Do you really need to go to school to know right from wrong?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Political parties, civil servants the most corrupt: reportKaren Arukesamy, The Sun
PETALING JAYA (June 3, 2009) : Malaysians generally consider political parties and civil service to be the most corrupt groups, and the government's anti-corruption drive to be ineffective, the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) report revealed.
The GCB, a global public opinion survey of 73,000 respondents from 69 countries, commissioned by Transparency International, found that political parties were perceived to be the most corrupt by 42% of respondents, while 37% picked civil service institutions.
About 12% of respondents rate the business and private sector as the third most corrupt in Malaysia.
In a survey conducted globally from October last year to February, in which Malaysia participated for the first time, 67% of respondents believe the government's efforts in fighting corruption is ineffective, leaving Malaysia way behind Indonesia where 74% of respondents said the government was effectively fighting graft.
Transparency International-Malaysia (TI-M) president Datuk Paul Low said: "The reason could be the lack of transparency and disclosures in the funding of political parties. Nobody knows how the campaigns and activities of political parties are funded, in both the Barisan Nasional and opposition parties."
"If political parties want to be perceived to be less corrupt, they should increase visibility of the sources of political funding, which may require making some changes to electoral laws," he said.
"We also need to eliminate money politics," Low said, adding that this includes crossovers between parties involving money.
He said political parties should also submit financial statements which should be made public.
Malaysia's regular spot in the Corruption Perception Index is close to five out of 10 and last year it ranked 47th out of 180 countries.
Low said TI-M, with its expertise and knowledge, was willing to work with the government to fight graft because it affects the poor the most.
The barometer showed that the poorest families continue to be punished by demands for petty bribe.
"Across the board, low income respondents were more likely to meet demands for bribes than high income respondents. Additionally, petty bribery was found to be on the rise in many regions, compounding the already difficult situation of low income households, as jobs and incomes dwindle in the economic downturn," Low said.
The report found that in Malaysia, 9% of respondents offered bribes in some form in the last 12 months.
Low said that in some countries poor citizens had to pay a bribe just to get their children into school, receive medical treatment in hospitals, or to have water services connected -- the most basic rights as citizens.
"The other area of interest is the 12% who voted the private sector. Although we are not as bad as other countries, corruption in the private sector is on the rise and must be dealt with seriously.
"It has to be tackled at the enterprise or corporate level. The CEO or board of directors will have to set the tone to fight graft. Put in place an anti-bribery policy and a whistle-blowing policy, and integrity agreements must be signed between companies and vendors."
Many of my friends are no longer my friends. I am talking about my Malay friends in particular. This is because they are very irritated and upset about my articles on Islam. They feel I have gone overboard in insulting Islam. As much as I stress, again and again, it is not Islam but Muslims, in particular Malay Muslims, that I tegur (tegur, which is a Malay word, could mean chastises, take to task, remind, etc.), they still insist it is Islam I am insulting.
Anyway, they are entitled to their opinion, as everyone is, and I can’t change their mind if they insist on taking that view. But one thing that seems to escape them is that it is the duty, that means mandatory, for all Muslims to point out the transgressions of fellow-Muslims. This is called nahi munkar in Islam. It is not optional. It is not something you can choose to do or not to do. It is something you must do.
I suppose the only way they can rebut what I write would be to accuse me of insulting Islam. Then the ‘crime’ would be transferred to me rather than them. To acknowledge that I am merely fulfilling my Islamic duty would mean they are endorsing my actions. And if they endorse my actions then they have to argue where I have erred or counter my arguments with facts. Since they are not able to do that then they accuse me of insulting Islam and leave it at that. No longer do they need to rebut what I say or engage me in any debate to prove me wrong.
One ‘traditional’ argument they use is to accuse me of being jahil (ignorant) of Islam. I should stop talking about Islam because I am not learned in matters involving Islam. I should first go learn Islam from an ulamak (learned man) before I attempt to talk about Islam. I am speaking like a five-year old child, and so on and so forth.
I have heard it all before, many times. They assume I have never studied Islam. They also assume that if I did study Islam it could not have been from an ulamak. And judging by my comments it appears like I never touched a kitab (religious book) in my life. This assumption is based on my comments and views.
How did they arrive at this conclusion without actually knowing my background? Did they grow up with me and know for a fact I never went to religious school? Or is this opinion based merely on reading what I write?
It is quite simply, really. If I say or write something that is opposite to what they believe then this means I am ignorant and never studied Islam. But if I say or write something that is exactly what they believe then I am a learned person who probably spent many years studying Islam.
In short, the yardstick they use is tied to whether my opinions are the same as theirs or opposite to theirs. If they are the same then I am learned but if they differ then I am ignorant.
These people fail to see that when they use their view of things to determine if I am learned or ignorant, and I am learned or ignorant depending on how far my views are compared to theirs, this means they are establishing themselves as the yardstick. Is this not an arrogant approach?
Let me put it to you another way. If you share my views then you are learned. If you disagree with my views then you are ignorant. In short, I am learned and you will also be considered learned only if you say or write what I agree.
This is the way these people think. And when they criticise me as being ignorant because I have different views from them, they are actually claiming that they are learned and all those who do not agree with them are therefore ignorant. These are very pompous people indeed.
Okay, let us assume for the sake of argument that I am ignorant on matters related to Islam. Let us also assume that I never went to religious class to learn about Islam and therefore know nothing about Islam. So I am an ignoramus. We shall agree on that. Then read that article by The Sun above. Do I really need to go to religious class or go learn Islam from an ulamak to be able to understand that politicians and civil servants are amongst the most corrupted people in Malaysia? Seriously, do I need to go to an Islamic university to be able to write an opinion about how bad corruption is and that not only Islam but all religions condemn corruption?
Even if they are right in that I am ignorant about Islam and do not have the qualifications to talk about Islam, you really do not need to go to school or have any qualifications to know the difference between right and wrong. Common sense is enough and that is all it takes. And surely God gave all of us brains for a reason. Even non-Muslims understand that. And you need not go to an Islamic university to understand that.
Political parties, civil servants the most corrupt: reportKaren Arukesamy, The Sun
PETALING JAYA (June 3, 2009) : Malaysians generally consider political parties and civil service to be the most corrupt groups, and the government's anti-corruption drive to be ineffective, the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) report revealed.
The GCB, a global public opinion survey of 73,000 respondents from 69 countries, commissioned by Transparency International, found that political parties were perceived to be the most corrupt by 42% of respondents, while 37% picked civil service institutions.
About 12% of respondents rate the business and private sector as the third most corrupt in Malaysia.
In a survey conducted globally from October last year to February, in which Malaysia participated for the first time, 67% of respondents believe the government's efforts in fighting corruption is ineffective, leaving Malaysia way behind Indonesia where 74% of respondents said the government was effectively fighting graft.
Transparency International-Malaysia (TI-M) president Datuk Paul Low said: "The reason could be the lack of transparency and disclosures in the funding of political parties. Nobody knows how the campaigns and activities of political parties are funded, in both the Barisan Nasional and opposition parties."
"If political parties want to be perceived to be less corrupt, they should increase visibility of the sources of political funding, which may require making some changes to electoral laws," he said.
"We also need to eliminate money politics," Low said, adding that this includes crossovers between parties involving money.
He said political parties should also submit financial statements which should be made public.
Malaysia's regular spot in the Corruption Perception Index is close to five out of 10 and last year it ranked 47th out of 180 countries.
Low said TI-M, with its expertise and knowledge, was willing to work with the government to fight graft because it affects the poor the most.
The barometer showed that the poorest families continue to be punished by demands for petty bribe.
"Across the board, low income respondents were more likely to meet demands for bribes than high income respondents. Additionally, petty bribery was found to be on the rise in many regions, compounding the already difficult situation of low income households, as jobs and incomes dwindle in the economic downturn," Low said.
The report found that in Malaysia, 9% of respondents offered bribes in some form in the last 12 months.
Low said that in some countries poor citizens had to pay a bribe just to get their children into school, receive medical treatment in hospitals, or to have water services connected -- the most basic rights as citizens.
"The other area of interest is the 12% who voted the private sector. Although we are not as bad as other countries, corruption in the private sector is on the rise and must be dealt with seriously.
"It has to be tackled at the enterprise or corporate level. The CEO or board of directors will have to set the tone to fight graft. Put in place an anti-bribery policy and a whistle-blowing policy, and integrity agreements must be signed between companies and vendors."
Many of my friends are no longer my friends. I am talking about my Malay friends in particular. This is because they are very irritated and upset about my articles on Islam. They feel I have gone overboard in insulting Islam. As much as I stress, again and again, it is not Islam but Muslims, in particular Malay Muslims, that I tegur (tegur, which is a Malay word, could mean chastises, take to task, remind, etc.), they still insist it is Islam I am insulting.
Anyway, they are entitled to their opinion, as everyone is, and I can’t change their mind if they insist on taking that view. But one thing that seems to escape them is that it is the duty, that means mandatory, for all Muslims to point out the transgressions of fellow-Muslims. This is called nahi munkar in Islam. It is not optional. It is not something you can choose to do or not to do. It is something you must do.
I suppose the only way they can rebut what I write would be to accuse me of insulting Islam. Then the ‘crime’ would be transferred to me rather than them. To acknowledge that I am merely fulfilling my Islamic duty would mean they are endorsing my actions. And if they endorse my actions then they have to argue where I have erred or counter my arguments with facts. Since they are not able to do that then they accuse me of insulting Islam and leave it at that. No longer do they need to rebut what I say or engage me in any debate to prove me wrong.
One ‘traditional’ argument they use is to accuse me of being jahil (ignorant) of Islam. I should stop talking about Islam because I am not learned in matters involving Islam. I should first go learn Islam from an ulamak (learned man) before I attempt to talk about Islam. I am speaking like a five-year old child, and so on and so forth.
I have heard it all before, many times. They assume I have never studied Islam. They also assume that if I did study Islam it could not have been from an ulamak. And judging by my comments it appears like I never touched a kitab (religious book) in my life. This assumption is based on my comments and views.
How did they arrive at this conclusion without actually knowing my background? Did they grow up with me and know for a fact I never went to religious school? Or is this opinion based merely on reading what I write?
It is quite simply, really. If I say or write something that is opposite to what they believe then this means I am ignorant and never studied Islam. But if I say or write something that is exactly what they believe then I am a learned person who probably spent many years studying Islam.
In short, the yardstick they use is tied to whether my opinions are the same as theirs or opposite to theirs. If they are the same then I am learned but if they differ then I am ignorant.
These people fail to see that when they use their view of things to determine if I am learned or ignorant, and I am learned or ignorant depending on how far my views are compared to theirs, this means they are establishing themselves as the yardstick. Is this not an arrogant approach?
Let me put it to you another way. If you share my views then you are learned. If you disagree with my views then you are ignorant. In short, I am learned and you will also be considered learned only if you say or write what I agree.
This is the way these people think. And when they criticise me as being ignorant because I have different views from them, they are actually claiming that they are learned and all those who do not agree with them are therefore ignorant. These are very pompous people indeed.
Okay, let us assume for the sake of argument that I am ignorant on matters related to Islam. Let us also assume that I never went to religious class to learn about Islam and therefore know nothing about Islam. So I am an ignoramus. We shall agree on that. Then read that article by The Sun above. Do I really need to go to religious class or go learn Islam from an ulamak to be able to understand that politicians and civil servants are amongst the most corrupted people in Malaysia? Seriously, do I need to go to an Islamic university to be able to write an opinion about how bad corruption is and that not only Islam but all religions condemn corruption?
Even if they are right in that I am ignorant about Islam and do not have the qualifications to talk about Islam, you really do not need to go to school or have any qualifications to know the difference between right and wrong. Common sense is enough and that is all it takes. And surely God gave all of us brains for a reason. Even non-Muslims understand that. And you need not go to an Islamic university to understand that.
No comments:
Post a Comment