Voices of Reason

Here is a collective voice of reason from a distinguished group of Malaysians-

We, a group of concerned citizens of Malaysia, would like to express how disturbed and deeply dismayed we are over the continuing unresolved disputes on the position and application of Islamic laws in this country.

The ongoing debate over these matters displays a lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our constitutional democracy. Moreover, they reflect a serious breakdown of federal-state division of powers, both in the areas of civil and criminal jurisdictions.

We refer specifically to the current situation where religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction; where issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution and breach the democratic and consultative process of shura; where the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult; and more importantly, where the use of the Sedition Act hangs as a constant threat to silence anyone with a contrary opinion.

These developments undermine Malaysia’s commitment to democratic principles and rule of law, breed intolerance and bigotry, and have heightened anxieties over national peace and stability.

As moderate Muslims, we are particularly concerned with the statement issued by Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, in response to the recent Court of Appeal judgment on the right of transgender to dress according to their identity.

He viewed the right of the transgender community and Sisters in Islam (SIS) to seek legal redress as a “new wave of assault on Islam” and as an attempt to lead Muslims astray from their faith, and put religious institutions on trial in a secular court.

Such an inflammatory statement from a federal minister (and not for the first time) sends a public message that the prime minister’s commitment to the path of moderation need not be taken seriously when a minister can persistently undermine it.

These issues of concern we raise are, of course, difficult matters to address given the extreme politicisation of race and religion in this country.

But we believe there is a real need for a consultative process that will bring together experts in various fields, including Islamic and constitutional laws, and those affected by the application of Islamic laws in adverse ways.

We also believe the prime minister is best placed with the resources and authority to lead this consultative process. It is urgent that all Malaysians are invested in finding solutions to these longstanding areas of conflict that have led to the deterioration of race relations, eroded citizens’ sense of safety and protection under the rule of law, and undermined stability.

There are many pressing issues affecting all of us that need the urgent leadership and vision of the prime minister, the support of his Cabinet and all moderate Malaysians.

They include:

i) A plural legal system that has led to many areas of conflict and overlap between civil and shariah laws.

In particular there is an urgent need to review the Shariah Criminal Offences (SCO) laws of Malaysia.

These laws which turn all manner of “sins” into crimes against the state have led to confusion and dispute in both substance and implementation. They are in conflict with Islamic legal principles and constitute a violation of fundamental liberties and state intrusion into the private lives of citizens.

In 1999, the Cabinet directed the Attorney-General's Chambers to review the SCO laws. But to this day, they continue to be enforced with more injustices perpetrated.

The public outrage, debates over issues of jurisdiction, judicial challenge, accusations of abuses committed, gender discrimination, and deaths and injuries caused in moral policing raids have eroded the credibility of the SCO laws, the law-making process, and public confidence that Islamic law could indeed bring about justice.

ii) The lack of public awareness, even among top political leaders, on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the powers of the religious authorities and administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law enacted, including Islamic laws, cannot violate the Constitution, in particular the provisions on fundamental liberties, federal-state division of powers and legislative procedures.

All acts, enactments and subsidiary legislations, including fatwa, are bound by constitutional limits and are open to judicial review.

iii) The need to ensure the right of citizens to debate the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in this country. The Islamic laws of Malaysia are drafted by the executive arm of government and enacted in the legislative bodies by human beings.

Their source may be divine, but the enacted laws are not divine. They are human made and therefore fallible, open to debate and challenge to ensure that justice is upheld.

iv) The need to promote awareness of the rich diversity of interpretive texts and juristic opinions in the Islamic tradition. This includes conceptual legal tools that exist in the tradition that enable reform to take place and the principles of equality and justice to be upheld, in particular in response to the changing demands, role and status of women in the family and community.

v) The need for the prime minister to assert his personal leadership as well as appoint key leaders who will, in all fairness, champion open and coherent debate and discourse on the administration of Islamic laws in this country to ensure that justice is done.

We especially urge that the leadership sends a clear signal that rational and informed debate on Islamic laws in Malaysia and how they are codified and implemented are not regarded as an insult to Islam or to the religious authorities.

These issues may seem complex to many, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to this: as Muslims, we want Islamic law, even more than civil law, to meet the highest standards of justice precisely because it claims to reflect divine justice.

Therefore, those who act in the name of Islam through the administration of Islamic law must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that justice is done, and is seen to be done.

When Islam was revealed to our Prophet saw in 7th century Arabia, it was astoundingly revolutionary and progressive. Over the centuries, the religion has guided believers through harsh and challenging times. It is our fervent belief that for Islam to continue to be relevant and universal in our times, the understanding, codification and implementation of the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve.

Only with this, can justice, as enjoined by Allah, prevail. – December 8, 2014.

1. Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim Haji Din, former secretary-general, Home Ministry

2. Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar, former secretary-general, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

3. Tan Sri Dr Aris Othman, former secretary-general, Ministry of Finance

4. Tan Sri Dr Ismail Merican, former director-general, Health Ministry

5. Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Mohd Kassim, former secretary-general, Ministry of Finance

6. Tan Sri Dr Mustaffa Babjee, former director-general, Veterinary Services

7. Tan Sri Nuraizah Abdul Hamid, former secretary-general, Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia

8. Tan Sri Dr Yahya Awang, cardiothoracic surgeon and core founder, National Heart Institute

9. Datuk Seri Shaik Daud Md Ismail, former Court of Appeal judge

10. Datuk Abdul Kadir Mohd Deen, former ambassador

11. Datuk Anwar Fazal, former senior regional adviser, United Nations Development Programme

12. Datuk Dali Mahmud Hashim, former ambassador

13. Datuk Emam Mohd Haniff Mohd Hussein, former ambassador

14. Datuk Faridah Khalid, representative of Women’s Voice

15. Datuk Latifah Merican Cheong, former assistant governor, Bank Negara

16. Lt-Gen (Rtd) Datuk Maulob Maamin

17. Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, former ambassador

18. Datuk Ranita Hussein, former Suhakam commissioner

19. Datuk Redzuan Kushairi, former ambassador

20. Datuk Dr Sharom Ahmat, former deputy vice-chancellor, Universiti Sains Malaysia

21. Datuk Syed Arif Fadhillah, former ambassador

22. Datuk Zainal Abidin Ahmad, former director-general, Malaysian Timber Industry Board

23. Datuk Zainuddin Bahari, former deputy secretary-general, Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism

24. Datin Halimah Mohd Said, former lecturer, Universiti Malaya and president, Association of Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason (PCORE)

25. Hendon Mohamad, past president, Malaysian Bar

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/champion-open-debate-and-discourse-on-islamic-law-noor-farida-ariffin-and-2#sthash.8GFgCVrh.dpuf

Personality versus structure and process

If there is anything that the study of History teaches us, it should be that all the great feats of heroes come to naught if there was no structure in place that institutes fairness. I deliberately use the words "fairness" in place of the more commonplace word, "justice". I have found that when one uses the word "justice" everyone has a different understanding of what constitutes justice, whereas, when the word "fairness" is used there is an broader consensus.

So, what is this post all about?

Inasmuch as engineers and architects design physical structures that makes it as comfortable and sensible as possible for users to benefit from the process of using such structures for the longest possible time, laws created and enacted by political leaders must also undergo similar tests of relevance and robust relevance.

If you trouble yourself to read history books or biographies of significant personalities, look out for aspects of what these past personages did in putting in place values, rules or processes and, then, look at whether those values, rules and processes are still in place today.

In the course of my history readings I have come across, time and again, great events involving great leaders of the day where a good outcome involves a leader having the foresight and humility to institutes structures and processes that have a foundation in fairness. These outcomes have longevity and continued relevance.

In contrast, scenarios involving leaders who had great self-belief in their own sense of fairness and the impatience with the plodding pace of instituting structures and processes have often led to short-term gains with the attendant long-term legacy of pain and discomfort as a consequence.

Not many Malaysians remember the late Professor Hugh Hickling. In the course of his long career he had many roles in the nascent Malayan and Malaysian nation. One of his roles was that of the Commissioner for Law Revision for Malaya in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In that role, Hickling drafted the Internal Security Act 1960 primarily as a statutory tool to combat the threat of Communism that had so badly affected peace in Malaya.

In later years, Hickling always sought to expiate his role in the creation of the Internal Security Act 1960 that so haunted many poilitically active Malaysians and, Hickling himself. I had the opportunity to hear him explain, by way of expiation, that in the course of drafting that piece of legislation Hickling had expressed to the late Tun Abdul Razak, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time, his concerns about the width, length and breadth of powers given by the Internal Security Act 1960 to the Executive Branch of Government. 

According to Hickling, Tun Razak's reply was that he, Tun Razak, knew how to utilise those statutory powers and, he knew where to draw the line, that is to say, what types of actions would constitute an abuse of those sweeping powers.

Needless to say, Tun Razak knew what he was doing, being an intelligent and legally trained leader. Tun Razak's sense of fairness is well-documented. This leadership trait was proven beyond doubt in the way he handled the May 13, 1969 riots when, as the Director of the National Operations Council he had dictatorial powers. Tun Razak's uncommon common sense and sense of fairplay shone through when constitutional and parliamentary processes were quickly reinstituted by 1972. 

The Internal Security Act 1960 was clearly in good hands under Tun Razak. Whether such powers were abused by subsequent leaders is a matter for historians and academicians. Suffice to say here that the Internal Security Act 1960 was an example of questionable structures and processes that worked only if the correct personality was holding the reins of power. In the wrong hands, such a piece of sweeping legislation was very much open to abuse.  

From the standpoint of my basic proposition about the importance of structure and process over personality, the Internal Security Act 1960 is one of the chief culprits for having engendered a legislative drafting culture where statutory powers are almost always drafted together with language that forbids or prevents an audit or review of the exercise of such powers. This makes the personage of the Minister or Government Officer very crucial. A cavalier personality will wield such powers freely and arbitrarily. A personage with a sense of fairmindedness will exercise more restraint. Such a structure cannot be good. 

Since we are on the matter of structure and process which has taken a legal twist, I now steer it back to a neutral position by leaving you with a piece of engineering wisdom-

An electrical, a mechanical and a civil engineer all sat down one day to try and decide of which of their faculties god must be to design the human body.

The electrical engineer says god must be an electrical engineer, for you only have to look at the complex nervous system powered be electrical impulses.

The mechanical engineer was sure that god must be a mechanical engineer, for the advanced mechanical systems, the heart a pump, the veins pipes and the tendons and muscles an advanced pulley system.

Finally after hearing the civil engineers arguments, both the mechanical and electrical engineer both agreed that god must be a civil engineer, for who else would run a sewer system through a recreational area!

Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith was an economist, first and foremost. But, he had a fine way with words. His great prose was part of the reason that he so impressed both, John F. Kennedy and, equally importantly, Mrs Jacqueline Kennedy.

One of Galbraith's seminal books that I had the pleasure of reading was The Affluent Society (1958). In it he argued that the United States' wealth accumulation in the private sector was not commensurate with public spending that would benefit the wider public and citizenry. In a capitalistic milieu Galbraith was not quite a Socialist, but most certainly, a Keynesian economist with a social conscience.

Galbraith was appointed the U.S. Ambassador to India during the Kennedy Administration.

Among the famous phrases he coined was the phrase conventional wisdom, which he first used in The Affluent Society. 

And, in the context of what we witness today in Malaysia, where nation building appears to have taken a backseat to guileless and clueless leadership, we need to take some heed of a piece of wisdom offered by Galbraith, unconventional as it may be in the Malaysian political scene of today-

All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.

Boycotting nonsense

The new Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs has made a major misstep when he merely said that the federal government did not approve of the boycott of Chinese goods and services but proceeded to defend the right to boycott.

Sometimes you can be legally correct but wrong on the economics.

Usually it is not a big deal because everyone knows that political motivations are usually irrational exuberance.

But...when you are a Minister responsible for an economic portfolio as important as Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs you have to be a big picture person. 

You are running the entire Malaysian economy.

You cannot be pandering to petty politicking even if it is just a fortnight since your party won by a whisker. 

You have to check that tribal, petty, parochialism.

You are the Minister in the Malaysian Cabinet with a portfolio to manage Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs.

Malaysia holds itself out as an open economy. Malaysia measures itself by trade competitiveness. Malaysia aspires to obtain foreign direct investments.

For instance, how would the Minister reconcile his defence of racial boycotting to investors and businesses from mainland China or Taiwan? 

Would he say via an interpreter, "Sorry, this boycott of Chinese goods and services apply only to Malaysian citizens of Chinese ethnicity and descent. It definitely does not apply to you people because you are from mainland China/Taiwan".

How lame is that?

Do I need to remind everyone that Cabinet Ministers hold a federal portfolio? 

Do I also need to remind everyone that people cannot be fooled all the time?

You cannot have the Prime Minister himself, Husni, Mustapha, Idris Jala and Wahid running around telling all and sundry that the Economic Transformation Plan is still on foot when your fella in charge of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs cannot send the correct signals out as a Federal Minister and, he is still labouring under the misapprehension that the stupid General Elections is still on.

As I said before, GET TO WORK!

A dedication

I seem drawn, for some inexplicable reason to Tennyson's verses from his work Ulysses. This, I dedicate to everyone who worked tirelessly for their respective teams recently. I especially dedicate this to the people of MCA, Gerakan and MIC in the hope that they may persist in their endeavour; embittered and bloodied but, unbowed.

They need to reset their compass and begin anew. Cast off the old baggage and trappings. Bring in new heroes. The old soldiers must now accept that their time is over. Step aside to let the new heroes come into the fray.

Come, my friends, 
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. 
Push off, and sitting well in order smite 
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds 
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths 
Of all the western stars, until I die. 
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down; 
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles, 
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew. 
Though much is taken, much abides; and though 
We are not now that strength which in old days 
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are, 
One equal temper of heroic hearts, 
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will 
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. 

Federal Cabinet: The best and the brightest

I had to borrow the title of David Halberstam's seminal book (1972) on the Vietnam War for this post. While Halberstam's title was intended to contrast negatively the excellent academic and corporate credentials of the U.S. Cabinet members who somehow lost their objectivity and led the U.S. in the miasma and morass of the Vietnam War, this post hopes to address a reverse scenario in the context of the new Federal Cabinet that BN will be forming.

Whether or, not, the MCA maintains its stand to reject Cabinet positions under the new Najib Administration, I hope that Najib will look beyond the BN component party leaders to form the new Cabinet. 

I hope Najib will use all resources available to him to seek and, persuade, capable people to assume Cabinet positions.

People like Koh Tsu Koon and Rais Yatim were ineffective in the previous Cabinet as were a few others.

Whatever brickbats that may have been thrown at him, the elevation of Idris Jala to a Cabinet position was quite an inspired decision. For better or, for worse, Idris Jala put in the type of effort that many Cabinet members didn't.

So, Najib should look beyond the pale of the BN component parties in an effort to seek out capable Malaysians to serve the country and narrow the rural-urban divide that seems to have formed as shown in the 2013 General Elections.

I say, make full use of the Senatorships, to get in the talent.

Don't just look at the paltry offerings in the larder.

The task at hand, if anything, is to continue to focus on the Economic Transformation Programme.

The capital market has responded positively to the certainty that a continued BN Administration offers. This is a very good re-start.

The concern remains about the debt levels of the Malaysian government. The fiscal deficit has to be pared down. This is a must.

The handouts must be reduced. There must be a better managed needs-based welfare programme that alleviates poverty and social challenges at a more target-specific level. No more carpet-bombing of money handouts, please.

While Malaysia's social safety nets are already quite good, it can be better.

Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero

Chris Matthews host of MSNBC's show has published a new book on John F. Kennedy. The video clip below is interesting not just for the little nuggets that Matthews throws in on JFK but, also the continuing relevance of JFK in the American political psyche about what it takes to be a political leader.

As always, Malaysians should take all this in in the context of Malaysian politics and leadership.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

___________________________________________________________

Here is a nugget about how JFK is likely to have got his impulse to use the now famous phrase, "Ask not, what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

JFK's 'ask not' line traced back to prep school

Nov 1 (Reuters) - John F. Kennedy's most famous turn of phrase was inspired by the headmaster of his New England prep school, according to a new book on America's only president to have won the Pulitzer Prize.

In his 14-minute 1961 inaugural speech, which addressed the United States' role in the Cold War, Kennedy told Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

Kennedy, it turns out, had heard something like it before.

Two documents unearthed by MSNBC television host Chris Matthews in his book "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero," show that the future president's headmaster at the elite Choate boarding school in Connecticut in the early 1930s had used a similar exhortation.

"The youth who loves his alma matter will always ask not 'What can she do for me?' but 'What can I do for her?" the headmaster said, quoting a Harvard University dean.

The book says that Kennedy, who was nearly expelled from Choate for his rebellious hijinks, boosted his 1960 presidential bid with small but well-timed moves.

URGENT! Malaysia needs leadership

It is easy to be negative. It is easy to criticise.

The difficult task is to be constructive.

To be constructive, one has to be sincere. And, one has to think harder.

Now, more so than ever, Malaysia needs leadership.

We need political leaders who can challenge us to be better.

Racial polemics in the wake of the 2008 General Elections and the 2011 Sarawak Elections are destructive to Malaysia.

It is frustrating to experience the erosion of support. But creating Chinese Malaysian bogeymen will not help our country.

In the 1999 General Elections the Malay vote was split right in the middle. Objective political analysis of the 1999 General Elections showed that it was the Chinese Malaysians who stuck with BN.

Bogeymen would not have done that.

So, what was the reason for Chinese Malaysian support for the BN in the 1999 General Elections?

My own view is that the reason was Dr M and the clarity and certainty of his leadership and vision.

In the preceding years leading to the 1999 General Elections, Dr M had challenged all Malaysians to be better.

He told us that we could be world-beaters if we tried hard enough. This is the type of leadership and challenge that Chinese Malaysians crave for. And, not just Chinese Malaysians, I'm sure.

It is this manner and substance of leadership that Malaysia is missing at the moment.

We need a leader who will challenge us to be better Malaysians, not leaders who make us feel lousy about ourselves.

We need a leader who dares to rise above the partisanship and irrationality of racial politics, not leaders who can only tell us that the colour of our skin  is different.

Daim: Govt should meet needs of Chinese community

This is a recent perspective offered by Tun Daim. The man offers a context that is sensible and worthy of note. The report is borrowed from The Sun:

FORMER finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin says the era of the government telling the non-Malay voters to be grateful to it is long gone.

Any ruling coalition which wants to stay in power should take the initiative to resolve the problems facing the people, instead of asking them the question, "What more do you want?"

In an interview with Nanyang Siang Pau today, the Umno veteran said the Barisan Nasional (BN) government should understand and meet the needs of the Chinese community.

Only then can it win the support of the Chinese voters.

"What the rakyat wants now is a clean and corruption-free government, which takes care of the poor, ensures that there is no hanky-panky in public project tenders, enhances public security, and provides them with a roof and basic infrastructure. These are what they want," Daim said when asked what the government should do to regain the support of Chinese voters.

He said leaders of BN component parties, especially elected representatives, should enhance services in their constituencies and take steps to overcome bread-and-butter issues.

"BN component parties should set up service centres in parliamentary and state constituencies, complete with mini-libraries, reading and computer rooms to promote interaction with the electorate, and to overcome problems facing the constituencies," he said.

On the dissatisfaction among the Chinese that the government is biased towards bumiputras in its policies, Daim said Malays, too, are now educated, and should be standing on their own feet unless they are lazy.

"The New Economic Policy (NEP) cannot exist forever, otherwise the Malays will become too dependent as they might feel the government will look after them.

"The reality is that the world has changed, we (the Malays) should take on the global challenges and stand on our own feet."

Daim, who served as finance minister from 1984 to 1991, said the NEP is meant to last for only a limited period. Furthermore, he said, the two main objectives of the policy – to eradicate poverty and restructure the society – have more or less been achieved.

He explained that in the early days of Merdeka, Malay participation in the commercial sector accounted for only a few percent, thus the implementation of the NEP.

"During that time, the Chinese worried that the Malays would rob them of their share (of the economic cake), when in fact the Chinese share increased in the end, as only the foreigners’ share was taken away.

"This is what has not been emphasised. What the Chinese lost was educational opportunities," Daim explained.

Educational opportunities

Commenting on the dissatisfaction among many Malay NGOs over Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak’s announcement about abolishing the mandatory 30% bumiputra equity in local main board companies (under the New Economic Model), Daim said equity is not important,"but what is important is educational opportunities".

"Given the opportunities to receive good education, (one) can get a good job, and in turn good pay. The extra money from the income can then be used to purchase shares. Therefore the crux of the matter is to get good education, which is what the NEP has been emphasising."

Daim stressed that the BN government should provide equal educational opportunities (to all), including offering more scholarships.

He said scholarships should be awarded based on merit, that is, those with excellent performance should be given scholarships.

"If you want top-notch talents, you have to take care of them," he said.

He points out the Singaporean government is very smart in that it is able to woo Malaysian talent without making any investment in them.

"It only asks what these students want in the last three years (of their schooling), and meets their requests."

On the government’s frequent lamentation that it lacked funds, Daim said even if the government retains just 100 top brains a year, it will have 1,000 in 10 years, and they can contribute much to the country.

"Therefore, don’t let them (the talented people) down, give them what they wish for … and they will make contributions to the country in the future."

Lessons from The Damned United

The movie, The Damned United which is the core matter for the preceding post contains some principles that may be extracted for business leadership and, of late and, possibly more importantly, for political leadership.

The protagonist, Brian Clough (played most excellently by Michael Sheen) was an ascerbic and caustic maverick with a gigantic ego. His 44-day saga as manager of the then-English First Division League Champions, Leeds United offers interesting lessons.

First, keep your most loyal man beside you. Clough ditched his long-time deputy, Peter Taylor in a fit of hubris. Taylor is the type of deputy every mercurial leader needs. While Clough went on his visonary exploits, he needed Taylor to put the nuts and bolts together. Taylor was the talent-spotter. Taylor was the one players went to after another tempestous outburst by Clough. Taylor was the man who patched the team together. Every leader needs a deputy like Taylor. Needless to say, without Taylor's soft skills, Clough was quickly left in an alienated position in Leeds United.

Second, build the team spirit. The first time Clough met with the highly-decorated Leeds United team he antagonised them by telling them that they won their trophies by cheating. This is hardly the way to get a team spirit going.

Third, taking over a team or organisation with a successful past track record requires patience. The new leader can never emulate nor imitate his predescessor. But, that does not mean that the new leader should go on an iconoclastic binge of destroying the predescessor's reputation or trivialise his record. Instead, he needs to patiently deconstruct and, then, reconstruct. This is a process that takes time.

Fourth, the leader who ignores the above principles is not lost. He or she can move on to achieve great things again through another club or organisation.

It’s unthinkable for a tainted man to lead MCA

I found this view offered by Tan Sri Robert Phang to be sensible. It is a sentiment that is along similar lines to what Dr M and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has said about the selection of candidates for the Bagan Pinang by-election.

The surest way for BN and its components to regain lost ground is to lead by example. The clearest message of leadership must surely be exemplified by verbs such as "clean", "moral", "upright", "honest", "humble" and the like.

I was tempted to suggest words like "sanitize" or "hygienise" but I realised quickly that such words may suggest meanings such as "To make more acceptable by removing unpleasant or offensive features from..." which may inadvertently remind any person reading the verb to subliminally infer that there were "unpleasant" or "offensive" features that were whitewashed earlier.

In any event, this form of "recycling" (of politicians "with a past") is bad for the political environment.

I have digressed. Read on...

It is unthinkable for a tainted leader – and by his own admission, too – to become the MCA president, said community leader Tan Sri Robert Phang.

“The Chinese community will also feel its future and welfare will never be protected or enhanced by a leader with a tainted record,” he said.

The Social Care Foundation chairman was referring to Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, the MCA deputy president who was recently suspended for four years by the MCA central committee.

Phang added that “morality is definitely a very important fundamental requisite part of political leadership.”

Wise words: Phang appealling to all MCA delegates to do away with emotion, exercise prudence and due diligence in exercising their votes.

“What affects MCA will certainly affect Barisan Nasional,” he added.

The future and welfare of the Chinese community, said Phang, would also be at stake should Dr Chua become MCA president.

The party would always be subject to blackmail and intimidation by members of the public and other political parties should they choose a “tainted” person to be its leader, he added.

Phang said the five proposed resolutions submitted by Dr Chua’s camp for the Oct 10 extraordinary general meeting (EGM) were well constructed.

“Dr Chua has said many times he was never, and is still not, interested in becoming the party president or a Cabinet member.

“However, it has become very clear that the five resolutions are well engineered and if they are passed, party president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat would have no choice but to step down,” he said, adding that Dr Chua would automatically take over from Ong.

He said such a scenario would definitely create anxiety for the Chinese community and cause the central delegates to be affected.

Phang also called on Dr Chua to retire from politics permanently.

“If this decision is taken, I’m sure it will go down in history that you have further contributed and become a tremendous helping hand to the party by not disrupting its machinery.

Khalid Samad's Surat Terbuka Untuk Penduduk Seksyen 23

I have been observing the continuing events surrounding the cowhead incident in Shah Alam. No utterance from any Malaysian political leader that I have seen, heard or read about that relates to this incident comes even close to giving this message of tolerance and empathy as contained in this open letter from YB Khalid Samad to residents of Seksyen 23. This is what Malaysians should expect our political leaders to think and say at all times.

pix from here.

I will say no more.

But here's the open letter for you to judge the quality of Khalid Samad's quiet and sensible leadership:

2hb September 2009 M
13 Ramadan 1430 H

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Kehadapan penduduk Seksyen 23 yang dihormati,

Semoga surat ini menemui tuan-tuan dalam keadaan sihat wal afiat serta keimanan yang teguh dan jitu berkat bulan Ramadhan ini.

Saya mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengingatkan diri saya serta tuan-tuan akan Firman Allah, Surah Al Maaidah ayat 8 yang bermaksud;

“Bertindak adil! Ianya lebih rapat dengan keTaqwaan.”

Semoga dalam usaha kita membina keTaqwaan dalam bulan Ramadhan ini, kita mengingati hakikat bahawa ‘keTaqwaan’ yang diusahakan itu mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan keadilan. Keadilan ini pula perlu dilaksanakan terhadap semua, walaupun terhadap yang tidak disenangi. Ini ditegaskan di dalam ayat yang sama yang bermaksud,

“dan jangan oleh kerana kebencian kamu terhadap sesuatu kaum menyebabkan kamu tidak berlaku adil…”

Kalau terhadap kaum yang dibenci sekalipun dituntut keadilan, apatah lagi terhadap jiran sekampung dan warga sekota? Walaupun mereka tidak sebangsa dan seagama, hakikatnya mereka tidak memusuhi kita atau memusuhi Islam. Maka, mereka layak mendapat layanan yang adil. Adakah adil sekiranya kita menafikan mereka hak tempat beribadat yang berhampiran dan sebaliknya memaksa mereka ke seksyen 22, di tengah-tengah kawasan Industri berat, jauh dari kawasan kediaman? Tiada apa di sana kecuali kilang-kilang.

Saya hanyalah seorang wakil rakyat yang dipilih oleh tuan-tuan melalui pilihan raya yang diadakan pada masa-masa tertentu. Saya tidak berhak memaksa apa-apa pandangan atau keputusan ke atas tuan-tuan semua. Saya hanya mengharapkan keputusan yang tuan-tuan rumuskan sendiri berhubung cadangan pemindahan kuil ke Seksyen 23 mengambil kira persoalan keTaqwaan dan keAdilan seperti di atas.

Islam adalah agama yang adil. Keadilannya mampu menawan hati semua manusia. Yang paling saya takuti adalah tindakan yang memberikan gambaran bahawa Islam adalah sebaliknya. Allah murka terhadap mereka yang bertindak dengan cara yang merosakkan imej Islam sehingga menyebabkan manusia terhalang untuk mengenali keadilannya. Allah berfirman ayat 94 Surah An-Nahl yang bermaksud:-

“Dan kamu ditimpa kehinaan kerana menjadi penghalang kepada jalan Allah (disebabkan tindakan buruk kamu) dan untuk kamu azab yang amat dahsyat (pada hari akhirat kelak)”

Ada yang bertanya kepada saya, tidakkah saya khuatir saya kalah dalam Pilihan Raya yang bakal tiba oleh kerana isu ini. Bagi saya sekiranya itulah kehendak pengundi, apakan daya? Yang penting sejarah akan menjadi saksi bahawa ada Ahli Parlimen dari parti Islam yang memperjuangkan keadilan untuk semua walaupun orang Hindu. Seperti kisah seorang raja Islam di Mysore, Bangalore, India pada abad ke 18 yang bernama Sultan Fateh Ali Khan Tippu (Tippu Sultan). Rakyatnya terdiri daripada orang Islam, Hindu dan Sikh. Hingga ke hari ini rakyat India masih menceritakan mengenai pemerintahan beliau yang berasaskan Islam sebagai sebuah pemerintahan yang adil.

Semoga Allah memberkati kita semua dan memimpin kita ke jalan yang diRedhaiNya.

وسلام عليكم و السلام على من التبع الهدى
YB KHALID BIN ABDUL SAMAD
Ahli Parlimen Shah Alam

Nonverbal Obama: Aside From His Words

I figured many Malaysians (especially politicians, would-be and long-suffering ones) would be interested in William A. Gentry's essay in Businessweek on the body language that President Obama conveyed when he was delivering his Inaugural Address. So here it is in full:

President Barack Obama's inaugural address today offered his first official opportunity to set the tone and share his vision for his fledgling Administration. In addressing fellow Americans for the first time as President—against the backdrop of a severe recession marked by massive layoffs, foreclosures, and numerous other problems—it was critical for Obama to inspire hope and project confidence.

The words he used were essential to his message. But his nonverbal behaviors were just as important, if not more so, in getting his message across. Research shows nonverbal communication conveys as much as 93% of the emotional meaning behind what is said. People respond strongly to what they see, or to the tone of voice that is used to speak the words they hear. Everything from dress, the amount of physical space between the speaker and audience, hand gestures, posture, facial expression, and tone of voice can make or break a leader's message. With Obama on center stage, here is what I, a researcher and commentator on leadership and nonverbal communication, observed watching his inaugural address on television.

Leaders in general will use different nonverbal behaviors and actions when addressing a crowd or making a speech than they would in a one-on-one situation. For example, Obama made good use of eye contact with individuals during his debates with John McCain in the fall. During the beginning of his address today, however, he reached out to a large audience by talking to the extreme left and extreme right of the crowds and not focusing on smaller sections or individuals. It seemed he was concentrating more on trying to connect deeply with the many millions listening and watching on the national mall than with those viewing on television.

FEW HAND GESTURES

Though it is indeed a difficult task to engage millions of people spanning a lot of space and the temptation to play for those many millions watching on television screens the world over must have been great, Obama was able to hold the attention of those watching in person. His intelligent use of eye contact, constantly spanning the entire crowd rather than looking just in one particular place or speaking mostly to those nearest him, made him appear entirely aware of the enormity of the crowd that was intently listening to his words and vision.

I also noticed Obama's use of hand gestures. Research has shown that hand gestures are used more than smiles to address a large crowd because they are more visible. Normally, hand gestures are used to convey power and dominance. Obama used his hand gestures infrequently, mainly keeping them inside his body line, to emphasize points or key words.

Instead of relying on hand gestures, Obama chose tone of voice as his most evocative and powerful nonverbal behavior. He altered it frequently to match his message. The taking of the oath of office was not his strongest moment. Obama started making his declaration too soon, and there were some awkward moments of confusion between him and Chief Justice Roberts during the rest of the swearing-in. However, Obama's confident tone during his inaugural speech helped him recover his air of command and impart strong meaning to his words.

FORCEFUL TONE OF VOICE

In addition, he conveyed appropriate gravity when talking about all the problems and crises the nation faces, from a weak economy and costly health care to failing schools and poor energy policies. And his tone of voice became louder and his delivery more confident and steadfast when he declared that these problems and challenges will be met. In stark contrast, his tone became more quiet and inviting as he pledged to work closely with countries around the world.

I was also struck by Obama's facial expressions, or lack thereof. He did not smile excessively during his inaugural address, which appropriately and respectfully reflected the serious times in which we live. He conveyed a powerful sense of optimism and a compelling vision of a brighter future more through his tone of voice than any other nonverbal behavior. His words were, as usual, eloquent. His tone of voice especially drove those words to those in person in Washington and to people like me, watching on television or on the Internet around the world.

Obama's inaugural address was honest, motivational, and inspirational, which a speech by a leader at such a critical point of time needs to be. I felt that the tone of his first Presidential address to the people of the United States was serious yet optimistic, as befits the challenges ahead. When addressing followers for the first time, especially when bad news and distress are top of mind for those to whom he is speaking, a leader needs to be authentic, visionary, inspirational, and charismatic.

Through Obama's nonverbal communication, he conveyed to people who listened to and viewed his speech that he understands the seriousness of the crises and challenges ahead, the importance of reaching out to both allies and enemies, and that he is confident but not arrogant about his ability to lead.

Leadership: Never Waste A Crisis

Despite all the different issues that top leaders are facing, there is a commonality to great leaders in times like these. It can be summed up in the phrase used by Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff-designate, Never waste a crisis.

None of us yet know how hard the economic challenges are going to be, in 2009. But beyond the current events lies interesting opportunities.

What steps can leaders take to move on the opportunities, while at the same time paying attention to all the demands of the moment? What can great leaders do to move decisively forward in a world turned upside down?

.

First, figure out how to survive. Given that, leaders need a plan that allows them to move fast, faster than before.

Many economies either didn't see or didn't believe common metrics of economic and financial distress before the recent crash and crisis. What metrics should a leader be looking at now? Which ones from the past still give useful leading indicators? What else might leaders need to look at?

Leaders need to be systematic and transparent about balancing optimism with realism in the current plan for economic stimulation.

A good leader must increase his or her forums for listening at the edges, for creative dissent. The leader must ensure that he or she has an inner circle of people who will never allow the leader to fall into the destructive cycle of hubris and denial.

Second, the leader needs to ask what can be done now that couldn't be done before. This is the crux of successfully taking advantage of a world turned upside down. How can the leader position himself or herself now, so that he or she will be better off than before, once the turmoil is over?

Does the current turmoil accelerate and even necessitate major shifts in tactics and strategies in the next 12 months--shifts that better position the whole party or organisation but would have been impossible to execute just six months ago?

Does this crisis allow the leader to dramatically improve loyalty? Are there things the party or organisation can do that will make a difference to people caught in these difficult times?

And within the leader's own organization, is the leader facing squarely how quickly the dynamics of talent retention have changed?

What might a good leader do differently to increase the party or organisation's talent base?

The leader needs to ask himself or herself: Might this be a time to promote some of the best high potential people, without worrying if someone else feels passed by?

This is an opportunity for the leader to reorient the party and organization around value, in terms of roles and responsibilities.

.

No whining. The leader may find himself or herself thinking, more than once, I didn't create this crisis. Why me? Why should I be stuck with dealing with it?

It's very tempting to feel aggrieved, but, instead, the leader should step back and ask himself or herself in the truest spirit of Norman Vincent Peale, Why not me?

Leaders in crisis put aside that very understandable anger and instead are glad, even honored, that they are in a position to respond to a once-in-a-lifetime set of circumstances.

The leader needs to remember that the people around him or her may be dealing with the fallout of the crisis in many ways that may not be visible. The leader needs to have compassion for them, and mitigate their hardships with opportunity, inspiration and the call to hard work.

Beyond this crisis is a new landscape, one that will define the arcs of opportunity and prosperity for decades to come.

The leader needs to uncover the opportunities that reach beyond survival, guide the country, economy or organisation to get there and extend a helping hand to as many as possible along the way.

The costs of the economic turmoil are high--way too high to go to waste.

P.S. The above may also be applicable to political turmoils.

Najib eager to avoid Fourth Floor syndrome

This Malaysian Insider report entitled Najib eager to avoid Fourth Floor syndrome is interesting in the aspect of skullduggery and speculation. Reports like these are indulgent of the chicanery and gossip-mongering that typifies politics and governance in Malaysia.

If we were to trouble ourselves to look at this matter from the prism of governance, it will be evident that the presence of personalised advisers with such proximity to the leader emulates the style of constitutional democracy practiced by the United States of America.

In the US model, the Executive branch of government is formed by 2 elected politicians, namely, the President and the Vice President. The President, in particular, has a carte blanche discretion to appoint personal advisers and Cabinet members. The personal advisers are directly appointed. Cabinet appointees have th sucessfully run the gauntlet of scrutiny of the Legislative branch of government in the form of the Congress.

Lest we conveniently forget, Malaysia practices a parliamentary democracy that originated from the Westminster model from the United Kingdom. A Prime Minister, in this model, may have political secretaries and parliamentary secretaries. Private secretaries are also employed. But other types of advisers that have no official role are regarded with great scepticism.

Our first three Prime Ministers practiced governance in the conventional parliamentary method. The departure from this approach came with Dr M who leapfrogged past the official coterie of support staff and inner office staff. It may well be that as the innovator of this decidedy un-parliamentary and un-Cabinet and un-Civil Service approach, Dr M was, in turn, sceptical of the calcified characters clinging to the corridors of power.

Dr M, as we all know, was at all times a political leader in search of a fresh perspective. He was an exemplar of (with apologies to Robert Frost) the road less traveled. In so doing, he sought and, consistently acknowledged personalised advise. In this sense, Dr M created a precedent of sorts.

Given that Dr M's shadow writ large for more than 2 decades it should not be too surprising that this aspect of, what I am calling, extra-Executive approach to governance, particularly on economics management and policy-formulation, came to be regarded as the modus operandi by his immediate successor.

Perhaps it is just as well that this so-called Fourth Floor issue is lingering because, like anyone who reads the Tao Te-ching will be aware, by pointing to the thing that is apparent, we also show what is absent.

.

What is absent and, has been absent for far too long is the twin departments that had proven to be so invaluable in past administrations. They are the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) and the Implementation and Co-ordination Unit (ICU).

Remember EPU and ICU?
.

Whether it is a branding issue or, otherwise, I'm not sure. But in 1997 the NEAC was created. It tended to supplant the EPU.

Now we have an Economic Council which is also supplanting the EPU.

The EPU is now a mere shadow of its former self. It has become a rubber-stamp to put into its letterhead the proposals originating from the advisers. EPU's current role is so restricted that the impression one gets is that now the EPU only prepares FIC Applications and modifies FIC Guidelines.

What has happened to the EPU and ICU?

If there is calcification in the rank and file then, change the staff.

To borrow a phrase from David Halberstam, EPU and ICU and the rest of the Prime Mnister's Department should be employing the best and brightest.

Then and, only then, can future Prime Ministers wean themselves from this need for extra-Executive advisers...unless there are other reasons for retaining such advisers that escape my limited imagination.

Leadership lesson from Obama

This passage from an essay written by Joe Klein in Time was resonant. In my opinion, this piece, read in its entirety, describes the key reason why the Americans should vote for Obama, particularly in relation to the economic turmoil and the Iraq war. Obama has demonstrable instincts as a true leader. He is measured and considered in his thoughts, words and deed. This extract does not do justice to Joe Klein's piece which should be read in its entirety. Malaysia's political leaders of every shade should read it for its description of how to behave as a leader. But, as a teaser, I give you this extract. I have highlighted the pertinent lines that resonated with me. Read the full essay here.

I asked Obama about gut decisions, in an interview on his plane 17 days before the election. It was late on a Saturday night, and he looked pretty tired, riddled with gray hair and not nearly as young as when I'd first met him four years earlier. He had drawn 175,000 people to two events in Missouri that day, larger crowds than I'd ever seen at a campaign event, and he would be endorsed by Colin Powell the next morning.

He seemed as relaxed as ever, though, unfazed by the hoopla or the imminence of the election. Our conversation was informal but intense. He seemed to be thinking in my presence, rather than just reciting talking points, and it took him some time to think through my question about gut decisions.

He said the first really big one was how to react when incendiary videos of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black-nationalist sermons surfaced last spring. "The decision to make it big as opposed to make it small," Obama said of the landmark speech on race relations he delivered in Philadelphia. "My gut was telling me that this was a teachable moment and that if I tried to do the usual political damage control instead of talking to the American people like ... they were adults and could understand the complexities of race, I would be not only doing damage to the campaign but missing an important opportunity for leadership."

5 qualities of a good leader

This is the season for change. Many Malaysian political parties are getting ready for general assemblies to elect or, re-elect new leaders. In places like the U.S., financial crisis has also brought into stark relief leadership qualities of political and economic leadership.

It is, therefore, pertinent to renew the inquiry into the elements that make a good and, effective leader. The key qualities that a leader must have, have been debated time and again. The list can be rather long. My short-list are:
..
1. Vision
A leader must have a vision. That means having a reasonably clear idea of where you want to take the country or company. It is best to be able to put on paper exactly what that vision is. If you can't put your vision in writing, then it is likely that you don't have one.

2. Communication
A leader needs to have the skill to communicate his or her vision. Without communication skills your followers and the rest of the stakeholders whose lives and careers you affect, will have no clue about the direction you are taking the party or company. This will create dysfunction and, likely discord.

3. Passion
A leader must have passion. As a leader, you have to show your team that you want to accomplish the goal badly. Your passion will drive them towards the goal and achieve your vision.

4. Decision-making
A leader must be a great decision maker. Often, leaders face times of crisis or great pressure where they are forced to make quick decisions. A leader must have this skill. This quality includes team building skills. The ability to delegate responsibility to team members is important. But be careful not to abdicate control. A leader needs to project trust. But, the trust is conditional upon the need for feedback and follow-up action. This means maintaining the action as an agenda for the next meetings until the task is completed. Otherwise, dysfunction and discord will set in.

5. Character
A leader must have character. This means being able to project not only strength but, virtue. If the leader is corrupt and crony-laden (this applies to politics and business), followers will mirror these qualities. A selfish leader cannot inspire virtue. He can project strength, of course, through fear and intimidation. But the values will be negative ones. Loyalty will be at a premium.

In the real world that we live in we see many leaders having some of these qualities but the absence of others. No one is perfect. Perhaps the idea is to identify a leader or, be a leader with the least imperfection.