Bar Council Forum: Why we still fail to understand one another (update 5.45pm)
Update 5.45pm: You won’t find me making excuses for anyone who behaved badly during this incident. Calls to storm a building and other such nonsense are inexcusable. That said, don’t forget to read very carefully the rest of the story as well, and note who said what, and who did what.
The other thing all should look out for in the aftermath: who is saying (”boring”) things that may help the healing process, and who are saying vengeful, lepas-stim things to pander to popular sentiment and score some political points. This is a time to lead public opinion, not follow it. Big picture all, big picture; it is a time for statesmen, not for street fighters.
*
There is bound to be a severe ripples of disappointment surrounding the outcome of the Bar Council Forum on Conversion to Islam.
Before we harden ourselves into the same battle lines that have been drawn time and again, let us see if there we can traverse difficult roads to reach whatever middle ground may be left.
Proponents of religious freedom and non-Muslims in particular are likely to view the incident as a blow towards inter-religious harmony, the rights of non-Muslims, and mature dialogue.
I confess that to an extent, I share the disappointment of those who feel that an opportunity to engage carefully and rationally in a meaningful exchange of perspectives from the entire spectrum of opinion over these contentious and impassioned issues has been lost.
Nonetheless, I would also invite those who see this as a black and white battle between those who would seek to encourage inter-religious understanding and harmony and those who seek to quash it to pause for thought. It is simply not that straightforward.
To understand, sacrifice
A considered survey of history will likely demonstrate that mutual understanding between parties that have different interests is seldom built without stepping outside one’s ideological comfort zones. In other words, unless we intend to impose it by force, we cannot expect a sustainable peace on purely our own terms.
I think this applies to both sides of the fence dividing current sentiment on the forum.
The question that I think is most important for Malaysians concerned about this issue is: how much are we willing to sacrifice to truly understand one another?
That such an understanding is lacking seems fairly obvious; Saturday morning clearly attests to that.
The Bar Council should be lauded for attempting to further such an understanding through their forum. However, the backlash they unfortunately suffered suggests that this attempt was made on their own terms; an attempt to appreciate the feelings of others was definitely present, but sadly it may not have proved to have been enough.
True understanding cannot be achieved unless all parties feel comfortable being part of the process.
It is unfortunately not at the end of the day relevant, that the discomfort of certain parties may arise from things that do not seem rational to the rest.
In hindsight, the mutual understanding that the Bar Council attempted to further was a doomed project. Is this their fault for not reaching out in the right way? Or does the fault lay in the protesters for not being open-minded enough to the process?
Once again, the stark truth is that your feeling or mine on these questions are not what truly matters.
What truly matters is that we continue to think of a successful way for us to reach that mutual understanding, even though it may require painful compromises on both sides.
Walking before running
The primary sacrifice that need be made is ideological; we simply cannot assume others to have the same ideological framework that we do. If we truly want to achieve understanding, we must understand the passions of others, no matter how illogical or irrational they may seem to us, and respond to them accordingly and effectively.
Once we can start planning strategies to achieve understanding that are based firmly on an appreciation for the true feelings of others, a glimmer of hope for success will show itself.
As a non-Muslim myself, perhaps I can articulate this better for fellow non-Muslims. We must understand that what seems to us on paper and in reality as a harmless forum that is not only entirely sincere in its attempt to further interreligious harmony, but also a forum that is concerned primarily with technical issues of law (and thus in essence neutral), is simply not understood that way by others.
This is a sentiment that would be foolhardy to judge too harshly.
Attempting to force those made uncomfortable by the forum to see said forum in the neutral light you or I might by exercising the mighty hammer of logic and reason is likely to be futile. These are not the bricks on which understanding is built.
Politics teaches us that perception, tragically, must sometimes come first.
We must instead understand and fully appreciate the gap that already exists between those who feel strongly on these issues. We must know where and how to begin; we must walk before we can run.
I stand firm in my commitment to the need for dialogue and remain unconvinced that sweeping things under the carpet is any foundation for lasting harmony. However, while many may share goals, our tactics sometimes need refinement.
Instead of running with our passions, let us consider again how we should walk. What are the paths we can take to reach a place where the more moderate from both sides of the fence (and there are more than you think) feel comfortable coming together?
Finding these paths require great effort; finding the right venue, the right topic, the right convener - all these speak of negotiations, compromise, and most of all, headaches. Nonetheless, they remain the crucial elements for finding the exact spot in which the smallest seeds of true understanding and dialogue can be planted and grown.
Patience in finding that right meeting ground or the right aegis for a discussion, I feel, will be met with marvelous results.
Hope
As with every word I have ever written, I invite Malaysians not to despair, but to hope.
Some may be disillusioned with Pakatan leaders who appeared on the ‘wrong’ side of the divide that Saturday morning. I call to mind the manner in which older democracies do not have such things as a singular party policy on any one issue, but consist of leaders each with their own conscience.
Plurality of opinion is the hallmark of any mature society, and if we can persevere, we too will reap the best fruits of diversity.
Yes, it is a long hard road; and yes, we will continue to be frustrated repeatedly along the way.
Still, as with all those religious, have faith. Malaysians, experience suggests, are not given to intentionally offending others. Once we take courage to step outside our convictions for but a moment in order to understand those of others, we may see how and why we continually offend one another - and thus take the first step towards healing.
We must agree to disagree otherwise we will not moving any where. The muslims friends shall be given a rights to express their feelings towards the forum but I dont feel its right way to provoke and stop the forum in half way. I’m wondering on why our man in blue fail was so pleasing the crowd rather than the forum which was done in profesionnal manner. If we havent cant have a professional dialogue then how are we going to move forward together.
It will be a long road ahead.
For now, my bet is that the incident was incited by some narrow-minded interest groups with selfish political agenda.
The long road is to educate Malaysians not to fall into the trap of such people.
From Racism to Satanism
1. If anyone thinks as a Malaysian at heart you will never support any of the current political parties who speaks only about championing or protecting their own race and religious interests. Whether it comes from UMNO, PAS, MCA, MIC, PKR, Gerakan, Hindraf, PBS, DAP, PPP or whatever new name it’s called racism and whoever supports that party is called a racist. It is no different from apartheid. It dirties and poison your soul.
2. Those who are racists but speak with a fork tongue (Jeyklls), hiding it behind other causes like religion, meritocracy, education, poverty etc are even worse than clear cut racists and can only fit into the category of satans.
3. Malaysian racists and the MSN have corrupted the following words which meant differently in other countries ex. nationalism, patriotism, royalists, freedom, liberty, corruption, democracy etc.
4. Power, Greed and Selfishness rule in Malaysia and now we include Racism and Satanism.
More facts at http://patek1472.wordpress.com
I voted for the opposition in the last elections.next elections I’m not so sure.To see Y.B Zulkifli of PKR BEHAVING IN SUCH A FASHION will surely cause shockwaves amongst Indians and Chinese in this country.
Nathaniel,from your heart can you really tell me that PKR/PAS is going to be any different from the current government?
It will be interesting to see how DAP responds to this.
Maybe you should speak to your friend and colleague (or is it former) Zulkifli Noordin about his provocative and outrageous behaviour today and in his blog posting ‘Islam di hina’. I’m warning PKR, that this man Zulkifli “Rempuh” Noordin is another Ezam in the making.
What separates him from the UMNO contestant in Bandar Kulim then?
Wow, I am impressed to see the maturity and intelligence in Nat’s writing. This is my first visit to this blog. I congratulate you bro, whatever said above is very wise and correct.
Mr Ram, I will answer for Nathaniel - yes PKR/PAS will definitely be different and better than the current government. Grow up and do not expect people to have identical opinions to yours, in order to be good and just governance. What is wrong with PAS’ Kelantan government for the past 3 decades? What is wrong with PR’s government in Kedah and Perak? Please do not challenge me to tell you what is wrong with BN, as it will take thousands of pages…
This forum is a place for discussing issues that affect non-muslim families in a syariah vs civil court jurisdiction. Usually it was the non-musllim family members that face the most heart-breaking traumas as there are not much choices they have under the context of no rights of intereference of Islamic affairs by civil courts.
All the while these had been swept under the carpet as the religious authorities and muslim community don’t quite care what feelings that non-muslims have in these cases. This is a very selfish and bullying behaviour for a major race and religion to have.
I don’t understand what they stand to gain to neglect the feelings of non-muslims in this country. After all this land belongs to all of us, not only a single race, right? Actually what’s in muslims’ minds about the future of this country? A dominantly Islamic state without any trace of other people or cultures? Why are they so self-centered and self-righteous all the time?
Just a bunch of brainless people sending in the wrong messages.. Hey!! we are lining in the 21st century so why are you behaving this way??? Call ourselve a civilise nation…What rubbish.
Dear Nat,
Just 2 points I wish to share with you. Kindly bear with me please. I was there at the place but I did not notice your presence.
First.
Islam is surely strange to many of you because islam is never a manmade ideology (it is the true teaching of God). Thus we need to discuss issues in islam in a certain manner that would not jeopardize its true teachings. We are really afraid that Islam would be misrepresented in such a forum like this. I really think that this is the most important issue/reason here. We have to find a better way, that’s all to it.
In islam the preservation of the true teaching of God is of the utmost importance. As important as to the reason why God has sent a lot of messengers to mankind throughout history. It is too make sure the teaching of God well preserved from our father (the prophet Adam) until future generation of our children and grandchildren and to all nation.
Probably now you can understand why we cannot accept Islam Hadhari (no matter how sweet smelling it may be). For we can only accept the truth from God no matter how painful and bitter it may be to us.
Second.
We need other people to respect our religion as we respect other religion. We never go poking into sensitive issues of other religion. Nobody is ever forced into this religion of God (as shown throughout the history - right from the time of the Adam the first man of earth – the great grandfather of you and me). But the truth is that the very moment a human being willingly enter islam he/her is actually signing a lifelong contract with God to stand to his/her belief in the oneness of God. So this contract is not only valid in Malaysia (because it is not made in Malaysia) but everywhere in his lifetime. And sorry to say that nobody can ever change that contract.
So clearly only two important reasons as stated above highlighted on this sad to say forum. If you wish to understand.
Thank you.
BN Umno instigated the confusion.
Many got entraped by UMNO’s scheming .
Wisdom has prevailed.
Syabas Barisan Rakyat.
Pakatan’s politically driven demonstrations = People with “a cause”, fighting for justice.
Muslim’s protesting against others from meddling in their religion = street fighters (apparently)????
Hypocrisy runs deep here.
After so many explanation and reasons given by Zulkifli, i wonder why he decided not to take part in the forum to express his views and engage in the civilized discussion?
His action taken later was deeply regreted and a disgrace to tarnish the image of his party PKR which upholds the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I think some of us are very racist in nature when we comment on our muslim friends…just read some of the comments. I think some of us are no different…just think about it and think hard about how this forum was intended to be conducted. Issues of this nature can be discussed and resolved in many ways, a public forum is definitely not one of them. Lest not forget, the official religion is Islam, jurisdiction under the Sultans and states…think hard. I personally think there are certain characters in the Bar Council who are overzealous and being callous and irresponsible…
The recent protest against open forum organised by Malaysian Bar Council on Islamic conversion showed that Malaysia Malays not prepared to discuss openly relating to their religion.
The non-malay/islam people never provoke any unwanted things but it was them whom star calling non-malay BABI BALIK CHINA.
Remember Malaysia not belongs to one race/religion. Even the history will tell us who are native people of this country. Plse have some respect for non-malay/islam citizen.
For a forum discussing issues related to Islam, regardless whether it mainly involves the concerns of non muslims, I suggest any Islamic body to be the initiator, instead of members from the Bar Council who are non muslims in majority.
Same goes for any forum discussing any other faiths…it should be initiated by people from tht faith.
Why is it the BAR counsel must insist that we gave up our inalienable and cultural rights so they in the BAR can have their desires. So because you are 2nd & 3rd generations we must simply trash our traditions. Why can’t you live in peace with us Muslims. Why are you pushing us? What makes you “BAR” think that your desires are acceptable for us Muslims? Why it is that you pretend to act as if your new way should take precedent over our lives. Our way of life was always openly govern conducive and influenced society, we are not as others however be it that you came or were borne here you can’t simply deem our way of life and our valued laws unacceptable. Having said that; you have had your communities with your customs even your own languages and class systems some of it boarding on unjust and racial undertones yet we don’t interfere. What will it take for you all (BAR) to stop this encroachment? Is it a western democratisation as in Iraq you are seeking? God Forbid! Let us all learn to appreciate what we have than delve into the unknown. The 1980-90s should have taught us enough . It is better to have the peace than to all have our own inequitable share.
Nat. Please dont go round in circles. Cant people talk about the issues which affect them? Why not come for the dialogue and help those who are not of our(Islam) religion understand? What happened to liberal, moderate Islam? Before anyone has uttered a word than there were all those threats and foaming at the mouth. At least listen to what people have to say first. You are young man. You can bet for the rest of your life you will not be allowed to dialogue with our liberal Muslims brothers.
The Muslims in the west are writing petitions and making public demands to have dialogues with the followers of other religions. That is because they are in the minority. But where Muslims are in the majority….there will be no dialogue. If you ask them for dialogue they will say that you are not sensitive to them or their religion. How to talk?
The situation is not going to be better. It will be worst. BN, PR no matter. Keep on hoping young man ..I was in your shoes once…
What we need are statesmen, indeed. Muslim statesmen, men who are willing to go against perceived popular sentiment and haul the Muslims (and by extension, the Malays) to the discussion table.
What saddens me most about what happened today and the lead up to it was that the protests against the forum did not once touch on the actual subject of the forum, and the plight of the non-Muslims who felt that their rights were taken away from them, against their will.
Whether it’s from GPMS, PAS, PKR, Pembela, KIMMA, and the rest, it was ostensibly a protest against challenges to the rights of Muslims … which was not, IMO, what the forum was about.
The protestors were holding placards which said “Jangan cabar Islam”, “Hidup Islam”, and “Jangan Bermain Api”. And not a single one of them seems to care about the “Other”, the ones who also want justice, understanding, compassion and fairness.
And the tragedy of it all, Nat me mate, is that there was not a single Malay-Muslim person of authority or influence who were willing to voice out in support of dialogue, in support of understanding. Not anyone from UMNO, PAS, ABIM, PKR. Not even Anwar.
Some Muslims have told me that I should not question Allah’s judgement, and that everything that happens has a hikmah. Well, as a Muslim myself, no, I do not question Allah’s judgement. I question man’s.
PKR MP BEHAVING LIKE A HOOLIGAN AND ON TV
DSAI CAN YOU CONTROL YOUR MP (ZULKIFLI)
IF NOT YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF LOSING IN
PERMATANG PAUH. THIS I CAN GUARANTEE.
Allow me to say my piece.
Islam is very vague , as different muslim interprets their own religion differently to the extend that islam “evolves”.
For us in Malaysia there are several main issues which are neglected , skipped and skirted by the government . Even all the so many sultans kept mum as quiet as a mummy.
I for one praises the Bar and those who took part in the forum.
It means that we have people seriously looking into and finding ways to resolve issues that even the sultans , pm , dpm ,ulamas will run away when they are the one who should solve the mess.
We all do need clear laws instead of having a game of ping-pong ball between islamic court and common law.
The government always washes their hands by saying respect the law and let the court decide.
But the court and judges are all indecisive and pushes cases to islamic court.
Most pressing issue will be snatching and kidnapping of dead copse. It is not a funny issue .
but such funny cases are happening at rampant.
Because we have a funny government trying to be funny.
When the bar sit down and discuss , funny people came to protest .
This means that some of the muslims really cannot be open to discussion . And they will go berserk just like what we get to see on TV news and movies.
But it is okay , we are cool if you all do NOT want to see any of us doing an open forum.
We can do live forum over the internet or blogs.
If we do a close forum, you cant take part.
We want the people to have a say.This is why the bar did the open forum . It is part of transparency.
As for some of the protesters from PR , just like any political party there bound to be funny people who are willing to go berserk. Same story from umno or bn.
In the case of umno, they are worse as some of them are ministers.
It is the right time to say goodbye , adious , sayonara , to Vision 2020.
As we have many people still living on tree’s top.
I think the voters in Permatang Pauh, at least the 30% of non-Malays, should send a VERY strong message to Anwar Ibrahim that they will not tolerate this kind of terrorism from PKR MP’s like Zulkifli and Pakatan component member PAS.
Either vote against Anwar or spoil your damn votes. Teach him a lesson so he can fix things before contesting again in 2012 or 2013.
Like you say Nat….we need to learn how to walk before learning how to run.
I think Pakatan Rakyat and Anwar Ibrahim have some learning to do with regards to walking, before fulfilling dreams to become the government.
Dear Nat,
I wish to add another point here.
Even our colonial master, the british, who were a big super power at that time and had had the expertise of colonising so many countries, did not dare to touch too much on islamic issues. (please refer to history) For that reason all matters regarding islamic jurisdiction and the malay tradition was under complete control of the Malay sultans. Why and why?
Was it because the british were that stupid or that weak? Do reason out my dear fellow countrymen and do have some respect.
In most parts of the world you will find that this sentiment among muslims is the same. (i am not quoting examples here). That is the reason western super powers are having tough times in iraq and afganistan. Some have already realised that islam is the only ideology that have the potential to challenge and overtake democracy in the near future.
Thank you.
There seems to be so much about PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin and his behavior on this incident. I think many have wrong expectation and understanding regarding party politics. I don’t know anything about him except he was supposed to give way for Anwar to recontest come Aug 19.
It’s amusing to read those views that they will abandon PR or Anwar Ibrahim because of the behavior of one Zulkifli Noordin. Please. Grow up as life is not a simple black and white. Do expect a wide range of opinions and politicians in a party or coalition. Do look at the big picture.
Nat, Thanks or the article. Measured and balanced. Also, great comments by Mr Guan Sin and Mr Perry. Malaysians have to grow and stop being emotional about every single small matter. Pakatan Rakyat is the best hope we have now to reform our society and Anwar Ibrahim is its best choice, for now. Please people mature and help Anwar get back in the Parliament. If in 5 years you feel BN has done better than PR, you can always swing you votes that way…
i feel the forum was kept at the wrong time. Why the rush now when the problems are over 50 years old. why not wait till the Permatang Pauh by elections?
As a non muslim i feel the topics need to be addressed, my deepest sympathies for the other parent who lost their children to the converted one, but why now? At this particular moment and time. It does not make any sense to me at all. Instead of helping DSAI, this is making things worse for him. So what is the actual motive for this forum.
A wrong is a wrong, Nat. You cannot parse the truth, though you might choose to obfuscate it. I could go on and on about how disappointed I am with the lack of decency shown by your fellow PKR member and the complete lack of empathy from your icon. Granted, he has his own problems. But, if he cannot rise above his personal ones, he does not deserve to rise to any position overseeing me and mine.
I sympathise for you, Nat. You have lost the high ground.
I fail to see why there is no outright condemnation by you or in PKR’s press statement or website against your Kulim MP Zulkifli Nordin demanded participants leave the forum. The Kulim Yg Berhormat had said (pointing at me), “She is not Bar Council member. She has to leave.”
Did the Yang Berhormat pay his RM 20 registration fee before entering with police escort to demand the organisers to wrap up and instructing attendees to leave? Did he have a police permit to particpate in such a race-hate filled gathering?
It is very hypocrtical of PKR which claims to champion freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression denying speakers from completing their sentences, ketuanan rakyat clamping down on such dialogues which had sought to find a resolve?
What has he and PRK to say of others whose hollering was race-incitement filled? Do attendees not have the human right to safety and listening objectively to different perspectives offered? Your PKR has clearly failed to state your position on this which suggests that your leaders had condoned the disgusting way the forum was forcibly closed with physical threats against organisers and participants.
Mohamed,
In your first posting, you said that the person who willingly embraces Islam is entering into a lifelong “contract”, etc.
You may be right on that but please understand that in many of the high-profile cases that have sprung up recently, the non-Muslim units(spouse, children, parents, grandparents, siblings, etc) of this man’s (or woman’s) family DID NOT sign on the dotted line as well. Some didn’t even know that the existing “contract” had been terminated or a new “contract” was signed.
Therein lies one of the issues, which to my layman’s (I am not a lawyer) simple mind, has not got anything to do with embracing the religion but everything to do with pre-embracing the religion.
As for the timing of the Forum - when will it ever be a good time ?
Is there a dalang behind this with politcal motives ? Maybe, if Zul Noordin proves to be a mole planted by the incumbent party.
But the bottom line is - the Bar Council acted within the law. The protestors acted outside the law. Mob rule won again.
Inter -religious dialogue ? Why aren’t we getting anywhere after so many years or is it because one group feels no need to sit at the table as it is perfect?
In the story of Camelot, it is said that King Arthur deliberately commissioned a round table to seat the 12 knights specifically so that no one could claim to be at the head of the table. Now, that is wisdom !!!
Artikel ini antara terbaik pernah aku baca, terbit dari minda seorang lelaki yang pernah ditahan polis suatu masa dahulu.
Jelas sekali kamu semakin matang, dan iya, aku setuju seratus sepuluh peratus dengan apa yang kamu sampaikan dalam artikel ini.
Dari komentar-komentar yang ditempelkan disini, saya dapat melihat satu persamaan yang amat TERANG antara komentar yang ada dan forum hari itu.
Disini, kecuali saya, semuanya berbahasa Inggeris dan mungkin juga berpelajaran tinggi.
Di forum itu, setahu saya, tiada perwakilan dari golongan konservatif.
Seperti yang Nat katakan, bagaimana untuk reach out sekiranya tidak disertakan sekali semua yang terbabit?
Apakah kita tuli kepada satu ‘permintaan’ dari mereka yang berdemo hari itu: Mengapa tidak seorang ulama (konservatif) dijemput untuk turut serta dalam dialog itu?
Maaf, mungkin terjemahan saya terhadap artikel yang baik sekali ini pincang, but I dont think so.
this is one of the best, most balanced and mature commentary on the subject which i have read thus far. congrats nat!
i think there are several questions which YB Zulkifli Nordin of PKR and YB Salehudin Ayob of PAS should answer:
1. if one of the ways to resolve this issue is for the government to re-examine and straighten out the confusions between the exact roles of the syariah and civil courts, then will these islamist groups are willing to put the *same* amount of pressure/protest on the government (be it the BN or the PR), as they did with the BAR council to force them to deal with this issue?
2. if they feel that the BAR council is threatening to undermine what has already been established in this matter, and that the BAR council have not the right credibility to discuss the matter, are these islamist groups then willing to take up the responsibility to organize and conduct their own forums, roadshows and lectures where their views on this matter will be explained?
3. some have argued that it is pointless to be part of the forum because the majority of the audience and speakers were non-muslims, and therefore the muslim participants will not be able to defend islam and no matter what happens, islam will always end up being on the losing side due to the overwhelming presence of non-muslims. but then, what is the point of preaching to the converted? whoever said that discussing such matters will be a walk in the park? are we going to back down simply because we think that it will be too hard or that our efforts will be futile? doesn’t our efforts count for nothing in the eyes of Allah even if we didn’t manage to reach our aims? do we stop trying simply because it is hard?
i think by making some concerted attempt to answer these questions, muslims and eventually malaysians will be able to gain some progress in this issue.
Hi Nat,
Confession: I have ‘copied’ your article in Malaysiakini and ‘pasted’ it on my blog - cos I really liked what you said; you said it so well; and I thought my friends could benefit from those wise words. So, thank you.
Pat
I agree with you, there needs to be more tolerance in Malaysia. Is it not something that we pride ourselves with?
However, perhaps it is instructive to remember that Muslims have not yet woke up and come to terms with modernity. Much less so in Malaysia, which also contributes to the problem (not to mention politicians).
As far as I can see, the Muslims are the ones who are problematic. If non Muslims aren’t able to understand, then it is incumbent to the Muslims to make them understand. so yeah. (of course, this is coming from a Muslim. I dare not put on others the blame when Muslims can rectify it easily)
We need discussions to move forwards.
Thank you for the article, it was very nice to read, and well read as well.
There is nothing wrong about trying to understand each other. But I must say that this is my unbiased view on this matter. The Bar Council was trying to be provocative. This is clear from the title of the forum. If you or any other person, truly put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim, you would feel the same dissatisfaction as most of us feel.
If the Bar Council want to discuss this issue that concerns the religion of Islam, why did they not engage an Islamic organization to talk it out? Why participate in a forum to discuss amongst themselves a topic they have no right to question?
The Bar Council claim that the protestors were being insensitive to freedom of speech when they themselves were being insensitive to feelings of the Muslim community. Hypocrites. They wanted a reaction and they certainly got one. Bravo.
It must be stressed that I strongly condemn the name calling of our fellow non- Muslim Malaysians by certain people. They who should be lambasted were only the people who chose to participate in the forum, those who chose to meddle in the religion of others and deprive them their religions honour.
We the Rakyat, should promote awareness of what Good Leadership & Good Governance is all about.
Below are The Seven Basic Principles of Public Life …. and the Benchmark for Good Governance.
PLEASE Pass these freely to those among us who care for the future of our beloved Country, MALAYSIA.
——————————————————————————–
These are:
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
——————————————————————————–
What is good governance?
The debate on the quality of governance has been clouded by a slew of slightly differing definitions and understanding of what is actually meant by the term. Typically, it is defined in terms of the mechanisms thought to be needed to promote it. For example, in various places, good governance has been associated with democracy and good civil rights, with transparency, with the rule of law, and with efficient public services.
Good governance
It is among other things participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable. And it promotes the rule of law. UNDP
It “… encompasses the role of public authorities in establishing the environment in which economic operators function and in determining the distribution of benefits as well as the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. OECD (www.oecd.org/dac/)
It is “… epitomized by predictable, open and enlightened policy making; a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; an executive arm of government accountable for its actions; and a strong civil society participating in public affairs; and all behaving under the rule of law. World Bank 1994: Governance: The World Bank’s Experience.
Mechanisms for assuring good governance have three key elements: Internal rules and restraints (for example, internal accounting and auditing systems, independence of the judiciary and the central bank, civil service and budgeting rules); Voice and partnership (for example, public-private deliberation councils, and service delivery surveys to solicit client feedback); and Competition (for example, competitive social service delivery, private participation in infrastructure, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and outright privatization of certain market-driven activities). WDR 1997.
In other cases, the definition of good governance goes further than mechanisms and proposes that good governance be equated with specific outcomes – in a Rawlsian sense of assuring that everyone, irrespective of social or economic status, has a voice in governing and receives just, fair, equitable treatment. For example, the UNDP notes that: Good governance is, among other things, participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable. And it promotes the rule of law. Good governance ensures that political, social and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources.”[1]
In general, this initiative will take as a starting point the five dimensions of good governance that was developed in the World Bank’s Corruption study for Europe and Central Asia and contained in the Bank’s most recent update of its public sector strategy: public sector management, competitive private sector, structure of government, civil society participation and voice, and political accountability.[2] This definition goes well beyond effective delivery of public services (even if that is a benchmark indicator of the quality of governance, a lightning rod for public sentiments about government, and a useful starting point for assessing the quality of governance). And it can also go well beyond the notion of “economic governance” which is typically the focus of most World Bank work on governance.
Of these dimensions, the most problematic for this work are those of civil society voice and participation and political accountability. However, the consensus of the team is that neither better public sector management nor a competitive private sector can be reliably and sustainably achieved without voice and accountability, especially in MNA countries which typically score low on measures of these indices.
——————————————————————————–
Civil Society Essential Benchmarks for WSIS
The essential benchmarks listed in this document reflect work in progress by the civil society content and themes group of the WSIS process. While there is consensus on the priorities stated here this document does not represent absolute consensus, nor does the order of the essential benchmarks constitute a strict ranking in order of importance. For more information on the WSIS CS CT group, contact: Sally Burch, Email : sburch@alainet.org
1. Introduction
The approach to the “Information Society” on which the WSIS has been based reflects, to a large extent, a narrow understanding in which ICTs means telecommunications and the Internet. This approach has marginalised key issues relating to the development potential inherent in the combination of knowledge and technology and thus conflicts with the broader development mandate given in UNGA Resolution 56/183.
Civil society is committed to a people-centred, inclusive approach based on respect for human rights principles and development priorities. We believe these principles and priorities should be embedded throughout the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Action Plan. This paper sets out the benchmarks against which civil society will assess the outcomes of the WSIS process and the commitment of all stakeholders to achieving its mandate.
2. Human rights
The WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, should take as their foundations the international human rights framework. This implies the full integration, concrete application and enforcement of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including labour rights, the right to development, as well as the principle of non-discrimination. The universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence of all human rights should be clearly recognized, together with their centrality to democracy and the rule of law.
All Principles of the Declaration and all activities in the Action Plan, should be in full compliance with international human rights standards, which should prevail over national legislative frameworks. The “information society” must not result in any discrimination or deprivation of human rights resulting from the acts or omissions of governments or of non-state actors under their jurisdictions. Any restriction on the use of ICTs must pursue a legitimate aim under international law, be prescribed by law, be strictly proportionate to such an aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is of fundamental and specific importance to the information society, requiring that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
3. Poverty reduction and the Right to Development
Given the unequal distribution of wealth among and within nations, the struggle against poverty should be the top priority on the agenda of the World Summit on the Information Society. It is not possible to achieve sustainable development by embracing new communication technologies without challenging existing inequalities.
Civil society organisations from different parts of the world unite in their call to governments to take this matter very seriously. We want to emphasise that challenging poverty requires more than setting of ‘development agendas’. It requires the commitment of significant financial and other resources, linked with social and digital solidarity, channeled through existing and new financing mechanisms that are managed transparently and inclusively of all sectors of society.
4. Sustainable development
An equitable Information Society must be shaped by the needs of people and communities and based on sustainable economic, social development and democratic principles, including the Millennium Development Goals.
Only development that embraces the principles of social justice and gender equality can be said to centrally address fundamental social, cultural and economic divides. Market-based development solutions often fail to address more deep-rooted and persistent inequalities in and between countries of the North and South.
Democratic and sustainable development of in the information society can therefore not be left solely to market forces and the propagation of technology. In order to balance commercial objectives with legitimate social interests, recognition should be given to the need for responsibility of the public sector, appropriate regulation and development of public services, and the principle of equitable and affordable access to services.
People and communities must be empowered to develop their own solutions within the information society, in particular to fight poverty and to participate in development through fully democratic processes that allow community access to and participation in decision-making.
5. Social Justice
5.1 Gender Equality
An equitable and inclusive Information Society must be based on gender justice and be particularly guided by the interpretation of principles of gender equality, non-discrimination and women’s empowerment as contained in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the CEDAW Convention. The Action Plan must demonstrate a strong commitment to an intersectional approach to redressing discrimination resulting from unequal power relations at all levels of society. To empower girls and women throughout their life cycle, as shapers and leaders of society, gender responsive educational programs and appropriate learning environments need to be promoted. Gender analysis and the development of both quantitative and qualitative indicators in measuring gender equality through an extensive and integrated national system of monitoring and evaluation are “musts”.
5.2 Disability
Specific needs and requirements of all stakeholders, including those with disabilities, must be considered in ICT development. Accessibility and inclusiveness of ICTs is best done at an early stage of design, development and production, so that the Information Society is to become the society for all, at minimum cost.
5.3 Labour rights
Essential human rights, such as privacy, freedom of expression, and the right of trade unions to communicate with employees, should be respected in the workplace. ICTs are progressively changing our way of working and the creation of a secure, safe and healthy working environment , appropriate to the utilisation of ICTs, respecting core labour standards, is fundamental. ICTs should be used to promote awareness of, respect for and enforcement of universal human rights standards and core labor standards.
5.4 Indigenous Peoples
The evolution of the Information Society must be founded on the respect and promotion of the recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and their distinctiveness as outlined in the ILO Convention 169 and the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They have fundamental rights to protect, preserve and strengthen their own identity and cultural diversity. ICT’s should be used to support and promote the rights and means of Indigenous Peoples to benefit fully and with priority from their cultural, intellectual and so-called natural resources.
6. Literacy, Education and Research
Literacy and free universal access to education is a key principle. All initiatives must embrace this principle and respond to needs of all. Knowledge societies require an informed and educated citizenry. Capacity building needs to include skills to use ICTs, media and information literacy, and the skills needed for active citizenship including the ability to find, appraise, use and create information and technology. Approaches that are local, horizontal, gender-responsive and socially-driven and mediated should be prioritised. A combination of traditional and new media as well as open access to knowledge and information should be encouraged.
7. Cultural and linguistic diversity
Communications media and information technologies have a particularly important role to play in sustaining and developing the world’s cultures and languages. The implementation of this principle requires support for a plurality of means of information and communication and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, as outlined in UNESCO’s Declaration on Cultural Diversity.
8. Access and Infrastructure
Global universal access to communication and information should be a target of the WSIS action plan and the expansion of the global information infrastructure should be based on principles of equality and partnership and guided by rules of fair competition and regulation at both national and international levels. The integration of access, infrastructure and training of the citizenry and the generation of local content, in a framework of social networks and clear public or private policies, is a key basis for the development of egalitarian and inclusive information societies. The evolution of policy should be coordinated internationally but enable a diversity of appropriate solutions based on national and regional input and international sharing of information and resources. This should be people-centered and process-orientated, rather than technologically determined and expert dominated.
9. Governance and enabling environment
9.1 Democratic governance
Good governance in a democratic society implies openness, transparency, accountability, and compliance with the rule of law. Respect for these principles is needed to enforce the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. Public access to information produced or maintained by governments should be enforced, ensuring that the information is timely, complete and accessible in a format and language the public can understand. This also applies to access to information produced or maintained by corporations where this relates to activities affecting the public interest.
Media
While allowing for government information services to communicate their message, state-controlled media at the national level should be transformed into editorially independent public service media organisations and/or privatised. Efforts which encourage pluralism and diversity of media ownership must be encouraged to avoid excessive media concentration
9.3 Community media
Community media, that is media which are independent, community-driven and civil-society based, have a specific and crucial role to play in enabling access and participation for all to the information society, especially the poorest and most marginalised communities. Community media should be supported and promoted. Governments should assure that legal frameworks for community media are non-discriminatory and provide for equitable allocation of frequencies through transparent and accountable mechanisms.
9.4 Internet governance
The global governance of ICT must be based on the values of open participation, inclusiveness, transparency, and democratic accountability. It should establish and support universal participation in addressing new international policy and technical issues raised by the Internet and ICT. No single body and no single stakeholder group is able to manage all of the issues alone. Many stakeholders, cooperating in strict accordance with widely supported rules and procedures, must define the global agenda.
The non-government sector has played a historically critical role in Internet Governance, and this must be recognized. The strength of the Internet as an open non-Government platform should be reinforced, with an explicit and stronger role for Civil Society. The role of Governments should be no greater than that of any other stakeholder group.
10. Public Domain of Global Knowledge
10.1 Limited intellectual monopolies
Human knowledge, including the knowledge of all peoples and communities, also those who are remote and excluded, is the heritage of all humankind and the reservoir from which new knowledge is created. A rich public domain is essential to inclusive information societies. Limited intellectual monopolies, such as copyrights or patents, are granted only for the benefit of society, most notably to encourage creativity and innovation. The benchmark against which they must be reviewed and adjusted regularly is how well they fulfill their purpose.
10.2 Free Software
Software is the cultural technique of the digital age and access to it determines who may participate in a digital world. Free Software with its freedoms of use for any purpose, studying, modification and redistribution is an essential building block for an empowering, sustainable and inclusive information society. No software model should be forbidden or negatively regulated, but Free Software should be promoted for its unique social, educational, scientific, political and economic benefits and opportunities.
10.3 Access to information in the public domain
Today, more than 80% of mankind has no access to the reservoir of human knowledge that is the public domain and from which our new knowledge is created. Their intellectual power remains uninitialized and consequently unused, lost to all humankind. The reservoir of human knowledge must be made equally available to all in online and offline media by means of Free Documentation, public libraries and other initiatives to disseminate information.
10.4 Open access to scientific information
Free scientific information is a requirement for sustainable development. Science is the source of the technological development that empowers the Information Society, including the World Wide Web. In the best tradition of science, scientific authors donate their work to humankind and therefore, it must be equally available to all, on the Web, in online Open Access journals and online Open Archives.
11. Security and privacy
11.1 Integrity and security
Definitions of criminal and terrorist purposes in existing and emerging policies and legislation are ambiguous and prevent the use of information resources for legitimate purposes. The legitimate need for infrastructure integrity must avoid shift to the highly politicized agenda characterized by language referring to the integrity of the military field and the use of information resources for criminal and terrorist purposes.
11.2 Right to privacy
The right to privacy should be affirmed in the context of the information society. It must be defended in public spaces, online, offline, at home and in the workplace. Every person must have the right to decide freely whether and in what manner he or she wants to receive information and communicate with others. The possibility of communicating anonymously must be ensured for everyone. The collection, retention, use and disclosure of personal data, no matter by whom, should remain under the control of the individual concerned. The power of the private sector and governments over personal data, including monitoring and surveillance, increases the risk of abuse, and must be kept to a minimum under clearly specified, legal conditions.
——————————————————————————–
Regional IIAS Conference on Transparency for Good Governance
17 July 2006
Monterrey, Mexico
Speech by Angel Gurría, Secretary-General, OECD
It gives me great pleasure to take part in this important Conference and in this connection I am grateful to the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, the National Institute of Public Administration and the Government of the State of Nuevo León for having been kind enough to invite me.
The subject that has brought us together is, moreover, fascinating. We are faced with the major challenge of our generation in all its dimensions: good governance in order to find solutions to common challenges. Governance in the context of the nation state but also governance in the international arena.
The link between governance and transparency appears to be faithfully reflected in the objectives of this conference given that transparency is a prerequisite for bolstering governmental efficiency, enhancing the design of public policies and promoting trust in governments. To the extent that democratic governments favour transparency, there is a concomitant free flow of information not only about government policies but their implementation and rationale. This is a beneficial dynamic that flows in two directions. Governments are obliged to inform but they are also under obligation to listen and use the information that is generated in different sectors in order to evaluate their own performance and the success or failure of their policies. In the last resort, what matters is accountability regarding what should in theory be the core functions of government: in other words, the goal is to facilitate optimal economic and social performance to benefit the governed.
In addition, transparency favours the adoption of public policies that are far more credible and effective. In submitting them to an open and pluralist evaluation process, with trustworthy performance indicators, these policies become richer and can have a greater impact or be reformulated in accordance with their results. The design of efficient policies is a subject that is particularly interesting for the OECD given that our main function is to support our member countries as they seek to identify best practices with regard to public policies. As a result, the OECD has come to be identified as “the home of best practices”. Our task is based precisely on the
exchange of information and experience among policymakers in various sectors, based on comparable indicators that are internationally trusted.
Transparency is also a mechanism that ensures general trust in the government. This is especially important at a time when all over the world this trust would appear to be at a low ebb even in cases in which there is a concern to have “open governments” in place. It is therefore of paramount importance to redouble our efforts in order to demonstrate that what the government does is important and that it does it in the best manner. The culture of transparency helps to promote this message and also contributes to strengthening the institutional development that has been identified as one of the central ingredients of economic development.
Cases of corruption in the governmental sphere go a long way to explaining the fall in
confidence on the part of citizens. It is precisely for this reason that transparency is a fundamental tool in avoiding the emergence of such incidents. As Benjamin Franklin remarked, transparency is “the most effective corruption deterrent”. A lack of transparency merely fuels inappropriate conduct, especially when it goes hand-in-hand with an indiscriminate use of power. Greater transparency, as reflected in greater information about public expenditure, administrative simplification or public employment provides a long-term strategy that can help to fend off corruption by weakening its roots.
The foregoing considerations have highlighted the factors that account for why we need greater transparency in the exercise of governance. Now I would like to set about discussing the ways that have been selected by the OECD countries to strengthen this transparency, underlining the fact that there is more than one way to achieve this goal. Building a culture of transparency is the result of a long learning curve. Successful transparency policies require a combination of legal frameworks, effective mechanisms for implementation and control, and a supportive environment
in both the private and the public sector as well as in society at large.
Transparency also has different historical phases given that it is a continuous process. While it is the case that in Sweden legislation about access to information was adopted two centuries ago, most OECD members have only gained access over the last 15 years. As of now, 29 OECD countries are equipped with this legal framework. At the same time, a number of independent institutions have also sprung up, such as the higher Audit Authorities or Ombudsmen. At present, 27 countries of the OECD can point to the existence of watchdog agencies of this type which principally seek to guarantee access to information.
A particularly important factor in the promotion of transparency is ensuring the
participation of some important stakeholders. Among these, the parliament/congress are guarantors of the efficient functioning of transparency mechanisms. By the same token, the media plays a vital role. In a system of checks and balances, the media, through investigative journalism, can play a crucial part in publicizing both good practices and malfeasance.
Finally, technological advances have led to the creation of more effective bridges to help establish contact with citizens. Countries are exploring how best they can harness the benefits of information technology so as to live up to the expectations of a technological society. In fact, these technologies maximize potential for transparency and innovation. The application of the ICTs has generated important cultural change, particularly in sensitive areas such as tax administration,
public works concessions and governmental procurement.
These are ostensibly abstract issues; however, in order to achieve efficient and consistent performance, great political leadership is required. Leaders who have pursued its implementation know that by investing in transparency they are guaranteed valuable input and crucial new ideas in the public policy sphere when making decisions and building up public trust, increasing the quality
of democracy and bolstering civic capacity.
In any case, the path for changing the culture of transparency is long and ever-changing. And maintaining the culture of transparency is a permanent challenge for all countries. It calls for continuous investment of scarce public resources in order to ensure that public information is complete, objective, trustworthy, relevant and easy to understand. A case in point is that even though Sweden adopted free access to information two centuries ago, the government still had to launch a campaign in 2001 because “transparency is something that should be learnt by each and every one of us”.
I would now like to take a look at a number of studies and analyses which have been
carried out by the OECD with regard to good governance. We are talking here especially about the development of best practices, courses of action and principles to strengthen good governance, whether public or private. Some examples of this include:
• The OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency. These best practices seek to
support countries in their efforts to evaluate and improve their budgetary information
systems.
• Guidelines for the management of conflicts of interest in the public sector. These
were approved in 2003 and provide the first comprehensive international benchmark
for supporting governments in their endeavours to revise and modernize their policies
for managing conflicts of interest with the participation of the private sector and civil society.
• OECD Principles on Corporate Governance. These were approved in 2004 and
include recommendations about transparency in the interest of promoting good
practices in corporate behaviour the better to rebuild and maintain public confidence
in companies and stock markets. The revised principles promote transparency and the disclosure of information as well as the adoption of controls to prevent conflicts of interest.
• Parastatal Companies. The principles are also applied to parastatals given that in
many countries these are a key sector in which political interference in day-to-day
operations should be avoided. The principles establish transparent objectives for
companies in this field which need to be carried out by accountable and transparent
governing bodies.
The OECD also promotes international dialogue on transparency, extending beyond its members countries. For example, the OECD launched an initiative to generate dialogue with the Organization of American States to develop a framework of integrity that would support the development of preventive mechanisms in the context of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption.
The OECD is one more ally in the promotion of transparency in the governments of
member and non-member countries. As I noted earlier, the goal is to achieve transparency so as to generate greater trust in public matters, transparency to promote better policies and, in a word, transparency to achieve governmental objectives so as to improve the living conditions of the population. This is the ultimate objective and good governance is one of the most important tools
for achieving this.
In this connection, there is an additional contribution that the culture of transparency can make to underpin effective governance. The task of exchanging and providing information about governmental decisions and public policies tends to bolster them purely by exposure to feedback from citizens. At the same time, citizens can contribute to their success by taking ownership of these policies and lending them their public support. This is particularly important in the context of
structural reform.
In many countries we have witnessed the difficulties involved in pursuing efforts to adopt the necessary reforms to ensure that economic growth rests on sound foundations. Now it is not only necessary to have serious and rigorous policy planning but also negotiation and persuasion of the various stakeholders to facilitate the approval of reform. And many times this involves challenging different vested interests of well-organized groups that are resistant to change. In this context, actions taken by citizens that are well-informed and aware of all the issues at stake can be a decisive factor. And it is the case that a government that provides information and puts the options on the table can be an invaluable source of support and thereby create a virtuous circle to facilitate the attainment of progress for our economies.
The OECD has taken a keen interest in supporting member countries in their attempts to achieve progress in structural reform. This is not only an important mandate which has been conferred upon us by the Ministers of the member countries but also a cornerstone in the agenda of public policies of our member countries. Our mission is to promote maximum economic growth and to this end the restructuring and modernization of different sectors is often necessary. Seeking the support of citizens and public opinion for structural reforms is also part of the Organization’s
agenda.
Transparency and good governance thereby acquire additional importance by becoming prerequisites for making headway in addressing the challenges of economic growth. If this is significant for advanced countries in the OECD, it is especially vital for countries like Mexico, or developing countries. As a result I am delighted to share with you the results of our analysis. I hope that this will provide helpful input for discussions conducted in the course of this conference and I further hope that the experiences of the different participants will result in the development
of some proposals that will help address our common challenges.
Many thanks.
——————————————————————————–
Just an observation and DOES NOT reflect on all Muslims because there are many among us who are fellow Malaysians.
What is it about so many bigoted Muslims that they are so intolerant? They can trash everybody else’s religion and call everybody all kind of names under the sun and yet look at how they try to shut down disagreement by violence,demonstrations and threats? If Islam is the true message, what kind of messages have these hijackers of Islam been sending to the world? Is the message about compassion, love and charity not in the Book? Do you pick and choose what you want to believe? If you believe Islam is the true message and should never be questioned, why are you questioning and destroying it with your human deeds and condoning violence at a drop of the coin?
[...] expressed my views at length, but you won’t find me arguing that the threat of such actions was in any way [...]