient of such a trust and consequently has to stand in awe-filled reverence before his people towards whom and for whose sake he will be called upon to exercise his duty.  This concept is enshrined  in the Qur’an:
“Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.” (Qur’an, 3:104).

This verse and the similar illustrates that Islam promotes active citizenship through participation in governance. The spirit of al-amr bi al-ma’ruf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar (enjoinment of good and forbidding of evil) must be expanded from the exclusivity of spiritual-ritual dimension towards a broader and holistic horizon of moral, ethical, social and political responsibilities.

In harmony with the Quranic spirit, the Prophet was reported as saying:
“Whoever amongst you sees anything objectionable, let him change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not even able to do so, then with his heart, and the latter is the weakest form of faith” (Narrated by Muslim).

Similarly, there are other analogous records which denote the Prophet’s position on the political life of the believers, amongst others his praise and recognition of anyone who stood against tyranny with the words of justice:
“The master of the martyrs is Hamza, and whoever is killed speaking truth in the court of a tyrant ruler” (Narrated by al-Hakim).

Equally, on another occasion he justifies an act of accountability performed by an individual by associating it with Jihad:
“The best Jihad is the word of truth to an unjust ruler” (Narrated by al-Tarmidhi, Abu Daud, and Ibn Majah).

These evidences from the authentic texts demonstrate  that ‘accountability’ is pivotal in articulating the purity of the spirit of amanah in political life. The high sense of accountability  empowers individuals, hence crystallising the true meaning of equality and allowing individuals to act as a benchmark for the community of believers. These inter-dependent and inter-relating concepts reveal a clear picture of how amanah works within a tawhidic worldview based society. Furthermore, in preserving and instilling the concept of accountability, the Prophet allowed himself to be accountable and criticised by his companions on many occasions. The Prophet was criticised by the companions on his decision regarding the positioning of the army during the battle of Badr. He was also urged to accept the companions’ proposal to fight the Makkan army outside Madinah when the Makkan troops were approaching Madinah during the battle of Uhud.

The practice of accountability in early Islamic political life could also be found during the period of Abu Bakr. He stressed the importance of accountability and the nature of individuals with authority in the community in his very first speech to the Muslim community after being elected as the Caliph by saying:
“Cooperate with me when I am right, but correct me when I commit error; obey me so long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet; but turn away from me when I deviate” (Narrated by al-Hindi).

In fact, other companions often held him to account for his decisions and state administration. Furthermore, this was also the position of Omar when he was elected as the successor of Abu Bakr: in his very first speech after being appointed as caliph, he stressed the need for accountability in his administration, and the rights of every empowered citizen.

Omar’s policy on accountability did not end with the primitive style of verbal complaints and condemnations from the public. He established a specific office to deal with the public administrators’ accountability. The office was designed for the investigation of complaints that reached the Caliph against the officers of the State.

Another example of accountability practiced during the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs can be found in the famous letter written by the fourth Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib to his governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar. In his advice to the governor, he asserts that:
“Out of your hours of work, fix a time for the complainants and for those who want to approach you with their grievances. During this time, you should do no other work but hear them and pay attention to their complaints and grievances. For this purpose you must arrange public audience for them; during this audience, for the sake of Allah, treat them with kindness, courtesy and respect. Do not let your army and police be in the audience hall at such times so that those who have grievances against your regime may speak to you freely, unreservedly and without fear”.

Conclusion
The virtually total breakdown of  accountability in the the Malaysian political process is now evidently glaring for all too see. Officially formed in November 2006, the Coalition for Clean & Fair Elections (Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil) or BERSIH (meaning CLEAN in the national language, Malay), a coalition of NGOs, sought to reform the current electoral system in Malaysia to ensure free clean and fair elections. Her first public rally in the vicinity of the historic Dataran Merdeka in November 2007 was often credited for the shift in the political landscape in the 2008 general elections which denied the ruling Barisan Nasional (National Front) its two thirds palriamentary majority since 1969.

The most recent 2015 BERSIH 4 rally from 2pm, August 29th until midnight, August 30th attracted  massive peaceful public demonstrations in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, Kuching, Kota Kinabalu and concurrent Global BERSIH rallies in many capital cities. The demands were for free and fair elections, a transparent government, the right to demonstrate, strengthening the parliamentary democracy system, as well as saving the national economy. The fifth “economic demand” was in response to the alleged deposit of  RM 2.6 billion in the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts, which his supporters claim is not corruption but a “political donation”.

And following on the BERSIH initiative, yesterday, 10 September 2015, a civil society document endorsed by 69 NGOs, outlined specifically the reforms needed for political funding to promote transparency and accountability. It was titled “Declaration on transparent and accountable political funding as the underlying framework to eliminate corruption and promote clean governance”

These responses by civil society are  authentic grass roots initiatives articulating accountability as a manifestation of amanah, to put in place operating systems that  prioritises the enforcement of free and fair election, ensure answerability of the executive within  a political sphere of openness and transparency, empower people participation in the political process, protect jealously civil liberties and safeguard the rule of law. Thus, no party, government or the opposition, would be spared from being answerable for their ex-ante and ex-post responsibilities. An effectual macro accountability system would only prevail within the tangible and real division of powers in any state. Without a real separation of power, as can be seen  absent in many countries, Malaysia included, a culture of accountability could never prevail. In the absence of a palpable atmosphere of accountability, ideal governance will unlikely be achieved.

A Youth Speaks
Dr Shahreen Murray

I am a bumiputera. Yet I struggle to understand what that word really means. This magical ‘status’ has allowed me certain ‘privileges’ that, growing up, I saw denied to many of my equally deserving, non-bumi friends. I could not (and still cannot) grasp the concept of legalised discrimination in a country that prides itself on multiracial diversity. Slogans like 1 Malaysia get thrown around yet none truly appreciate its meaning. In my mind, we are ALL Malaysians so shouldn’t we ALL receive the exact same treatment in our own beloved country, irrespective of race? Apparently not.

My father is Chinese-Pakistani and my mother Malay-Arabic. I am thus categorised as a Malay due to my maternal heritage, and therefore bumiputera (eventhough my father’s family too, have been Malaysian citizens for generations). I am married to a British national. My kids, only being less than a quarter Malay, are classed too, as bumiputeras due to my ancestry. I have a close friend who is a Malaysian Chinese Muslim convert and married to a Dane. Despite being as Malaysian as my own children, their adorable 1 year old son will never see the same opportunities mine do.

Coming back to KL after almost 10 years abroad gave me a rude awakening. I have been slapped in the face with cringe worthy headlines such as ‘Hidup Melayu’ and ‘Cina tak tahu berterima kasih’. I have had many discussions (and some heated debates) over the years about the dire situation in our country. The points that I hear over and over again are essentially the same:

1) I am a disgrace to my race for being ungrateful (our honourable government has afterall, handed me my lifes opportunities on a silver platter). I should just be ‘thankful’ for being born a bumi and shut up. Anak zaman sekarang memang tak bersyukur. Diberi sikit nak mintak lagi.
First of all, I AM grateful. To my supportive family who has pushed me to achieve my dreams of becoming a medical doctor. To myself, for studying my arse off my entire life, getting the grades and graduating. To the Almighty, for giving me the opportunities and the strength to never give up, even when at times it felt like the only option.

I am NOT however grateful to my government. For it is their DUTY afterall, to serve the people, such as myself, to ensure the future generation have qualifications so we can continue to flourish the country. They are not doing it as an act of selfless altruism. They do it out of moral obligation. To fulfill their constitutional responsibility. They are elected (I use that term loosely) for the sole purpose of serving the rakyat. So no, I should not be made to feel grateful for what is expected of them to do.

I am also NOT grateful for their open thievery of our hard earned money. Too many people buy into their manipulations and hypocrisy. Malaysia is a blessed country indeed. Bright young minds, beautiful weather, good food, friendly people, abundance of natural resources. And yet, here we are. Despite all that we have going for us, we are way behind in the game.

Just take a look at our neighbours-Singapore. They have much less than we do-manpower, resources, years since independence-and yet are much more advanced in every way.

Our education system is failing (qualifications attained here unrecognised internationally), the health sector is so overloaded that many are forced to resort to public donations for life saving treatments, foreign investors are fleeing due to our economical and political instability, the rate of inflation is on a rapid ascend, the general income of a ‘moderate’ family is below meagre, housing and property costs are unrealistically high due to shady deals behind each tender, car prices are extortionately steep due to the 300% taxes implemented to support personal individuals’ AP incomes, we have one of the highest number of ‘tolls per km of highway’ in the world, zero accountability in relation to corruption/murder charges amongst the upper echelons, biased judiciary and policing..the list is endless.

Malaysia has taken a lot of beating and yet here we are, still standing. This is NOT a testament to our so called leaders but to the people. We are still standing not because of them, but rather in spite of them. Our very own ‘protectors’ steal 90% of what is rightfully ours and we should be GRATEFUL for being fed that measely 10% worth of scraps and accept it graciously as charity? It just does not add up.

2) The superheroes of UMNO and BN are using their roles as our leaders to PROTECT the Malays. Without bumi rights we will be oppressed in our own country.
Lets get one fact clear: the powers that be do not care for anyone but themselves. Not even Malays. If they did, our country will not be riddled with billions in debt (hello 1MDB), the ringgit would not be so weak, poverty rates would be lower than what it is and we would see our taxes be given back to society in the form of better education, higher salaries, improved health and reliable public transportation.

If they cared, they would not be using this whole bumi spin to create a racial divide between an otherwise peaceful nation. If they cared, they would strive to permanently improve living conditions in rural areas instead of just giving out a few hundred ringgit to families before elections to secure votes. If they cared they would listen to us, the people, and let our votes matter, instead of engineering the gerrymandering to unfairly win them the election.

If they cared they would eradicate the word bumiputera. Because this heinous word is NOT about helping Malays. It is about helping themselves. Its about divide and conquer; keep the races apart to avoid unity and hence avoiding mutiny. Which explains why the same corrupt party has ruled, iron fisted, for decades. This tactic has been used countless of times throughout history and has worked its dark magic well. The Malays are tricked into a false sense of security; that they are well looked after. The non Malays breed a much justified resentment against the Malays and the cycle continues. We are all too busy bickering amongst ourselves to see the bigger picture. And in the meantime, a small minority of Malays are laughing all the way to the bank.

I was a MARA scholar. So imagine my shock and disgust when I found out about the Dudley House scandal in Australia. Now it made sense why there has been such a massive cutback on scholarships over the years. Rich influencial Malay government officials, stealing from a fund set up to help educate less fortunate Malays? This is just ONE example of how twisted the whole ‘protection of bumi rights’ is. No one is being protected; we are all being exploited in one way or another. And we are sadly lapping the propaganda up.

3) Bumi rights are there to protect Islam and its teachings.
This is a dangerous area. Please let us not confuse race and religion. In all my understanding of Islam, not once does it mention discriminating against another. Many verses in the Quran stress upon the fact that we are all equal in God’s eyes. The only thing that sets us apart is our piety and devotion to Him. Not the colour of our skin, not our race. If anything, this open racism is anything BUT Islamic.

My religion has taught me to respect others’ beliefs and to live in harmony. So even if the word bumi never existed, Islam in this country will still be Islam as it is stands today-a faith protected by the people practising it. Not protected by BN or UMNO.

And what about that Chinese convert friend of mine and many others like her? Shes a Muslim but isn’t entitled to receive bumi rights? Yes. Because bumi does NOT equal Islam. Malay does NOT equal Islam.

*Let me just add that there are MANY so called Islamic practises here that are UNislamic in nature, so much so that a renowned international Islamic Scholar once said that he was baffled at the ‘different Islam that exists here in Malaysia’…but let’s save that can of worms for another day.

4) The Chinese and Indians are more hardworking and successful. Without bumi rights, nanti apa nak jadi kat Melayu?
So they should be. If, from the day you were born, you were told that the only way up is through good ol fashioned hard work..wouldn’t that be exactly what you’d do? There is no magic DNA that exists in the blood of non Malays. They are not smarter neither are they better. They are however, pushed into a corner, resulting in them being more hardworking and resilient (I am generalising here). I have a lot of respect for my non Malay friends. They have been so patient and loyal to the country that has chewed em up and spat them out. If the shoe was on the other foot..I doubt I would be as forgiving.

We are all born with similar(ish) intellect and capabilities. Its how much effort we put in that counts. Those not being given handouts will inherently strive to perform better than those who are happy to settle with mediocrity due to a lifetime of being spoonfed. Its only natural. Einstein was dyslexic and a school drop out. Stephen Hawking has a debilitating motor neurone disease. John Nash was schizophrenic. Donald Trump was born into poverty by his immigrant mother. What do they all have in common? Adversity. And the drive to prove their worth, to carve their names in an otherwise unrelenting world.

It is human nature to want more when you have nought.

So if anything, the bumi status is creating a huge injustice for Malays. It is not so subtly implying that we need the help, because without it, we are incapable of helping ourselves. It is dumbing us down. It is undermining the efforts of those of us who actually work tirelessly to get to where we are.

I have lost count the number of times I get given a raised brow when I tell someone that I was a sponsored student. I know what they are thinking. They think that I merely got it due to my race and not the fact that I locked myself in my room for months before my International Baccalaureate finals to study. That I prepared for weeks before my University interview with foreign tutors to ensure that I excelled. And I don’t blame them. The word bumi has made Malays lose our credibility. And what frustrates me is, it should not have been this way. Malays are just as capable as everyone else in reaching for the stars. We just haven’t been given the opportunity to shine in our own light.

I’ve had the honour of meeting many successful hardworking Malays in my lifetime. In London where I worked, I knew 2 British born Malays (none of whom were remotely aware of what bumi even meant). One of them was a head professor in a reputable teaching hospital and the other a PhD holder who was soon to be the head of his specialist team. They are both Malays, born into a system where the only way to success is through hard graft and nothing else. Malays are just as capable as anyone else. Just give us a fair and equal platform to perform on. And may the best man win (Malay or otherwise). How else will Malaysia realise Her true potential if its not through the abilities of us, the future generation. Strip away the double standards and watch our countrymen rise to the occasion. Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sikhs, Kadazans, Dusuns and everyone else in between.
My rant is long and tiring. But so is our journey forward. Looking around me now, I see less and less of what’s left of the Malaysia that I knew (and loved) growing up. I watch my father, beaten from years of trying, and failing, to change the already damaged system in every little way he could.

Let us not give up hope. Let us continue to carry the torch that our parents held and strive for change. Let us, the new generation, keep our voices heard and never succumb to being bullied into silence. Let us not be lulled into a false sense of ignorance. Let us not allow recent events to doubt our respect and love for one another. We are all in this together. Let us unite once and for all, for ourselves, for 1 Malaysia. This is when we need each other the most.

Maszlee Malik PhD
Musa Mohd Nordin FRCPCH
Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

1. Introduction

The recent past has seen a plethora of incidents which threatens to fracture the religious harmony which this nation has thus far enjoyed. The “Cow-Head protest”, in Shah  Alam in August 2009, against a proposed Hindu temple in Section 23, displayed unveiled disrespect and hatred towards our Hindu citizens.  At least three churches in the Klang Valley were torched in early January 2010, by cowardly and utterly senseless act of a group of misguided, chauvinistic, religious bigots. This was later followed by arson attacks against two suraus in Muar in late January 2010. And most recently, on 20 April 2015, we witnessed the mindless act of incitement by 50 residents in Taman Medan over the display of a cross on a newly minted church.

These heinous acts of religious provocations, hatred and violence committed presumably in the name of Islam desecrates the very religion it purports to protect. Religious hegemony and intolerance in a pluralistic society will invariably result in conflict and will only frustrate the claim that Islam is a religion of compassion, peace and freedom.

Islam commands the believers to embrace diversity because it is part of the law of nature (Sunnatullah) that He created.

‘If your Lord so willed, He could have made mankind one people.’ Qur’an 11:118 ……..

DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE HERE

Genap setahun Maulana Abdul Kader Mulatlah, Setiausaha Agung Jamati Islami Bangladesh syahid di tali gantung akibat hukuman zalim Mahkamah Internasional di Bangladesh.

Untuk ingatan, sejak tahun 2010 lagi Perdana Menteri Hasina Wajed membentuk Mahkamah Internasional berkenaan isu kejahatan perang Bangladesh untuk mengadili mereka yang dituduh melakukan kejahatan di masa perang 1971. Namun pengadilan itu telah dikritik luas kerana menjadikan lawan politiknya mangsa dan sasaran dan bertindak tanpa melibatkan pengawasan PBB.

Hukuman penjara seumur hidup pada bulan Februari berubah menjadi hukuman mati pada bulan Disember pada 2013. Perubahan hukuman terhadap Abdul Kader Mullah berpunca dari protes golongan sekular yang menganggap keputusan asal terhadapnya terlalu ringan dan mendesak hukuman lebih berat dikenakan.

Human Rights Watch yang berpusat di New York sebelum itu mengatakan prosedur hukuman yang digunakan oleh mahkamah itu tidak memenuhi standard internasional.

Jelasnya ia satu momokan terhadap sistem keadilan, apabila disabitkan kesalahan dengan fakta yang meragukan dan penuh dengan sentimen politik dalaman Bangladesh.
Nah, kini Ummat Islam berdepan dengan satu lagi episod pemangsaan zalim dan kali ini terhadap Ulama tersohor, Prof Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

Langkah Interpol mengeluarkan waran tangkap terhadap beliau kerana didakwa terbabit dengan kegiatan kumpulan Ikhwanul Muslimin yang diharamkan kerajaan Mesir menampakkan pengguasa politik dunia yang sangat ringan terhadap sensitiviti Ummat Islam bahkan bersedia bersekongkol dengan regim diktator As-Sisi.

Tindakan Interpol jelasnya juga tidak langsung mempedulikan masyarakat antarabangsa yang mengenali tokoh cendiakawan Islam ini sebagai lambang ‘Kesederhanaan’ atau ‘Wasotiyyah’ Dunia Islam dengan kepemimpinan serta pencerahan bimbingan ilmunya, yang juga antara tokoh Ulama yang mempelupori ‘Dialog Antara Peradaban’  atau ‘Civilizational Dialogue’, sekaligus mampu menangani konflik dan ekstremisme beragama.

Semasa Kebangkitan Rakyat berdepan dengan kezaliman regim diktator Mesir beliau menekankan pendekatan aman secara demokrasi dan tidak mengizinkan Pemuda mengambil pendekatan kekerasan.

Apakah tindakan pemimpin negara Ummat Islam khasnya Malaysia yang pernah menganugerahkan beliau Tokoh Ma’al Hijrah sedikit waktu dahulu? Apakah respons kepimpinan negara-negara Ummat Islam khasnya dalam OIC?

Bahkan saya minta untuk melanjutkan penggemblengan Solidariti ini secara lebih ‘lnclusive’ dan meluas lagi dengan meminta supaya President Obama sendiri campur tangan dalam mempastikan permintaan Mesir tidak diraikan dan dilaksanakan INTERPOL.

Kalau Presiden Obama mampu melakukan Pemulihan Hubungan Diplomatik dengan Presiden Raus Castro dan Cuba, yang pernah ditanggapi Amerika Syarikat sebagai ‘Penaja Terrorisme’, maka tentunya Presiden Obama mampu mempastikan seorang tokoh Ulama terbilang di dunia Islam ini diberikan segala kemuliaan perlindungan dan tidak dihina sebegini.

Lanjutan itu juga Ummat Islam sangat berbesar hati sekiranya Pope Francis, Pontif Vatican, selaku mewakili 1.2 bilion warga Katolik Kritian menghulurkan Solidariti bagi mempastikan sekaligus gejala ‘Islamophobia’ dapat dikendurkan dalam perhubungan antara agama yang sedang melalui proses pemulihan mutakhir ini.

Membiarkan hanya Ummat Islam sahaja bertindak seolah-olah ini hanya isu Ummat Islam jelas mempamerkan erti ‘demokrasi yang lompang’ serta mengesahkan ‘hipokrasi yang mendalam’. Pastinya itu sangat mengaibkan buat pelupur dan penganjur sistem demokrasi di dunia ini.

Wajib untuk semua pemimpin negara ummat Islam bersekali dengan penggemblengan seluruh kepimpinan dan masyarakyat antarabangsa bertindak memberhentikan pemangsaan politik seperti yang dilakukan ke atas Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, bagi menjernihkan erti Kedaulatan Undang-undang atau Rule of Law dan maksud ‘Demokrasi Untuk Semua’!

Inilah antara langkah paling konkrit bagi menyuburkan budaya ‘Kesederhanaan (Moderation) dan Keharmonian Tamaddun Manusia’ dalam abad 21 Masehi ini dengan sama-sama membenteras ketidakadilan, kezaliman dan kediktatorian.

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Pengarah Eksekutif Pusat Penyelidikan PAS

Maszlee Malik, PhD (Durham), International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)

Musa Mohd Nordin, FRCP (Edinburgh), Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)

Introduction

In todays enlightened age of democracy, it is rather unfortunate that when the term ‘Islamic political thought’ is raised, one is often confronted with two polarized and contradicting  points of  view. The Muslim apologists will unreservedly disconnect any form of relationship between Islam and politics, which they consider as part of the secular public sphere.  Islam is perceived as a mere set of theological arguments and rituals akin to other beliefs and must be distanced from worldly politics. On the other extreme, there exist a Muslim body politic, obsessed with the traditional and conservative interpretation of the holy texts, and relentlessly confining the notion of Islamic politics within the limited boundary of hudud, wilayatul faqih (rules of the clerics) or the re-establishment of the global Islamic caliphate (Khalifah).

Many have failed to understand, Muslims included, the ethical and moral dimensions of the term ‘Islamic politics’ from the holistic and all encompassing concept of Maqasid al-Shariah or the highest objectives of Shariah. As the true and authentic compass of the entire corpus of Islamic legal prescriptions, the Maqasid al-Shariah defines the cardinal purposes of the Muslim’s individual, societal, national and global life experiences. It is these higher objectives of Shariah that dictates the Muslims participation in civil society or political governance in their mutual quest for mercy and justice for all mankind.

Al-Ghazali (d 505 AH) pioneered the development of the concept maqasid al-Shariah. It was a major breakthrough, remapping our religious imperatives and threw a whole lot of new challenges for legal scholars. There was unfortunately a lull, a void that was later to be addressed by the brilliance of the Andalusian scholar in the 8^th century of Hijrah. Imam Abu Ishaq al Shatibi al Andalusi (d 790 AH) crystallized the  ideas of Ghazali and discussed this in a very lucid and “scientific” manner in his magnum opus Muwafaqaat fi Usuul al Shariat.

Deeply rooted in the Islamic ontological-based epistemology of tawhid (oneness of God), maqasid al-Shariah lays down the foundation of Islamic polity encompassing all the meanings and objectives of the spirit of Shariah in attaining success (falah) in the worldly life. The success of this human project is reflected in the  well-being of  human society which  is nurtured and protected by the  comprehensive preservation of the five essentials in human life: faith, life (nafs), intellect (‘aql), progeny (nasl) and wealth (mal)’ (see: Quran, 2:189; 3:130; 3:200; 5:35; 5:100; 24:31; 28:67; 24:51). Thus, it implies that the principles of Islamic politics must lead to ‘human well-being’.

Political activities and processes from the Islamic point of view must therefore consist of maqasidic elements to fulfill the maqasidic endpoints.  It embraces a virtue-based consequentialistic paradigm, as its supreme purpose and overriding objective is the pursuit of ‘adl wa ihsan’, justice and goodness towards the attainment of maslahah, (public interest and benefits) for and between individuals, communities and nations both in this world and the hereafter.

Embodied in the Maqasid al-Shariah, are a few cardinal principles in relation to the Islamic political framework. These include the concept of ‘Adl wa Ihsan (justice with fairness and mercy); Amanah (trust and responsibility); Shura (mutual consultation) and Islah (continuous transformation towards the society’s well being). These maqasadic concepts and principles empower the Muslim individuals to be responsible and functioning players in the political process. Put it another way, all Muslims are inherently vanguards of the Islamic polity.  This individual empowerment has been promoted in Islam through al-Qur´an, the Prophet’s traditions and the administrations of the four rightly-guided Caliphs.

Shari’ah Empowers Individuals Politically

Muslims as individuals and citizens in the community are empowered to have their say and to determine their own destiny and not be dictated or bridled by the elites under the yoke of ‘state’ or ‘authority’. These ideals also reflect the concept of empowered civil society centered on the concept of responsible citizen and can be clearly articulated within the healthy environment of democracy as frequently asserted by the prominent Sudanese thinker, Hassan al-Turabi in many of his writings.

Essentially, every single individual in the Islamic community is empowered to preserve justice and peace for the public interest according to these principles, which are the main objectives of Shariah.  Al-Qur’an emphasizes the need for this mechanism in various verses (see: al-Qur’an: 3: 110; 9:71; 22:41; 4:114; 5:2; 7:165; 5:78-79). Similarly, many authentic Prophetic traditions have underpinned the major role of individuals in enhancing universal justice within a community. The four rightly-guided Caliphs have received numerous unsolicited advice, complaints, oppositions and also rejections of their policies from their citizenry. This socio-political ambience reflects the political maturity of the empowered citizens and their rulers during this enlightened period.

In the same way, islah as a landmark theme in the individual’s lives will transform them into self-actualised people striving to achieve ihsan (excellence) in their daily life in their pursuit of falah (salvation). These righteous concepts thus take centre stage in the society and consequently determine the consistency of justice, benevolence, religiosity, good governance and the development of the ummah (Muslim nation).  As an imperative, this concept allows for vertical accountability of peer assessment to be implemented within the larger governance process to ensure the trust is delivered effectively. At the same time, both top-down, and bottom-up evaluations as part of islah at all levels of governance and community life will enable accountability to be exercised comprehensively.

Through the spirit of amr ma’ruf nahy munkar (enjoin the righteous and forbid the evil) the intrinsic meaning of islah is articulated to guide Muslims in their continuous striving to attain ‘falah’ in both worlds. Amr ma’ruf nahy munkar as an important imperative of Shariah also contributes towards the evolution of functioning and responsible individuals who live with the awareness of their responsibility to enjoin and promote virtue and at the same time o eradicate indecency and evil in their community. Evil is not only perceived as the sinful acts of individuals, but includes all acts of corruption, bribery, dictatorship, violation of rights, discrimination, misuse of power, and non-performance of leaders and administrators which would lead to the destruction of the community. It is only through collectively practicing the obligation of amr ma’ruf nahy munkar, that the society will progress, achieving unprecedented heights in development, hence ‘good governance’.

Any effort to eradicate evil in community life reflects the true meaning of faith and religiosity as it proliferates the exercise of justice, and epitomizes the wider implication of jihad according to the Qur’anic verse (9: 111-112). The effective implementation of amr ma’ruf nahy munkar also stipulates the importance and the active participation of individuals as citizens in governance activities.

This injunction  is illustrated in the Quranic verse: “Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam), enjoining al-Maaruf (righteousness) and forbidding al-Munkar (evil and forbidden) and it is they who are successful” (Al Imran (3): 104)

In the chapter al-Hud: verse 116 it was mentioned that: “If only there had been among the generations before you persons having wisdom, prohibiting others from fasad (crimes and sins) in the earth, except a few of those whom We save from among them! Those who did wrong pursued the enjoyment of good things of (this worldly life) and were Mujrimun (criminals).”

In a tradition narrated by Muslim, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh-peace be upon him) was reported as saying: “Those who witness evil must correct it firstly with his hand, failing which, with his mouth (verbally), failing which, with his heart and that is the lowest of Iman.” (Narrated by Muslim)

It was also narrated that the Prophet said, “The master of all martyrs is Hamzah bin Abd-al-Muttalib [Prophet’s uncle] and any man who was killed because he stood up to an unjust Imam [leader] and enjoined for what is right and forbade what is wrong.” (Narrated by al-Hakim)

In another occasion, the Prophet said, “The best word is the word uttered by a person before a tyrant to stop him from his evil doings”. (Narrated by Abu Dawud)

Whistleblowing in the context of Shari’ah

In embracing the spirit of these pivotal principles; the act of whistleblowing as a manifest of islah and amr ma’ruf nahy munkar has been part of the Shariah imperatives, and a vital constituent of  the Islamic political culture since the days of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

There were numerous incidents during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) which sanctioned the practise of whistleblowing. Amongst them is a Prophetic tradition as reported by one of his companions, Jabir bin Abdullah who heard the Prophet (pbuh) said: “Discussions are confidential (not subject to disclosure) except in three places: “Shedding unlawful blood, unlawful cohabitation and unlawful accumulation of wealth“. (Narrated by Abu Dawud)

In another Hadith, Zaid bin Khalid reported that the Prophet (pbuh) said: “Shall I not tell you who is the best of witnesses? The one who brings his testimony before being asked to do so, or tells his testimony before he is asked for it.” (Narrated by Malik).

It is evident from this tradition, that the Prophet (pbuh) was encouraging his ummah to blow the whistle voluntarily, as a moral obligation towards the maslahah, (public interest and benefits of the larger society). If we look at it from the angle of Amru bil Maaruf, (enjoining goodness) Wal Nahy an Al Munkar (and forbidding wrongdoing) or from the perspective of Shahada (witness attestation), which is mandatory upon Muslims, then whistleblowing is a “duty” because the purpose of whistleblowing is the same as that of ‘enjoining goodness and forbidding wrongdoing’.

The civil and political administration of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as leader of the city state of Madinah, was a showcase of competency, accountability and transparency. These were similarly applied to the administration of government revenue and expenditure in the provinces.

The oft-mentioned incident involving Ibn Lutaybiyah demonstrates this principle succinctly. Functioning as an Amil (tax collector) he returned to Madinah loaded with tax revenues, and asserted that a substantive portion of the revenue was given to him as tokens from certain people. The Prophet (pbuh) reminded him by saying: “What is wrong with the man whom we appointed as a tax collector and he said this is for you and that was given to me? If he stayed in his parent’s house, would something be given to him?” (Narrated by al-Bukhari)

On another occasion, the Prophet (pbuh) was quoted as constantly reminding his companions by saying: “Whomsoever we appoint over an affair, we shall give him provision. What he takes after that is breach of trust.” (Narrated by Abu Daud)

The four-guided Caliphs, the successors of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) continued the benchmarks of competency, accountability and transparency in their administration of the state. Abu Bakr, the first caliph after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), stressed the importance of accountability and the behaviour of individuals with authority in the community in his very first speech to the Muslim community after being elected as the Caliph by saying: “Cooperate with me when I am right, but correct me when I commit error; obey me so long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet; but turn away from me when I deviate” (Narrated by al-Hindi and Ibn Kathir). His other companions often held him to account for his decisions and state administration.

This was also the position of Omar al-Khattab when he was elected as the successor of Abu Bakr. In his maiden speech after being appointed as caliph, he stressed the need for accountability in his administration, and the rights of every empowered citizen.

It was reported that while Omar was delivering the Friday sermon, an ordinary person rose and interrupted saying, “O the leader of the believers, I won’t listen to your sermon until you explain how you came up with your long dress (Arabian robe)”. Apparently, there was some distribution of fabric to the people and given the measure of distribution and the height of Omar; he could not have made a dress out of his share. So, a vigilant voice of egalitarianism unhesitatingly challenged Omar, the leader of a vast caliphate. Omar’s son stood up, and explained that he gave his share to his father, so that a dress could be made to fit Omar. The vigilant voice then expressed his approval and sat down, and Omar resumed his sermon (Ibn Qutaybah, 2002: 1/55).

Omar’s policy on accountability was not limited to the primitive style of verbal complaints and condemnations from the public. As for the public offices, he established a specific office to deal with the public administrators’ accountability. The office was designed for the investigation of complaints that reached the Caliph against the officers of the State. When it was first established, Omar appointed Muhammad ibn Maslamah to take the responsibility of this ombudsman-like department.

In important cases Muhammad ibn Maslamah was deputed by Omar to proceed to the location, investigate the charge and take action. Sometimes an Inquiry Commission was constituted to investigate the charge. Whenever the officers raised complaints against him, they were summoned to Madinah, and the case was brought before the Caliph himself. The caliph also dismissed governors when the people complained against them; amongst them was the Prophet’s companion, Saad Ibnu Abi Waqqas due to the people’s complaints against him. The same function was conducted in a later phase of Muslim history by a specially designed office known as Diwan al-Mazalim, which can be understood as the classical version of the contemporary ombudsman.

Once while delivering a sermon, Omar said: “My rights over public funds (the Baitul Mal) are similar to those of the guardians of an orphan. If well placed in life, I will not claim anything from it. In case of need, I shall draw only as much as it constitutionally allowed for providing food. You have every right to question me anything about, any improper accumulation of the revenue and bounty collections, improper utilization of the treasury money, provision of the daily bread to all, border-security arrangements and harassment caused to any citizen.”

He was recorded by historians to have issued a certificate of witness by a group of elders to all duly appointed governors stipulating that the governor should not ride an expensive horse, or eat white bread, or wear any fine cloth, or prevent the people’s needs (from being satisfied).

The example of Omar showcases the practise of transparency where a ruler, as well as the state officers, should have nothing to hide from the public and is open to scrutiny of their usage of public funds.

Another example of accountability and public airing of grievances practised during the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs can be found in the famous letter written by the fourth Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib to his governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar as recorded in the compilation of Ali’s letter and sermons, ‘Nahjul Balaghah’. In his advice to the governor, he asserts that: “Out of your hours of work, fix a time for the complainants and for those who want to approach you with their grievances. During this time, you should do no other work but hear them and pay attention to their complaints and grievances. For this purpose you must arrange public audience for them; during this audience, for the sake of Allah, treat them with kindness, courtesy and respect. Do not let your army and police be in the audience hall at such times so that those who have grievances against your regime may speak to you freely, unreservedly and without fear”.

All of these examples illustrate the importance and critical role of whistleblowing as another facet of ensuring competency, accountability and transparency in upholding justice and good governance. Whistleblowing has always been an integral   component of the Islamic political culture strongly rooted in their ontological awareness since the very beginning.

Furthermore, Muslim scholars, both the past and present, have been very prolific in their writings on topics related to accountability and the practice of mazalim and hisbah (public inquiry). Amongst the most famous was al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, the magnum opus of Al-Mawardi (al-Mawardi, 1995) in which he dealt with both the topics of mazalim and hisbah extensively. Another classical scholar, Ibn Taimiyah, also authored a book titled ‘Hisbah’ in which he discussed the issue of hisbah as a pertinent responsibility of every Muslim individual and also an obligation upon Muslim rulers (Ibn Taimiyah, 1985). Al-Ghazali, in the same token dealt with the issue of accountability of a ruler and his officers in his celebrated, ‘Nasehat al-Mulk’ as his advice to the prince of the Sultan during his time. However, it was the prominent vizier and scholar, Nizamul Muluk who smartly deliberated these topics in a very normative meaning in his illustrious treatise, Siyasat Nameh.

The aforementioned deductive analogies based on sound evidence from authentic religious texts, illustrates the nobility and righteousness of genuine acts of whistleblowing to encourage and promote competency, accountability and transparency in our societies. Even though there is no direct reference to modern day whistleblowing per se,  the principles which it  embraces  implies that whistleblowing  is part and parcel of a comprehensive scheme of good governance  to achieve the highest goal of Islamic polity to ensure justice with fairness and mercy within the parameters of Maqasid al-Shariah. Moreover, the practice of whistle blowing is also considered as an act of worship. According to Yusuf Al-Qaradawy, “…. whenever a Muslim follows up  good intentions with a permissible action, his action becomes an act of worship”.

Conclusion

The increasing acts of genuine whistleblowing, which we witness today, does not augur well for the state of trustworthiness and integrity of our political governance. The courageous acts of the few who have stood up against the establishment to expose the wrong doings of individuals in public office and the gross abuse of public funds are exemplary acts of piety in the pursuit of good governance to attain the well being of the society.

Regrettably, this noble cause is being led by a politician and non-scholars instead of an ‘apolitical’ or non-partisan entity or individuals. Civil society, free from the clutches of partisan politics should ideally be leading this whistleblowing initiative. We would dare add that Islamic-based organizations and the Muslim scholars due to their ontological-awareness ought to be spearheading this citizen’s watchdog initiative to guard and protect against waste and loss of public funds and abuses of public office.  However, disappointingly,  many of our Islamic scholars (Ulama) whom  we had expected to be at the forefront of  such  righteous efforts in the realm of civil and political  governance, are however  engrossed by ‘red herring’ issues that in many cases only serves to polarise further  the multi-racial and multi-religious make-up of  Malaysian society. The failure of the Ulama to spearhead such an initiative would send a wrong signal to the lay Muslims, and convince them that whistleblowing is alien to the corpus of Islamic belief.

We hope that this distinguished and honourable endeavor will bring a new chapter and in essence, a new hope in the endless episodes of the struggle to uphold democracy and good governance in our beloved country Malaysia. As a consequence, we hope these efforts would evolve a more competent, accountable and transparent political governance.

Undoubtedly, there have been whistleblowing actions taken by our good citizens in the past. The current effort takes the whistleblowing initiative to a higher level of public engagement. The ‘National Oversight and Whistleblowers Centre’ is a very laudable effort to galvanise and institutionalize this endeavour, thus making it more structured, guided and professional.

We sincerely and unreservedly urge all civic-minded citizens of Malaysia regardless of race, religion and political affiliations to support this excellent whistleblowing initiative.  Above all, we strongly encourage the Muslim community, religious scholars (Ulama) and Islamic organizations to embrace this civil society initiative in our shared quest of attaining competency, accountability, transparency, good governance and citizen well-being. We strongly believe that all these qualities are indisputably Shariah imperatives and pivotal pillars of the Islamic political norms that all Muslims should aspire to achieve.

August 13, 2012

By Dzulkefly Ahmad (TMI)

Hudud is a deeply complex legal subject, and of late has become a divisive issue. Both PAS and DAP at different ends of the political spectrum have often and will continue to lock horns over this. Indeed, it remains one of the major stumbling blocks for the Pakatan coalition not to mention, the nation as a whole.

The Barisan Nasional also suffers from the same tensions. Only recently, an Umno State assemblyman from Johor, mooted the idea of implementing hudud enforceable on all, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Needless to say, this provoked a dramatic response from the MCA.

The proposal elicited a shock wave across the entire nation. This emotive subject promptly attracted disparate groups from all political persuasions and religious divides to unsheathe swords in an endless bickering to outwit one another.

I now submit that the hudud issue should no longer be used nor abused as a ‘political capital’ in political contestation.

Hudud should be  heralded as a bi-partisan agenda to be responsibly and judiciously debated at all levels of society and finally be addressed by a democratic legislative process, including but not limited to a national referendum, if agreeable to the various ‘stakeholders’ of democracy.

Coming from a PAS Research Director this surely must be uncharacteristically bizarre. I would be perceived as being politically naïve but I want to reiterate that hudud should no longer be an agenda for partisan political interest.

It is perhaps toughest for PAS to swallow this proposition. All the more because hudud arguably has been the central thrust of PAS’s political messaging from time immemorial.  Until quite recently, hudud was the ‘be all and end all’ of virtually all Islamic political parties from the Jamaati Islami in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and Masyumi et al and PAS in the Far-East.

In tandem with the current ‘changing approach’ or ‘a generational shift’, to paraphrase professor Tariq Ramadan, of their counterparts – the Muslim Brotherhood post-Arab Spring experience, the Turkish Tayyib Erdogan AK Party’s experiment on political Islam and  Indonesia’s Party Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) – PAS has similarly  registered its coming of age.

In a rare exercise of intellectual renewal or Ijtihad, PAS committed and shifted itself   – prior to the 12th General Election 2008 – to a political trajectory and a manifesto of ‘Negara Berkebajikan’ (A Nation of Compassion and Opportunity) rather than the overworked concept of Islamic State.

Playing down on its historical demands on specific ‘legal aspects’ of the syariah (the Islamic Penal Code namely hudud), PAS now embraces a political Islam that advocates for the cardinal message of Islamic justice as embodied in the “maqasid al Syariah” (true compass and purpose of the Syariah) towards forging “A Trustworthy, Transparent and Competent Government” in coalition politics with her Pakatan partners.

But why are Islamists insistent on the law or the penal code?

As a complete way of life, that aspect of corpus of legal prescription, amongst other pertinent aspects of the Syariah, is meant to achieve justice and mercy for all mankind. Justice is the supreme purpose and overriding objective or the ‘maqasid of Syariah’.

The imperative of implementing Allah’s dictates and particularly the Islamic Penal Code is made to be one of the defining criterion of Faith or Belief (Aqidah) in Islam.

God Almighty says in the Holy Quran:

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission…” An-Nisaa’ : 65.

“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error…” Al-Ahzab:36.

In other words, Muslims are given no option but to work for its successful implementation although always needing to contextualise to the socio-political backdrop and economic realities of the society.

Notwithstanding good intention, it would thus be an abuse of God’s laws if hudud is implemented in an environment of income and wealth inequality, compounded by a malignant corruption of critical state institutions and leakages its delivery system.

When the rich can get away from stealing millions, chopping off the hands of petty thieves would be mocking the true maqasid of hudud. Discussions of hudud beyond the context of Negara Berkebajikan and rule of law are both unrealistic much as it is counter-productive.

Is hudud an exclusively Muslim agenda, you might ask? Without any intention of being provocative, I dare say that the process must also engage Malaysians of other faiths during the course of putting it together through discourse or dialogue.

That said, it must be emphasised unequivocally that the Islamic Penal Code is only enforceable on Muslims and Muslims alone – period. The devil is surely in the details and we will cross the bridge when debating the actual details, as a national dialogue.

With hudud no longer on board PAS’ political agenda this coming general election, PAS could now focus her election machinery to embrace an inclusive Islamic agenda affecting the rakyat. More specifically PAS will take to task UMNO’s gross fiscal mismanagement and dismantle the unending corrupt practices and crony capitalism, easily visible by the epitome of the NFC’s scandal, which contradicts the pristine values of Islam and in direct contravention of the principles of Syariah and Good Governance in Islam.

PAS shall  endeavour to further convince  the entire electorate, the Malay-Muslims constituencies and her newly-found support of non-Malays and non-Muslims; working with its Pakatan counterparts on the manifesto of Negara Berkebajikan (Nation of Compassion and Opportunity) as advocated by the Quran and the Prophetic Traditions.

In this respect PAS must out rightly de-ethnicises and distance Islam from Malay supremacy and racial bigotry and proclaiming Islam’s ‘justice for all’. The nation can in fact play a unique role in the global resurgence of Islam by engaging multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia with the universal values of Islam – freedom, justice and equality before the eyes of God.

As a matter of faith and conviction we are either Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or others. Islam celebrates religious plurality and acknowledges the ‘claim of exclusivity to its belief and teachings’ and accords a respect to the ‘absolutist doctrine’ of all transcendental religions.

And the bottom-line is, we are all Malaysians by way of belonging to one nation called Malaysia. Yes that is the identity we all share and cherish together, to have a nation worthy of our love, respect and sacrifice.

For Islam to be at the centre of national cohesion and solidarity, the promotion of Islam must be inclusive, voluntary and just.

I look forward to seeing a contestation moving away from the polemical issue of hudud and Islamic state and would cherish that the democratic and electoral process maturing further into an advocacy based on policy debates, performance on delivery and leadership acumen.

That will surely augur well for the dawn of ‘A New Malaysia’.

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Executive Director PAS Research Centre.

This piece appeared in “The Edge’ (August 13) and the Malaysian Insider.