The NEM: New Economic Model-Part 1

Many others and I have written about the burning issue at the moment. I am speaking of course on the issue of the Name Allah. For me personally, I have nothing further to add.

Let us direct out attention to a more earthly matter. It's the bread and butter issue of our economy. I have written a short article at the beginning of this year, hoping that a healthy debate would ensue. Unfortunately, a livelier discussion of our economy was overtaken by the tidal wave of the spiritual issue.

Nevertheless, my short article was able to draw out some thinking from others more qualified that I to gloss over this subject.

The blogger who calls himself Justice Wenger J Khairy, no doubt deriving some inspiration from Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, has written a more rigorous initial analysis of our economy. I am sure a more erudite exposition of our economy will be forthcoming from his remarkable mind.

Also as usual, the genius devil is in the details, Mr. Walla has continued to astound readers with his observations.

And so, I am privileged to be able to present the thinking of these two gentlemen:-

 

One: Justice Wenger J Khairy.

Let's put some numbers.
Right now our GDP Per Capita is ~$6,200. In 2020 we want it to be ~$16,000. So compound growth should be 10% per yr on this figure. To grow per capita, we have to explicitly grow GDP and watch for the growth in population. We assume that population grows at 1.66% (last yrs data). We also assume that the employment: population ratio stays constant at 41%

now the trick by how much we need to grow the GDP. We assume that since the end number is a USD figure, that markets perfectly adjust the inflation differential between USD and RM, so that thanks to the sugar price rise, if 2010 our nominal GDP grows additional 4% due to inflation, the exchange rate depreciates by a similar amount so there is 0 inflation created growth.

Now comes the figures.
GDP = Aggregate Hours * Productivity

What is Aggregate Hours
(for the benefit of readers of Sakmongkol)
Aggregate Hours
Well its simply the number of people employed * the number of hours worked per year.

So when we create 9-16 public holiday, we reduce this number, and reduces GDP.

Aggregate Hours in 2009 ~20 billion hrs. (Souce: McWenger Consulting. BNM does not bother to keep track of this)

In 2020, keeping the population growth, the average work week ( no new holidays!) and the employment population ratio constant the amount of aggregate hours in 2020 is approximately 23.2 billion, or a growth = to the population growth rate of 1.66% per year.

Now comes the Productivity element
Productivity = GDP/Aggregate Hours
In 2008, the figure is RM 35/hr.

If we indeed want to have a per capita number of $USD 16,000 in 2020, and keeping the aggregate hours growing as detailed above, the Productivity number should be something like RM 82/hr. At RM 82/hr, and with a population of 32 million, a labour force of 13 million our GDP will be a nice round number of RM 2 trillion.
Then our per capita will be USD 16,000++.

An RM 2 trillion economy?

Our implicit GDP growth rate to achieve that figure is 11% per year.

PM says that we can only grow at 6% per year. Let's assume it's real growth. (Muhahahahah)
Then in 2020, our GDP will be RM 1.2 trillion, and our per capita will be USD$10,000++. Our productivity will be RM 53/hr.

Obviously, the king has no clothes.

But a second more insidious thing has to do with what is the marginal wage and productivity of the new jobs being created?

Does our average worker contribute RM 64,000 to the GDP?

Obviously not! As our economy now is more than 70% domestic orientated and will shift to greater and greater domestic impact as our exports become less and less competitive, we can assume that in years to come, a worker will spend his entire pay check on subsistence existence while Dr. Mahathir's sons drive around in Porches.

So if your being paid RM 30,000 a year, you know that is the only amount of contribution to GDP that you can make. So in fact, our productivity will be start to decline as our export industry gets hammered whilst the Deputy Minister of MITI is busy entertaining himself with his Jom Pi Jerlun programme and his bloggers sprout rubbish 24 * 7.

So really, the situation is extremely worrying. The data is all out there, but Malaysians by and large are the gullible sort who will believe what is written in the papers.

I will refrain on commenting on DSAI for now. In 1996, he was my favourite leader. Right now, I can only look with sadness and pity as to how the obsession of 1 man to destroy his rival has really put our country in a jam.

TWO: WALLA

Using aggregate measures like per capita incomes can be deceiving. They don't signify real income distribution. A few may hold more income than the incomes held by the many but total income divided by few plus many will seem to say each and all get the same averaged ratio. The many don't and the rich will get richer. That's how GINI coefficients have spread so much.

A new economic model should be based on a thrust that while the rich can get richer, the poor shouldn't get poorer.

The baseline for that economic targeting should then be sectoral incomes divided by number of households ranged by some weighting. Then we will know things like the per capita incomes of households whose breadwinners work in the fishing, farming or subcontracting industry, for instance, in a particular location, and how those numbers will change as any new economic model phasally operationalizes from year to year in that location.

There is talk that a stronger ringgit policy will be used as a tool to achieve the new economic model.

How that will pan out remains to be seen. Maybe planners think that our export goods will continue to enjoy inelastic demand so that buyers overseas will happily absorb the higher forex from a stronger ringgit enough for us to still build export momentum and thus get fund inflows to pay higher wages and to buy more capital goods to modernize our production for the next cycle of economic recovery.

But whether the economies of our goods buyers overseas will not be facing a double-dip is itself moot at this point. Unless one places final bets on the regional China-Asean development.

The term vision 2020 has virtually disappeared from the local lexicon. And mercifully so because when it started it was bannered all over the place, even on top of your local warung. Now it's just the brand name for that weekend van collecting old newspaper.

In its place we now have a new economic model. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the planners and strategists in Putrajaya, that's as best as one can expect of them to do - how to jettison something which cannot be achieved and replace it with something else which appears to be new, and that's why it's called 'new...', which, fingers crossed, may be accepted by the rakyat to be an acceptable replacement of the original kickass vision.

But inflationary multiplier effects will start before the new model takes shape. Sugar starts the ball rolling, flour may come soon, petrol and transport costs, certainly, with electricity to follow even after the feds have blown half a billion compensating for the bakun dam. People are going to feel another hard pinch not just on their wallets before they can warm up to an embrace from the new economic model.

Where did we go wrong? We went wrong long ago. We didn't take care of the fundamentals of nation-building. That's about progressive and knowledge-savvy human resources, sterlingly upright and efficient institutions, and precise investments that bring direct and measurable returns. We blew all the money on parties. Sorry, the Party.

Now we want to achieve the impossible. It's like trying to drum up an unstoppable force to roll over an immovable object. Maybe we should commission the Joker instead.

So what will happen in ten years time? Simple. The goal post will be shifted again. For instance, aggregate income will be denominated in rupiah or yen and reproductive rates will be reduced by fearsome promotion of birth control. The '1' in 1Malaysia could be one-is-enough. Slyly that could also be to replace the rakyats' "enough is enough". Hard luck though.

Come to think of it, if we had pursued the seventy million population target, we be finito today, ain't that so, you think?

Tweet

Read more...

Knowing Allah and His Religion: The Goat Herder and Abu Nawas

Abu Nawas and the goat herder answer Dr Asri.

Dr Asri the influential Muslim cleric (?) said:-

If non-Muslims accept that Allah is the one true God and refer to Allah in their worship then Muslims cannot interfere in the matter of other religions.

How does one accept Allah as the one true God?

Perhaps, Asri's theological question can be answered by the fable of Abu Nawas and the goat herder.

One day, the Sultan summoned Abu Nawas to answer some questions he wants to pose. Abu Nawas was a renowned astrologer. The Sultan warned Abu Nawas that if he couldn't answer the questions right, he will be put to death. Death would come in the form of a beheading.

The Sultan must have predated Pranav Mistri by a few hundred years. He posed the question in the form of gestures. (Please Google Pranav Mistri and his 6^th sense technology).

QUESTION 1: THE SULTAN SHOWED ONE FINGER- HIS INDEX FINGER LIKE THE ONE PM NAJIB WANTS GESTURED TO SIGNAL HIS 1MALAYSIA.

QUESTION 2: HE SHOWED 5 SPREAD-OUT FINGERS.

QUESTION 3" HE OPENED UP BOTH HANDS TO INDICATE ALL.

Now Abu Nawas was at a loss to answer these questions. Even though he was given 24 hours to answer the question, he couldn't come up with the answers. He thus resolved to escape to another country.

Packing up his personal belongings he rode on his camel across the city to get into the desert. As he negotiated through the city, he came across a goat herder who recognised him.

Hey yo... aren't you the famed Abu Nawas? Why are you in a hurry, he asked.

Abu Nawas recounted the story of the meeting he had with the Sultan who asked the 3 questions he could not answer. As he is not in a hurry to meet the maker- Allah, he wants to escape.

What were the questions, asked the goat herder.

Nawas explained to the goat herder whereupon the goat herder exclaimed. Why? That's easy. Bring me to the Sultan and I shall answer for thee.

They were brought before the Sultan and Nawas proclaimed that his assistant the goat herder shall answer on his behalf.

All right, said the king. If he fails to answer, then both of you will lose your heads.

When the Sultan gestured with 1 finger, the goat herder gestured by showing 2 fingers.

You answered correctly said the Sultan.

Then the Sultan gestured with 5 spread out fingers.

The goat herder gestured with 6 fingers.

You are right said the king.

Finally, the Sultan gestured with both hands spread out indicating all.

Whereupon, the goat herder gestured by showing a clench fist.

Amazed, the Sultan answered, you are right.

Both Abu Nawas and the goat herder were given gifts and money.

As they made their way back into the city, Nawas asked the goat herder- pray tell me the meaning of your answers.

The goat herder obliged as follows:-

When the Sultan showed 1 finger, I thought he wanted one goat, so I showed him 2 fingers to say i would be willing to give him not 1 but 2 goats.

When the Sultan showed me 5 fingers, I showed him 6 fingers to tell him, I am even willing to give him 6 of my goats.

What about the clenched fist? You could have us both killed.

I thought the king gestured he wanted all my goats, that was why I showed him my clenched fist. He can't have all my goats.

But being a learned person, Nawas wasn't satisfied. So the next day, he went to the palace and sought out the grand chamberlain.

O great chamberlain, what were the correct answers my lord?

When the Sultan showed one finger he was actually asking how to embrace Allah's religion?

You assistant gestured with 2 fingers- meaning to know Allah's religion you have to recite THE 2 KALIMAH SHAHADAH.

When the Sultan showed 5 spread out fingers, he was asking how will you know the 5 pillars of Islam?

Your assistant gestured with 6 fingers signifying that you discover Islam's 5 rukun by knowing Iman's 6 pillars.

When the Sultan showed both hands signifying all, you assistant gestured with a clench fist.

That showed that ALL in this universe is in God's omnipotent grasp.

The issue will come to this. Are we going to be herded into believing that just by uttering the word Allah means we accept Allah as the one true God? And as a reminder, to accept Allah as one true GOD, you have to answer the 3 questions.

I am sure Dr Asri wasn't intending to give a goat herder's answers.

Are you kidding us?

Tweet

Read more...

Debating Allah.

I am usually not impressed by attempts to fight ideas using forms of force. Collecting signatures, a large number of them and posting them on cyberspace to apply force and pressure the authorities, is one of them.

Sloganeering is another form of the application of force.

To me, these approaches are just recourse to using force in a different form. How do you debate against herd instincts? What's the difference between these kinds of retorts with street demonstrations? One occurs on the streets, the other on the highways of space.

But that does not mean, using such means is less effective. They may have a direct impact in forming public opinion. Well, to each his own.

Personally I would prefer the presentation of arguments, thoughts etc. It doesn't matter if your arguments are labeled bigoted. You make attempts to fight within the realm of ideas.

Hence I can relate easier with bloggers who are willing to put out their necks arguing one way or other with their viewpoints. Gopal Raj Kumar is one of them. Donplaypuks is another.

Then there is Wenger J Khairy.

He has not written specifically on the Allah issue but has written in a few comments on my website. I would like to share them with other readers.

Wenger J Khairy said...

I agree with your point of view and as a Christian disagree that the term "Allah" should be used to represent the God in the Christian faith. The term is Elohim, which is a word that subscribes the divine nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and is not synonymous with "Allah."

The right way for the Church is to understand the root word "El" - a Semitic term that is shared by the Arabic and Hebrew language. When in the Psalms

This whole issue could have been resolved if the Catholic Church were to refer to what Christ said just before he died on the cross.

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"
which is a quotation from the Psalm 22.

In that the term he used was
Eli, Eli (or Eloi, Eloi).

This was Jesus talking to the Father. Christians can only communicate to the Father through Jesus. Anything else is not Christianity and is a heresy.

The Muslim term for God is Allah, the Jewish translation is Elah. From my limited search, the only time Elah is used is as Elah Yisrael meaning God of Israel, a specific name of God. The predominant term used to describe God is Elohim because the foundation of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is God and is the Intercessor between the Father and man, and the Holy Spirit is given to believers in Jesus.


And I also do not consider the Catholic Church as representative of the Christian faith. But that is really a discussion for another time and place.

Really, the Catholic Church should have done its homework. Research the etymology of the meaning of the term "Allah" and understand that it is not applicable when the Christians accept the Trinity as the basis of the faith.

Furthermore, the original language of Christianity is the Hebrew language for the Old Testament, and the Greek language for the New Testament. Arabic is never in the picture.

I do hope the Church in Malaysia and the respective Bibical Scholars speak up on this one.

This is a time to be heard.

It is not scoring brownie points and it is not necessary nor desirable for God's name to be shared between the Islamic faith and the Christian faith because as a Christian, it is totally incompatible.

I have said my piece.

4 January 2010 13:17

Wenger J Khairy said...

Unfortunately Dato' I have locked myself out of my blog and cannot make this into a posting.

In some matters I respect the Muslims because they clearly know the difference between the Islamic faith and the Christian faith that the Christians accept Jesus Christ as not only the Son of God but God Himself, but the Muslims do not.

This distinction is very very clear and there is no desire for me as a Christian to have this distinction blurred one bit.

The Muslims know this very clearly and it is surprising that the Church cannot seem to grasp this fundamental and important difference that is obliterated if the Church uses Allah to refer to God. Furthermore it has 0 Biblical foundation.

The Bible was written originally in Hebrew and Greek. In some aspects the Muslims are better off in the sense that people study about the Koran in its original language which is Arabic. For Christians, Biblical scholars throughout the ages have translated the Hebrew and the Greek into English and other languages. The work was meticulous and in some cases, the Hebrew was preserved especially when referring to the Names of God - for example Elohim as there is no analogous example in the translated language.

When translating the Bible into Malay or Arabic, there should be just as much care put into it. If no analogous word for the Names of God is present in Arabic or Malay, use the Hebrew or the Greek.

After all, we cannot see God but we can only perceive Him and trust in Him. Its not a case of pointing and saying "this is God".

So it is an exercise in faith as opposed to a noun description. And without faith, there is no such thing as Christianity.

I hope you can figure a way to publish my comment to show that this move initiated by the Catholic Church is NOT AT ALL supported by me. Let the Christians learn from the Muslim more about their faith.

4 January 2010 13:39

Tweet

Read more...

Confident and Timid Muslims

If one examines the trenchant debates that are making their rounds in the blogosphere, we shall quickly arrive at this observation. They have less to do with piety than jostling to gain the superior ground.

Unfortunately, the Islamic religion and its adherents here in Malaysia, are at the losing end.

There's one imbecile who was suggesting that Muslims should be proud that other religions want to use the term Allah. I don't think so. This kind of facetious patronage extols Islam and its God when doing so, offers them a chess move advantage.

This is the point people are missing. Religion isn't a chess game. Gaining ground over another religion isn't a chess move.

Now what? There will be an appeal to the higher court. Or is a right of appeal now no longer an option to the Muslims here in Malaysia? Or is appealing to the next court, a sign of a not confident Muslim? Or appealing entails one being labeled as a religious bigot?

The point I was making in the previous article when saying that the idea of even bringing the issue before the court is abominable because we can see nothing but trouble brewing.

The Muslims and Malays here are agitated. You think, by condoning the ruling Messrs Khalid Samad and Zulkifli Ahmad are not causing the PAS ground to crumble? They are veering towards Zulkifli Nordin or even Mahfuz Omar. They are calling for an emergency meeting because the voices of discontent from the grassroots are threatening to swamp them.

What about UMNO? UMNO has to win this case. I am saying this in a matter of fact manner. Nothing to do with bigotry.

The ordinary Malays, the pasar malam crowd, the kampong mindset are not going to tolerate this insult. And the insult, growing in volume and intensity each day, will translate into civil unrest. So at what cost is the ruling obtained?

Do you think this kind of crowd is easily appeased by calls to be confident Muslims when life to them, has all this while been perceived as a severity imposed on them by the group represented by the person calling the Muslim masses to be confident? You are appealing NOT to a crowd with an average capita income of USD 16,000. If Malaysian Muslims are the Cannes film festival crowd, that kind of 'enlightened' exhortation might work.

Now think about this- this victory is going to be achieved at the cost of a massive build up of resentment. Can the Muslim progressives, yes those confident ones representing the Cannes Film Festival group, control the direction of this resentment?

You and I, peace-loving people, know where this issue, unresolved in favor of the majority, will lead to. Which particular interest are we going to uphold? This is the interest 70% of the respondents by the Merdeka Center Survey felt, but not published by the MSM papers nor Malaysian Insider.

Peace or a pyrrhic victory?

Faith is a gift, not a product arrived at by logic.

By the way, Angelina Jolie, the name- I like. 

Tweet

Read more...

O Allah, is this our fin de siècle?

Our own (Malay) closing of the century came 9 years later on 31^st December 2009. The judgment by Justice Bao Lau on 31^st December delivers to the Malays, their fin de siècle. In French the term means a closing of an age that can either mean degeneration or usher in an age of hope. Unfortunately it is not a signal for a hope for a better future for the Malays, but the beginning of a new age of despair.

Let me get this off my chest.

We begin 2010 with despair that the government has taken this issue very lightly. With due respects to the government lawyer handling this case, did the government view the case seriously? Or is this another case discounted as a tat frivolous and therefore requiring us to send just a junior to argue before the judge?

Is it a case of sending a second rater to argue before the judge against a team of first rate lawyers? Then, losing this case is the undoing of the government. Given the weight of the facts and the arguments put forth by the applicant's lawyers, the odds will be in favor of the more determined and brainier-powered legal team.

The law is an ass if we think it can be applied in vacuo. The laws of Malaysia for example, were made taking into account elements peculiar to our country and its needs. It follows therefore that when judges apply the law as regards Malaysia, they do so aware of their contextual relevance. They do so, without ignoring their contextual appropriateness. In practice this means, excluding extraneous factors which may be persuasive but irrelevant to our context.

The judge who ruled on the usage of the term Allah by Catholics in their magazine Herald did so out of context. The idea of bringing Allah before the courts is abominable as it is abhorrent. Despite the widespread usage of the term elsewhere in the Arab world or even closer to home in Indonesia, it is of no relevance to us. The judgment given by the court disregarded the most important fact in Malaysia- the contextual relevance.

In the Malaysian context, Allah has always been the god of Islam. Whose religion is this? It is the religion of the Malays. It is the religion of 15-16 million Malaysians as opposed to the religion of between 850,000 to 1 million Catholics. The judgment offends the sensibilities of 15-16 million people. It is causing much grief and resentment.

Is victory over the usage of the word Allah here in Malaysia, a form of satisfaction-giving retribution to the Malays? To the triumphalists, this legal victory is one form of saying FU! right into the face of the 'stupid' Malay?

The judge may have availed herself to an expansive research in the usage of the term Allah such as in Arab world or Indonesia or wherever she has chosen to- unfortunately they have no relevance to the habitual acceptance of the term by Malay Muslims here in Malaysia. It's an article of faith that Allah is the God of Islam and their (Malay) God. This is what I meant when I said this religion is jealously guarded by unreason. Beliefs and faith are not fully 'understandable' through rational reasons.

Indeed, Islam and Malay are synonymous. A Malay is defined as one who speaks the Malay language, practices Malay culture and adopts Islam as his religion. Hence when you make judgment on Allah which is the god of Islam here in Malaysia, you are also judging on the Malay. By taking over the term Allah, what have you done?

You take over the very being of a Malay.

You do that at what costs? Has the judge applied her mind on the costs that may arise out of this judgment? At the end of the day, this victory savored by the Catholics here in Malaysia, may in fact be just a Pyrrhic or Cadmean victory.

You bring Allah before the court means you bring the validity of being Malay before the court. What significance is it to us if the term Allah is used by people in the land of camel dung or nearer to our shores? It is inconsequential if it does not reflect our local context.

Its importance to us in the local context, overrides all other considerations. Because our being Malay is being determined by the judge.

I have no wish to extend the 'theological' debate about the recent court ruling regarding the use of the term Allah by the Catholic church here in Malaysia. Please remember, we are talking here in the Malaysian context. Please also stop saying that unless you are pious you are not to talk about this issue. We are not talking about what they term it in the Arab world or how they handled it in Indonesia. You don't have to be perfectly pious in order to earn the qualification to say something about this issue. Even the pious say the wrong things.

Debating about this issue has nothing to do with the level of personal righteousness. It has everything to do with what is right.

It is right for a minority group numbering not more than 1 million to mock the religion adopted and practiced and jealously guarded by more than 15 million in Malaysia? That is the real motive deduced in fact. That this insistence and zealotry to bring to court in order to get judgment for Malaysian Catholics to use the term Allah is yet another insidious attempt to ridicule and mock the Malays.

It does not even mater if people like TG Nk Aziz or lesser beings such as Khalid Samad or Zulkifli Ahmad saying that it's all right and permissible for Catholics to use the word Allah. They won't be able to ward off the accusations that they are willing to sell almost everything just to get into Putrajaya.

It's more important for us to consider what the ordinary Muslims here in Malaysia, given the level of understanding and personal appreciation of their religion think. They are thinking, here is another step in the long list of measures designed to undermine the religion of the Malays.

It is simply incredible to expect 16 million Malay Muslims to tolerate that decision. You may say the word Allah has been used for the last 400 years and what not. Or you may even say, just to win points in an argument, that Arabs don't have issue with the usage of the term Allah by non Muslim Arabs. But we are not in the Middle east and thankfully so. We are in Malaysia where we must learn to accept reality.

Two brothers of differing religions can co exist- one Muslim and the other Christian. But it's far-fetched to imagine the brother who is Christian, using the term Allah in the household. The interest of preserving peace overrides the interest of a freedom to use the term Allah.

Sure, we are not stupid- but we are not about to prove we are NOT stupid by allowing part of our soul to be auctioned before the court.

Don't the Christians want to jealously guard their religion from being infused by a conventionally accepted non Christian term? Hasn't the word Allah been always associated with the religion of Mohammad? What happened to the Father, son and Holy Spirit? Would Christians now accept if these are now re termed as Oh Ayah, Anak Ayah and Hantu Kudus and have them said in prayers? Wouldn't our insistence that these terms be translated as such, be an affront to god fearing Christians?

The reality is the court ruling is perceived as a direct challenge and affront to the sense of Muslim. Malays cannot understand the insistence that Catholics be allowed to use the term Allah when referring to their god. In practice, Allah has always been associated with the religion of Islam and to read some esoteric meaning into it so that it can be treated as a universal term by Christians here is simply wrong.

It is wrong because it will be interpreted as designed to cause offense to Muslim sensitivity. We can't expect 16 million Muslims to sit idly by and accept the ruling without coming up in arms. Do Catholics in Italy, France refer to God as Allah?

While thinking about this issue, I received an e mail from husband and wife team who are lawyers. Both are Muslims and I surmise they are not too exalted about the court ruling. The e mail is a short statement about the issue from the Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia.

BLASPHEMY MOST FOUL

In the days leading to the decision of the case brought by the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop applying to use the word Allah in the Malay version of the bible, the Muslim community sat muted whilst being schooled by the non Muslims on their own religion. At the helm of this muted movement were politicians including their ulamas, political alliances and Muslim intellectuals who all agreed that it is permissible for the use of the word Allah in the Catholic weekly Herald publication.

The first effect that we shall see from the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court dated 31.12.2009 allowing the Church to use the word Allah in their Malay language publication is the birth of Allah's son. From now onwards, the Christian God in this new publication shall be referred to as "Allah" and Jesus Christ as "Anak Allah".

The Muslim calendar, ie the Maal Hijrah for the year 1431 shall be well remembered by all Malaysians as the year where the trinity of Allah accompanied by "Anak Allah" shall be celebrated in the books of the Christians in the mother tongue of the largely Malay muslim populace and marked by the lunar eclipse event. In Surah Al Ikhlas, verse 1-4, Allah says ' Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; 2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. 3. He begets not, nor is he begotten; 4. And there is none like unto Him.

For the unlettered and unschooled in Islam, verse 3 simply means that Allah "does not give birth", nor is "Allah given birth to". It is incumbent for all Muslims, both lettered and unlettered, to uphold the sanctity of the concept of monotheism in Islam and never to allow Allah to be portrayed as having the attributes of a human being, the ability to beget a Son of which the echelons of the political community using Islam as their brand name in Malaysia have so easily facilitated and consented.

Those responsible for allowing this event to take place shall have to answer in their graves and in the hereafter for committing the greatest of all sins, "shirk" or polytheism of the highest degree. No argument can justify the usage of "Allah" and "Anak Allah" in any kitab here; yet those in a position to prevent this occurrence has shamelessly come to the defence of The weekly Herald to teach us how to pray to our ONE GOD.

What is the rationale for using the word "Allah" in the Christian books and how does this promote racial integration or even "One Malaysia"? If anything, this event draws the divide between the races even more. It is a deep shame that we have to live with for the rest of our lives, losing a battle that need not have been fought at all. It is not the fault of the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop that we lost our pride and identity, we are our own doing. The pride of our community today fell due to treachery by those who fought and won political battles using the name of Islam. In the Quran, Allah warns us most of all against people who sell their religion. Allah says in the Quran, "..do not sell my religion for a paltry sum..". In this case before us, the situation involved is even worse, they sold their religion for free.

Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar

Presiden

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia

Tweet

Read more...

Thinking about the new economic model.

Our PM, Dato Sri Najib Razak has announced plans to make the shift to a high-income economy. Hurrah! We are all going to enjoy having higher incomes. For some of us, that is. We are all going to enjoy a higher standard of living. Higher incomes bring with them, a higher standard of living. Refined stuff, better facilities. Hopefully, along with higher incomes, come also sophisticated thinking.

PM Najib has to contend with two things already. The high court ruling that Catholics can now use the term Allah indicates an era of proactive and adventurous judiciary. Hence we can expect tumultuous years ahead where the executive will be at odds with an assertive judiciary.

But a righteous judiciary is what we need to qualify our country as a high income economy. Every aspect of a citizen's right is equally protected under the constitution. Maybe we actually need an assertive judiciary to ensure citizens' rights are not trampled down.

Competition among these rights requires wise adjudication that will become increasingly dependent on public spirited judges. The quality of justice will depend on the quality of judges going to the Palace of Justice in Putra Jaya.

It's like Karpal Singh said- the grandiosity of the Palace of Justice must be matched with the quality of justice dispensed from there.

Two, Malaysians are greeted by the increase of sugar price by 20 sen per kilo. That would at once suggest that an economic model founded on monopolisation of essential goods isn't working. When Robert Kuok enjoyed an almost monopoly over sugar, Malaysians had to pay high price for sugar. Now even when the government takes over, and the government is a bigger monopoly, it can't contain the price of sugar.

I will not be quick to say that this is a proof that government should not do business at all. It would show that an economic model based on monopoly will not work. The practical solution then is to open up the market. Let imports be done properly and allow importers to compete freely.

So, what is this-a high income economy? That is defined as the people in Malaysia having a per capita income of USD 16,000 to 17,000. Didn't vision 2020 started by TDM also has a vision that by 2020 Malaysia will become a developed nation? A developed nation is where the people have a per capita income similar to what we have said.

If that is so, then saying that we are going into a high income economy is similar to restating vision 2020.

Now, the thing about restating is that it suggests a re-assurance that we shall get there by any means necessary. Why the re-assurance?

A re-assurance in the form of re-stating that economic idea becomes necessary because, the present administration isn't 100% confident it can achieve vision 2020. You can't be confident if you continue to think that the government can plan every single minutiae of economic impulses to spur the economy.

Look around us. Those economies that adopted IMF measures during the 1997-1998 crises have emerged with stronger growing economies. They were able to do so because their economies were propelled by resilient economic agents and institutions. We have lagged behind because our economy bent backwards to protect the unfit and therefore less resilient.

Now, here is the irony- what if during 1997-1998 financial crises, we had followed some of the IMF measures. Allow market forces to weed out the free-loaders and weak, re structure the economic foundations and all that. Those measures would have made our economy more resilient. Those lean years who would have prepared us better for the coming decades.

Don't you have compassion for those who would have suffered during the economic meltdown? Those sidelined through the adjustment process, if they were that good in the first place, would have been able to pick themselves up again and regroup. If we had done that, that would mean Anwar Ibrahim who was the finance minister then, isn't a dunderhead after all  in economics.

2010 onwards is the best time to test which economic approach is right. Selangor will be test case to see whether economic prescriptions along IMF-esque measures can work. We can then compare Selangor economy under the advice of Anwar Ibrahim with the economic models practised by the majority government elsewhere in our country.

Tweet

Read more...

Allah before The Courts

Langit Makin Mendung Kipandjikusmin

When Tun Salleh Abbas beseeched his brother judges to carry out certain measures to contain the intrusion of the executive on the judiciary, one judge was said to remark- that's like asking us to carry out a revolution.

When the learned Justice Lau ruled in favour of the Church, her ruling was also revolutionary as well as potentially incendiary.

Like many Malaysians, I waited keenly for the court ruling on the ban in the use of the term Allah by Catholics in their publications. The court ruled in favour of the Catholic Church. It ruled that the banning of the word Allah constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to practise own religion.

As Farther Andrew Lawrence said, Christians and Muslims have lived with each other peacefully in Malaysia for hundreds of years. They did and will continue for the simple reason; Malays who are Muslims don't go to churches and are not ware that Catholics use the same term to refer to their God. They did and will continue doing so, because Malays tolerate different faiths.

Had they known of the usage, I am not sure whether usage of the term will not go unchallenged.

Can we explain the legal intricacies behind the high court ruling that Catholics can use Allah in their religion to the Muslims in kampongs, at the various madrasahs and suraus across the country? Can we explain to them, the court ruling is necessary to guarantee the constitutional rights of other people of other faiths to practice their religion freely? Can Malays in Malaysia accept yesterday's ruling as aimed at upholding the provisions of our Constitution?

I am afraid not. This is how Malays see the issue.

What is being done here is the pillage and violent abuse of Muslim self respect. Any self respecting Muslim in Malaysia will never countenance such blatant and insensitive violation on what is generally but nonetheless rightly perceived as ownership over the use of the word Allah.

Yes, Muslim owned the word Allah but it does not reside in the provisions of legal texts. Herein lies the root of the problem. It is the perception that ownership of the term resides in legal texts and therefore renders it absolutely 'reviewable' and amenable to clever and ingenious legal reasoning, that leads us today, to a most unfortunate ruling by the Malaysian High Court.

I say unfortunate, not not right.

The fact is, ownership of the term Allah, resides in the bosom of millions of Muslims and hence, the hijacking of its ownership through some legalistic twists, constitute a rape and pillage on the Muslim person. The word Allah does not rest in a receptacle that in turn rests on the pillars of legal principles which are amenable to judicial discretion. It rests on the altar of worship supported by the pillars of faith jealously guarded by UNREASON.

No Muslim here in Malaysia, even with a modicum of self worth is willing to accept this 'final solution' on their religion. So when the UMNO leader said that this ruling will cause disturbances, we see the operation of unreason has begun.

Yesterday, I wrote an article on the controversial short story ( Malay cerpen) of Langit Makin Mendung. In light of the court's rulings, I reproduce here some passages from that story with some changes to reflect on the state of mind of the Muslims here.

After the Russian sputnik smashed into the Buraq carrying the Prophet, the Prophet and his fellow traveler to earth were thrown off and landed on soft clouds. He cast his eyes below:-

Sejenak dilontarkan pandangannya ke bawah. Hatinya tiba-tiba berdesir ngeri.

"Jibril, neraka lapis ke berapa di sana gerangan?"

"Paduka salah duga. Di bawah kita bukan neraka tapi bagian bumi yang paling durhaka. Kuala Lumpur namanya. Ibukota Malaysia, sebuah negeri dengan 26 juta rakyat yang malas dan bodoh. Tapi ngakunya sudah bebas BH. dan punya wawasan super jelas, 2020."

"Tak pernah kudengar nama itu. Mana lebih durhaka, kuala Lumpur atau Sodomah dan Gomorah?"

"Hampir sama." kerna ada mantan timbalan PM nya di bicarakan atas tuduhan penyakit yang pernah melanda Sodomah dan Gomorah".

"Adakah umatku di Malaysia?" "Hampir semua, kecuali Cinanya , India nya tentu."

"Kalau begitu, kapirlah bangsa di bawah ini!"

"Sama sekali tidak, 60 persen dari rakyatnya orang Islam juga."

"60 persen," wajah nabi berseri, "15 juta umatku! Muslimin dan muslimat yang tercinta. kulihat mesjid yang cukup besar, mereka bersembahyang Jumat begitu ramai, tapi ngapa pada waktu lain, mesjid nya tampak gersang?"

"Soal 15-16 juta hanya menurut statistik bumiawi yang ngawur. Dalam catatan Abubakar di surga, mereka tak ada sejuta yang betul-betul Islam!"

"Aneh. Gilakah mereka?"

"Aneh!""Memang aneh."

"Ayo Jibril, segera kita tinggalkan tempat terkutuk ini. Aku terlalu rindu pada Medinah!"

"Tidak inginkah paduka menyelidiki sebab-sebab keanehan itu?"

"Tidak, tidak di tempat ini!" jawabnya tegas, "rencana risetku di Kairo."

"Sesungguhnya padukalah nabi terakhir, ya Muhammad?"

"Seperti telah tersurat di kitab Allah," sahut Nabi dengan rendah hati.

"Tapi bangsa di bawah sana telah menabikan orang lain lagi."

"Apa peduliku dengan nabi palsu!"

"Umat paduka hampir takluk pada ajaran nabi palsu!"

"Ya, Islam terancam. Tidakkah paduka prihatin dan sedih?" terdengar suara Iblis, disambut tertawa riuh rendah.

Nabi tengadah ke atas.

"Sabda Allah tak akan kalah. Betapapun Islam, ia ada dan tetap ada, walau bumi hancur sekalipun!"

Suara Nabi mengguntur dahsyat, menggema di bumi, di lembah-lembah, di puncak-puncak gunung, di kebun-kebun karet, dan berpusar-pusar di laut lepas.

Gaungnya terdengar sampai ke surga, disambut takzim ucapan serentak:

"Amien, amien, amien."

Neraka guncang, iblis-iblis gemetar menutup telinga. Guntur dan cambuk petir bersahut-sahutan.

"Naiklah, mari kita berangkat ya Rasulullah!"

Muhammad tak hendak beranjak dari awan tempatnya berdiri. Hatinya bimbang pedih dan dukacita. Wajahnya gelap, segelap langit mendung di kiri-kanannya.

Jibril menatap penuh tanda tanya, namun tak berani bertanya.

Tweet

Read more...