The 3 UMNO Goons–Dr. Zahid Hamidi, Hishamuddin Hussein and Najib Razak. They do not qualify as Philisopber-Kings. They are Malaysia’s penyamun tarbus.
IN Plato’s Republic, the philosopher-king is a leader who loves and embodies the cardinal virtues of wisdom, temperance, courage and justice. Therefore, the community that produced him would dispense with the mechanisms of democracy meant to curtail misuse of power by corrupt politicians who preyed upon the masses because of their ignorance.
Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried.” This may only refer to the inadequacies of the present set-up in producing leaders who do not require constant oversight.
The leader reflects the people. The Prophet said, “As you are, so shall your leader be.” He also said, “Each of you is a shepherd (ra‘in) and each of you is responsible for his flock (ra‘iyyah)”.
The Arabic word ra‘iyyah, from which the Malay word rakyat originated, has its root in ra‘in, which also means guide, guardian or caretaker. In the worldview of Islam, both the leader and the people form a unity; they are like a single body.
The Prophet also prophesied the emergence of leaders (umara) who “will be corrupt but God may put much right through them”. Therefore, the people are obliged to be thankful when leaders do good and patient when the leaders commit evil.
The Proof of Islam, Imam al-Ghazali, in his Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din (Revival of the Religious Sciences), stated that religion is established through the sultan, who is not to be belittled.
We should not justify a wrongdoing when it is proven, but our limited senses may often lead us to believe that no good may come out of the things we perceive as evil because we think evil is the absence of good.
While weed follows the cultivation of rice and there seems to be no good in growing weed, it does not stop us from planting and harvesting the rice.
A well-known Sufi figure, Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad, said, “If I had one supplication that was going to be answered, I would make it for the sultan, for the sultan’s well-being and righteousness means well-being for the land and its people.”
Another Sufi figure, Sahl al-Tustari, was once asked, “Who is the best among men?” He replied that it was the ruler, which surprised his inquirers because it was thought that rulers were the worst.
Sahl continued, “Don’t be hasty! God Most High has two glances every day: one is for the safety of the Muslims’ possessions and another for their bodies. Then, God looks into the Register of Deeds and forgives him all his sins (for his protection of both).”
But the precondition for forgiveness is that the ruler must protect both.The establishment and statecraft of our centuries-old Malay sultanates mirrored those in Islam’s civilisational epicentre, which in turn were modelled after the Prophet’s Medina.
While colonial rule modernised our country’s administration, it did not abolish the sultanates but merely interrupted them. However, colonisation also displaced the ulama’s traditional role in advising the Rulers.
It also severely impaired the ability to follow the Prophetic practice called shura in consulting scholars and learned men as well as the ability to recognise and acknowledge them properly. This is the reason for today’s greater need for checks and balances.
Even so, we are lucky to be blessed with a unique system that combines constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This is the time when rulers work closely with the ruled towards the common good.
While our Rulers do not interfere in politics, adherence to royal protocols should not conceal the fact that the Rulers are in the best position to decree the people so that they would choose the best stewards for the nation.
UMNO is full of learned members –the dedaks led by Big Momma
The counsel of learned people is important in guiding a ruler’s politics because statecraft is like a knife in the kitchen – a housewife could wield the knife as a utensil or a burglar as a weapon.
Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin is senior research officer at Ikim’s Centre for Science and Environment Studies. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
SIMON Sinek’s earlier book tells us to always start by asking why. The “why” of something is what drives people into throwing their passion into their work and their actions. He uses this to describe how Apple manages to entice customers.
Similarly, if you read Naomi Klein’s book on corporations, she tells us that products such as Apple’s devices are not just marketing an electronic device, it is about selling a brand.
With these two concepts, enter Pakatan Harapan. So why should one vote for Pakatan Harapan? Well, because they wish to reduce corruption, end kleptocracy, save the nation, ensure equality somewhat for everyone, and even look towards correcting whatever else is wrong in this country – like how the Premier League isn’t shown on television.
Personally, I didn’t even know that was a wrong thing since I don’t watch football. Either I’ve been blind to that fact, or the enticement of free football is pure escapism, but let’s get back to the topic at hand.
Pakatan’s brand has always been to right the multiple injustices in the country, or to use Star Wars pop-culture, to bring balance to The Force. Unfortunately, their narrative has been complicated by asking Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to become their candidate for Prime Minister.
And this is why in the last week, Pakatan Harapan supporters and politicians have gone out of their way barraging the press with letters voicing their support for Mahathir and how there is no better candidate to win the Malay votes.
Let us be frank – Pakatan needs Mahathir “only” to win the Malay votes. And for that, they have sacrificed their “why” – reducing corruption, end kleptocracy, ensure equality and correcting the wrongs in this country – for the chance to win over enough Malays to get into the seat of power.
And this is why I often joke that whenever Mahathir talks about all these topics, even at the anti-kleptocracy rally – does anyone bother carrying a mirror to give the messenger some hint of the very audacity of the whole situation?
Subsequently, you will notice that Pakatan supporters – the ones who chided Mahathir as “Mahafiraun” or even “Mahazalim”, have now had to come out to undo this narrative of an evil old dictator rivalling Mugabe which they have been selling for a decade.
And it isn’t working. Instead, Malaysians who were hardcore Pakatan Rakyat supporters now look at the pro-opposition activists in confusion.
Hishamuddin Rais wants to get rid of UMNO, not Mahathir: UMNO-Baru was created by Mahathir after 1987 Party Crisis
One example of this is Hishamuddin Rais, who for so long condemned Mahathir as the major cause of the problems in Malaysia. And yet, at a forum last week, he was open enough to admit all that can be put aside because he wants to get rid of UMNO, not Mahathir.
And yet, here is the self professed non-government individual, in his own words in 2006, published in Central Market’s The Rice Cooker Shop. The title? Mahathir dan Labu-Labinya. In it Hisham admits that he would rather “trust Ibrahim Ali than Mahathir”, and how he revels in the fact that Mahathir had been abandoned by his own supporters.
Similarly, you have Mariam Mokhtar writing in asking who if not Mahathir. Her readers are just as confused, because this is contrary to everything she has stood for as highlighted in her Malaysiakini column in 2013 entitled “Apa lagi Mahathir mahu?”.
In her own words: “Until we get a change in government, only one man can stop Mahathir’s deleterious effects on the nation – Najib Abdul Razak – but he either won’t or can’t bring himself to perform this saintly task. Such is the hold that Mahathir has over Najib.”
And yet, now she is backing Mahathir to the hilt because she wants that change in government, even if it is with the man who “cares for nothing but the continuation of his legacy, through his son, Mukhriz”.
This is Pakatan Harapan’s problem and why they will lose voters more than they gain. Primarily, it is because the Malays don’t vote for persona, they vote for brands – we have seen this with Semangat 46 even with the support of Tun Hussein Onn and Tunku Abdul Rahman, we have seen this with Onn Jaafar and his Parti Negara. Pakatan’s bet is that this will be proven untrue.
Second, their problem is that they have tainted their own brand, their own “why” by admitting the very person they accused of causing various problems. They used Mahathir as their scapegoat and now it seems they are using him as their idol.
French philosopher Jacques Ellul wrote that once propaganda has crystallized, confusion will ensue when you try and change the narrative. This sums up the problem Pakatan is facing. After 10 years of selling the same message, they now have to market something that has turned 180 degrees in less than two months.
And that confusion, that hypocrisy by their supporters, that double standard worthy of the very people they are trying to oust, will lose them the election.
Hafidz Baharom is a public relations practitioner.
“America first” means workers come last– The Abominable Snowman.
In the 2016 US Presidential Election, Donald Trump presented himself as a populist who would protect America’s “forgotten” workers from the disruptions of trade and immigration and the nefarious designs of unnamed elites. But, a year after assuming office, it has become abundantly clear that “America first” means workers come last.
Almost one year ago, beneath a gray sky and before a middling crowd, Donald Trump was sworn in as US President. In his inaugural address, he vowed that, “Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.” And to the “forgotten men and women of our country,” he vowed, “I will never, ever let you down.”
Trump had campaigned on a promise to tear up “unfair” trade agreements and crack down on immigration. And in his first weeks and months in office, he abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). He announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. He banned entry to the United States for Muslims from seven countries. And he has cleared the way for the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans who have been living in the US legally for a generation or more.
But, as Trump prepares to deliver his second “State of the Union” address, it is clear that many other major promises have fallen by the wayside. The wall he promised to erect on the border with Mexico is no closer to being built than it was a year ago. The 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) remains un-repealed. American infrastructure remains neglected and underfunded. And, rather than “drain the swamp” of entrenched insiders and vested interests that shape so much US policy, he’s stocked it with bigger alligators.
To be sure, Trump’s predecessors had similar failures. Barack Obama never did manage to shut down the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay. George W. Bush failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform. And Bill Clinton could not deliver on health care. But they at least upheld the spirit of their commitments.
As Project Syndicate commentators have documented, the same cannot be said for Trump. During his first year in office, US domestic and foreign policies have amounted to a full-scale betrayal of American workers and families, including those in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to whom he owes his presidency. And, with his approval ratings pinned at historic lows, many others who voted for him in 2016 presumably feel the same way.
Soaking the 99%
The Trump policies that will most obviously affect American workers and families relate to health care and taxes. After joining with congressional Republicans last spring and summer in a failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, the Trump administration introduced regulations to bypass key provisions of the law, such as a new rule allowing companies and organizations to band together to purchase skimpier coverage. Trump says his executive orders are intended to shore up wobbly insurance markets, but many observers expect the measures to drive up premiums for millions of Americans and introduce new inequities in coverage over time.
Columbia’s Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, signed in December, similarly backloads the pain. In the near term, American workers will see modest bumps in their paychecks. But within the next decade, Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz notes, the law “will increase taxes on a majority of Americans in the middle (the second, third, and fourth quintiles),” and add at least $1-1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027, all so that tax cuts for corporations can remain permanent.
That timing, says Nouriel Roubini of New York University, is no coincidence. The tax plan was designed with the 2018 midterm congressional election firmly in mind. Until then, Roubini explains, Trump and the Republicans “can brag about cutting taxes on most households.” And after that, “they can expect to see the economic-stimulus effects of tax cuts peak in 2019, just before the next presidential election – and long before the bill comes due.”
But both Stiglitz and Roubini are skeptical that the GOP’s ruse will work. After all, Stiglitz writes, “voters are not so easily manipulated,” and there is much in the Trump tax package that workers, in particular, should regard skeptically.
For example, despite Trump’s promise to “bring back” jobs to the US, Roubini shows that provisions in the tax law “will give US multinationals an even greater incentive to invest, hire, and produce abroad.” And, contrary to Trump’s campaign promise that “no one will lose [health-insurance] coverage,” the tax law repeals Obamacare’s individual mandate, which “will cause 13 million people to lose health insurance, and insurance premiums to rise by 10%, over the next decade.”
Moreover, as Stiglitz points out, contrary to Trump’s explicit promise to “eliminate the carried-interest deduction and other special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors,” the dodges remain intact, and will continue to be exploited by “job-destroying private-equity firms.” The tax law also does little for workers whose jobs have been eliminated or displaced. As the University of California, Berkeley, economist Laura Tyson and Lenny Mendonca of New America observe, the law “prioritizes investment in physical and financial capital over what the US really needs: more investment in human capital and lifelong learning to help workers and communities cope with the disruptive effects of automation and artificial intelligence.”
Laura Tyson@ University of California
But that is not all. Tyson and Mendonca remind us that the law will also heap costs on Americans living in Democratic-leaning states such as New York and California, by imposing an “across-the-board limit on mortgage deductions,” and “by capping the federal deduction for state and local income and property taxes.” The combined effect of these provisions, Tyson and Mendonca conclude, will be to increase “the marginal tax rate on millions of workers in the country’s most productive locales and industries.” Rather than encouraging innovation, Trump’s tax law will stifle it.
Economic Impossibilities for Our Grandchildren
Beyond the tax plan’s immediate, concrete effects, it could also have adverse long-term implications for US economic growth and prosperity. Harvard University’s Jeffrey Frankel points out that, whereas previous Republican tax cuts, such as in the early 1980s, came after economic downturns, the new law lands on an economy that is already near full employment. That means it could hasten the rate at which the US Federal Reserve will raise interest rates, which, Stiglitz notes, will lead to slower “investment, and thus growth,” regardless of whether “the consumption of the very rich increases.”
Frankel also laments that the law will reduce government revenue at a time when baby boomers are “retiring at a rate of about 10,000 people per day, meaning that Medicare and Social Security outlays – for health insurance and pensions, respectively – will increase rapidly.” Such cost increases, Roubini says, play directly into the “starve the beast” strategy long beloved of congressional Republicans, whereby party leaders will “use the higher deficits from tax cuts to argue for cuts” in social programs for “elderly, middle-class, and low-income Americans.” But, while Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has already expressed his eagerness to pursue entitlement reform in 2018, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is much more reluctant.
In fact, the argument for entitlement reform – that US government debt is unsustainable and must be reined in – contradicts a central claim behind the Trump/Republican tax plan: that it will generate enough growth to cover most of its costs. As Stephen S. Roach of Yale University explains, this is the classic supply-side argument to which America now owes its swelling debt. After the Reagan-era tax cuts, Roach observes, “federal budget deficits ballooned to 3.8% of GDP during the 1980s, taking public debt from 25% of GDP in 1980 to 41% by 1990”; moreover, the US current account has “remained in deficit ever since (with the exception of a temporary reprieve in the first two quarters of 1991 due to external funding of the Gulf War).”
Higher deficits, former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis reminds us, imply “higher long-term tax bills” for American workers down the road. Of course, taxpayers might be willing to accept that if the law’s corporate-tax provisions translate into higher wages across the board. But will they?
Harvard’s Martin Feldstein
Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein, who believes the “economic benefits resulting from the corporate tax changes will outweigh the adverse effects of the increased debt,” is cautiously optimistic. Before the law passed, he predicted that reducing the corporate-tax rate from 35% to 20% (the final bill reduces it to 21%) would make the US far more competitive. And that, in turn, “will attract capital to the US corporate sector,” translating into higher “productivity and real wages,” possibly to the tune of “$4,000 per household in today’s dollars” by 2027.
But as Roach points out, US companies already “pay a surprisingly low effective corporate tax rate – just 22% – when judged against post-World War II experience.” The US is already third in the World Economic Forum’s yearly ranking of international competitiveness. And, at 9% of gross domestic income, “the current GDP share of after-tax [corporate] profits is well above the post-1980 average of 7.6%.”
Moreover, Tyson and Mendonca point to a “large body of economic research” showing that, “at most, 20-25% of the benefits of corporate tax cuts will accrue to labor; the rest will go to shareholders, about one-third of whom are foreign.” That suggests the long-run trend of wage gains trailing behind productivity growth could continue. While corporate profits have been rising, Roach observes, “the share of national income going to labor has been declining.” There is no reason to expect the Republicans’ tax legislation to change that.
The Great Growth Debate
Still, in the lead-up to the bill’s passage, Harvard’s Robert J. Barro pointed to three provisions in the tax plan that he believes will induce substantial business investment, and thus growth in output and employment. In addition to lowering the corporate-tax rate, the law also allows companies to write off the full cost of new equipment immediately, rather than over time; and it shortens from 39 to 25 years the period for writing off non-residential business structures. According to Barro’s calculation, the new tax regime will “raise long-run capital-labor ratios by 25% for non-residential corporate structures and 17% for corporate equipment,” implying “a large long-run increase in real per capita GDP – by around 7%.”
Harvard’s Lawrence H. Summers
But Barro’s Harvard colleagues, Jason Furman and Lawrence H. Summers, who both served as senior economic advisers to Obama, criticized Barro’s analysis for making “the least favorable assumptions about current law and the most favorable assumptions about future policy” under the Trump/Republican plan. Using Barro’s own model, Furman and Summers calculate that the tax law will “yield an increase in the level of long-run GDP of about 1%.” That prediction is in line with assessments from most other economists and official budget scorers, including, they note, the “Republican-appointed Joint Committee on Taxation.”
In his own contribution to the tax debate, Stanford University’s Michael J. Boskin – who co-signed an open letter in November with Barro and seven other economists promoting the tax package’s growth potential – suggests that Furman and Summers have underestimated key effects of the bill. The impact of equipment investment on GDP growth, he contends, is “much larger than in the conventional models used in most studies, including those relied on by government revenue scorers,” owing to the “learning-by-doing effects” associated with new technologies.
Then again, tax policies are not the only factor weighing on investment decisions. Roach, for his part, suspects that weak business investment in recent years may be “due less to onerous taxes and regulatory strangulation, and more to an unprecedented shortfall of aggregate demand,” the latter being a more salient driver of capital expenditures. The extent to which the tax package will stimulate demand remains to be seen, and much will depend on whether Republicans follow through on spending cuts this year. If they do, Barry Eichengreen of the University of California, Berkeley expects the ax to fall on programs that benefit “hand-to-mouth consumers, who will reduce their own spending dollar for dollar, denting aggregate demand.”
“America First,” Workers Last
Furnishing workers with more bargaining power could help to boost wages, and thus demand. And yet, as Roubini observes, Trump’s “deregulatory policies are blatantly biased against workers and unions.” The Trump administration has proposed deep cuts to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices workplace safety. And it has sided with corporations over workers in pending court cases, including one before the Supreme Court that could decide whether employees may be forced to sign arbitration agreements barring them from joining class-action lawsuits against their employers.
Likewise, Christopher Smart of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that Trump’s decision to abandon the TPP will actually make it harder for American workers to compete with cheaper labor abroad. Under the TPP, Smart explains, “Countries as diverse as Peru, Vietnam, and Mexico would have signed on to labor laws enshrining workers’ rights to form independent unions and engage in collective bargaining,” thus raising the cost of their labor vis-à-vis American workers. Of course, if a new Japanese-led effort to resuscitate the TPP succeeds, the 11 remaining Pacific-rim countries could still agree to higher uniform labor standards. But with the US remaining outside the proposed trade bloc, it will have less leverage to address other countries’ violations.
Elsewhere on the trade front, Bill Emmott, a former editor-in-chief of The Economist, notes that, “Trump has often huffed and puffed about other countries’ unfair trade practices, just as he did during the 2016 election campaign; but he has done little to turn words into deeds.” After promising to label China a currency manipulator, for example, Trump has (wisely) abstained from following through. Still, Emmott expects Trump to ramp up his protectionist policies this year, now that tax cuts are behind him.
In December, the White House gave a preview of what that agenda might look like with the release of its National Security Strategy, which places an unprecedented emphasis on economics. In Feldstein’s view, the Trump NSS includes some “valuable initiatives” for “dealing with foreign trade” – including stepped-up efforts to crackdown on intellectual-property theft. The problem, for Feldstein, is that the NSS singles out “unfair policies pursued by China and other countries, without distinguishing between those that hurt American interests and those that, though ‘unfair,’ actually help Americans.”
The fear now is that Trump will take a broad approach and either eliminate Chinese policies that are good for American consumers – such as exporting excess goods at fire-sale prices – or precipitate a full-scale trade war. If the latter happens, Kaushik Basu of Cornell University warns, no country “will suffer more than the US itself.”
Trump’s first-year record on immigration is a similarly mixed bag. After multiple tries, he managed to implement a Muslim-focused travel ban that passes judicial muster (it now also bars travelers from North Korea and Venezuela). And yet it is not clear what, if anything, his immigration policies have done for American workers, even those who believe that immigrants take American jobs and contribute less to the economy than they consume in public services. After all, notes Roubini, “the ‘Muslim ban’ doesn’t affect the supply of labor in the US”; nor does “the administration’s plan favor skilled over unskilled workers.” In fact, as Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff warns, measures that “sharply reduce immigration” would “have significant adverse effects on growth,” and thus on jobs and wages.
Nationalism for Dunces
In his inaugural address, Trump also promised to “reinforce old alliances and form new ones,” and to “seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world,” while always putting “America first.” Foreign policy does not have as obvious an effect on US workers and households as tax cuts do. But if an incompetent or dangerous administration were to undermine the US dollar’s standing as the world’s main reserve currency, that loss of status would most likely prove to be more consequential than any domestic legislation.
Benjamin J. Cohen, University of California@ Santa Barbara
The dollar’s exalted status in global financial markets, explains Benjamin J. Cohen of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is what allows America to “go on spending whatever it needs to sustain its many security commitments around the world, and to finance its trade and budget deficits.” If other countries suddenly soured on the dollar, the US could experience capital flight; at a minimum, the government would have to pay more to service its existing debt, implying a larger burden on taxpayers.
As it happens, the dollar performed poorly during Trump’s first year, losing almost 10% of its value when one might have expected it to appreciate with the strengthening of the US economy, a widening interest-rate differential with other advanced economies, and the promise of corporate-tax cuts. Last August, Cohen observed that, after Trump’s tweet threatening North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un with “fire and fury” – and even before his refusal to recertify the Iran nuclear deal – investors were “looking for alternative safe havens in other markets, from Switzerland to Japan.”
Similarly, Eichengreen cautioned in October that if the Trump administration continues to discredit America in the eyes of its allies, it could provoke a dollar crisis. Eichengreen imagines a scenario in which South Korea and Japan – both of which are “thought to hold about 80% of their international reserves in dollars” – are forced to find a new financial refuge. A failure on Trump’s part to manage the North Korean nuclear crisis, for example, could create an opening for China to step in. “And where China leads geopolitically,” Eichengreen writes, “its currency, the renminbi, is likely to follow.”
Ambassador Christopher R. Hill
If that sounds far-fetched, bear in mind that North Korea has now bypassed the US altogether to hold talks with South Korea, with China’s blessing. Meanwhile, notes Christopher R. Hill, the chief US negotiator with North Korea during George W. Bush’s presidency, Trump has made it increasingly clear “that he has no idea what to do next” when it comes to Kim’s regime. Indeed, a year ago this month, Trump responded to Kim’s threat to test a new ballistic missile by tweeting, “It won’t happen!” Since then, North Korea has conducted eight missile tests – demonstrating, among other things, that the regime now has the capability to strike the US mainland – and what appears to have been its first test of a hydrogen bomb.
As 2017 came to an end, the Trump administration had further discredited itself with its approach to the Middle East. Trump’s unilateral decision in early December to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, notes Columbia University’s Jeffrey D. Sachs, was immediately and “overwhelmingly rejected” by most United Nations member states, including many US allies. According to the Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab, the decision also defies the wishes of most Americans, and seemed to be aimed at satisfying Trump’s “small base of US Christian Zionist evangelicals,” as well as leading Republican donors such as the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.
As anyone familiar with the Middle East could have predicted, Trump’s Jerusalem policy has already proved self-defeating. According to Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, “anti-American powers” such as Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and Turkey have wasted no time in taking “Trump’s divisive decision as an opportunity to enhance their own regional influence, at the expense of the US and its allies.”
Council on Foreign Relations’ Richard N. Haass
At the same time, Trump has invited still more international derision by insisting that his decision on Jerusalem – for which he received nothing in return from Israel – still leaves the door open for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In fact, warns former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, “America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could mean the end of the two-state solution once and for all.” At a minimum, argues Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trump has squandered the opportunity created by an ongoing rapprochement between Israel and Sunni Arab powers that share its interest in countering Iran.
Before Trump’s decision, Saudi Arabia might have been willing to back or even help lead an effort to end the Israel-Palestine conflict, which itself would have solidified the region’s anti-Iranian opposition. But now, Haass notes, the Saudis will be “reluctant to be associated with a plan that many will deem a sellout.” Ultimately, they “are likely to prove much less of a diplomatic partner than the White House had counted on.” In other words, Trump’s recklessness could leave the US sidelined and humiliated yet again.
As with Trump’s domestic record, it is hard to see how alienating allies, escalating nuclear tensions with North Korea, fomenting anti-American sentiment around the world, and threatening the international standing of the dollar will do anything to “benefit American workers and American families.” Far more likely, laments Ian Buruma of the New York Review of Books, is that the Trump presidency will “turn out very badly” for his supporters, to say nothing of the majority of Americans who never supported his agenda.
In 2016, the highest-paid employee of the State of California was Jim Mora, the head coach of U.C.L.A.’s football team. (He has since been fired.) That year, Mora pulled in $3.58 million. Coming in second, with a salary of $2.93 million, was Cuonzo Martin, at the time the head coach of the men’s basketball team at the University of California, Berkeley. Victor Khalil, the chief dentist at the Department of State Hospitals, made six hundred and eighty-six thousand dollars; Anne Neville, the director of the California Research Bureau, earned a hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars; and John Smith, a seasonal clerk at the Franchise Tax Board, earned twelve thousand nine hundred dollars.
I learned all this from a database maintained by the Sacramento Bee. The database, which is open to the public, is searchable by name and by department, and contains precise salary information for the more than three hundred thousand people who work for California. Today, most state employees probably know about the database. But that wasn’t the case when it was first created, in 2008. This made possible an experiment.
The experiment, conducted by four economists, was designed to test rival theories of inequity. According to one theory, the so-called rational-updating model, people assess their salaries in terms of opportunities. If they discover that they are being paid less than their co-workers, they will “update” their projections about future earnings and conclude that their prospects of a raise are good. Conversely, people who learn that they earn more than their co-workers will be discouraged by that news. They’ll update their expectations in the opposite direction.
According to a rival theory, people respond to inequity not rationally but emotionally. If they discover that they’re being paid less than their colleagues, they won’t see this as a signal to expect a raise but as evidence that they are underappreciated. (The researchers refer to this as the “relative income” model.) By this theory, people who learn that their salaries are at the low end will be pissed. Those who discover that they’re at the high end will be gratified.
The economists conducting the study sent an e-mail to thousands of employees at three University of California schools—Santa Cruz, San Diego, and Los Angeles—alerting them to the existence of the Bee’s database. This nudge produced a spike in visits to the Web site as workers, in effect, peeked at one another’s paychecks.
A few days later, the researchers sent a follow-up e-mail, this one with questions. “How satisfied are you with your job?” it asked. “How satisfied are you with your wage/salary on this job?” They also sent the survey to workers who hadn’t been nudged toward the database. Then they compared the results. What they found didn’t conform to either theory, exactly.
By bridging the fields of anthropology, evolutionary biology, behavioral ecology, geopolitics, and social science, trailblazing scientist Jared Diamond (b. September 10, 1937) has done more than anyone since Margaret Mead to decondition the Eurocentric approach to history and debunk the biological fallacies on which the monster of racism feeds. His Pulitzer-winning 1997 book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (public library) is a foundational text illuminating the conditions that led to inequality in the modern world and combating the broken logic that perpetuates these toxic beliefs.
At the heart of Diamond’s work is the notion that in order to understand any one society, we must contextualize it in the larger ecosystem of humanity and therefore must understand all societies. Only by grasping the richness and diversity of the entire ecosystem can we begin to dismantle our assumptions about the value of others and realize that people from different groups fared differently in history not due to their innate abilities but due to a complex cluster of environmental and geopolitical forces.
As the relative-income model predicted, those who’d learned that they were earning less than their peers were ticked off. Compared with the control group, they reported being less satisfied with their jobs and more interested in finding new ones. But the relative-income model broke down when it came to those at the top. Workers who discovered that they were doing better than their colleagues evinced no pleasure. They were merely indifferent. As the economists put it in a paper that they eventually wrote about the study, access to the database had a “negative effect on workers paid below the median for their unit and occupation” but “no effect on workers paid above median.”
The message the economists took from their research was that employers “have a strong incentive” to keep salaries secret. Assuming that California workers are representative of the broader population, the experiment also suggests a larger, more disturbing conclusion. In a society where economic gains are concentrated at the top—a society, in other words, like our own—there are no real winners and a multitude of losers.
Keith Payne, a psychologist, remembers the exact moment when he learned he was poor. He was in fourth grade, standing in line in the cafeteria of his elementary school, in western Kentucky. Payne didn’t pay for meals—his family’s income was low enough that he qualified for free school lunch—and normally the cashier just waved him through. But on this particular day there was someone new at the register, and she asked Payne for a dollar twenty-five, which he didn’t have. He was mortified. Suddenly, he realized that he was different from the other kids, who were walking around with cash in their pockets.
“That moment changed everything for me,” Payne writes, in “The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects the Way We Think, Live, and Die.” Although in strictly economic terms nothing had happened—Payne’s family had just as much (or as little) money as it had the day before—that afternoon in the cafeteria he became aware of which rung on the ladder he occupied. He grew embarrassed about his clothes, his way of talking, even his hair, which was cut at home with a bowl. “Always a shy kid, I became almost completely silent at school,” he recalls.
Payne is now a professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He has come to believe that what’s really damaging about being poor, at least in a country like the United States—where, as he notes, even most people living below the poverty line possess TVs, microwaves, and cell phones—is the subjective experience of feeling poor. This feeling is not limited to those in the bottom quintile; in a world where people measure themselves against their neighbors, it’s possible to earn good money and still feel deprived. “Unlike the rigid columns of numbers that make up a bank ledger, status is always a moving target, because it is defined by ongoing comparisons to others,” Payne writes.
Feeling poor, meanwhile, has consequences that go well beyond feeling. People who see themselves as poor make different decisions, and, generally, worse ones. Consider gambling. Spending two bucks on a Powerball ticket, which has roughly a one-in-three-hundred-million chance of paying out, is never a good bet. It’s especially ill-advised for those struggling to make ends meet. Yet low-income Americans buy a disproportionate share of lottery tickets, so much so that the whole enterprise is sometimes referred to as a “tax on the poor.”
One explanation for this is that poor people engage in riskier behavior, which is why they are poor in the first place. By Payne’s account, this way of thinking gets things backward. He cites a study on gambling performed by Canadian psychologists. After asking participants a series of probing questions about their finances, the researchers asked them to rank themselves along something called the Normative Discretionary Income Index. In fact, the scale was fictitious and the scores were manipulated. It didn’t matter what their finances actually looked like: some of the participants were led to believe that they had more discretionary income than their peers and some were led to believe the opposite. Finally, participants were given twenty dollars and the choice to either pocket it or gamble it on a computer card game. Those who believed they ranked low on the scale were much more likely to risk the money on the card game. Or, as Payne puts it, “feeling poor made people more willing to roll the dice.”
In another study, this one conducted by Payne and some colleagues, participants were divided into two groups and asked to make a series of bets. For each bet, they were offered a low-risk / low-reward option (say, a hundred-per-cent chance of winning fifteen cents) and a high-risk / high-reward option (a ten-per-cent chance of winning a dollar-fifty). Before the exercise began, the two groups were told different stories (once again, fictitious) about how previous participants had fared. The first group was informed that the spread in winnings between the most and the least successful players was only a few cents, the second that the gap was a lot wider. Those in the second group went on to place much chancier bets than those in the first. The experiment, Payne contends, “provided the first evidence that inequality itself can cause risky behavior.”
People’s attitude toward race, too, he argues, is linked to the experience of deprivation. Here Payne cites work done by psychologists at N.Y.U., who offered subjects ten dollars with which to play an online game. Some of the subjects were told that, had they been more fortunate, they would have received a hundred dollars. The subjects, all white, were then shown pairs of faces and asked which looked “most black.” All the images were composites that had been manipulated in various ways. Subjects in the “unfortunate” group, on average, chose images that were darker than those the control group picked. “Feeling disadvantaged magnified their perception of racial differences,” Payne writes.
“The Broken Ladder” is full of studies like this. Some are more convincing than others, and, not infrequently, Payne’s inferences seem to run ahead of the data. But the wealth of evidence that he amasses is compelling. People who are made to feel deprived see themselves as less competent. They are more susceptible to conspiracy theories. And they are more likely to have medical problems. A study of British civil servants showed that where people ranked themselves in terms of status was a better predictor of their health than their education level or their actual income was.
All of which leads Payne to worry about where we’re headed. In terms of per-capita income, the U.S. ranks near the top among nations. But, thanks to the growing gap between the one per cent and everyone else, the subjective effect is of widespread impoverishment. “Inequality so mimics poverty in our minds that the United States of America . . . has a lot of features that better resemble a developing nation than a superpower,” he writes.
Rachel Sherman is a professor of sociology at the New School, and, like Payne, she studies inequality. But Sherman’s focus is much narrower. “Although images of the wealthy proliferate in the media, we know very little about what it is like to be wealthy in the current historical moment,” she writes in the introduction to “Uneasy Street: The Anxieties of Affluence.”
Sherman’s first discovery about the wealthy is that they don’t want to talk to her. Subjects who agree to be interviewed suddenly stop responding to her e-mails. One woman begs off, saying she’s “swamped” with her children; Sherman subsequently learns that the kids are at camp. After a lot of legwork, she manages to sit down with fifty members of the haut monde in and around Manhattan. Most have family incomes of more than five hundred thousand dollars a year, and about half have incomes of more than a million dollars a year or assets of more than eight million dollars, or both. (At least, this is what they tell Sherman; after a while, she comes to believe that they are underreporting their earnings.) Her subjects are so concerned about confidentiality that Sherman omits any details that might make them identifiable to those who have visited their brownstones or their summer places.
“I poked into bathrooms with soaking tubs or steam showers” is as far as she goes. “I conducted interviews in open kitchens, often outfitted with white Carrara marble or handmade tiles.”
A second finding Sherman makes, which perhaps follows from the first, is that the privileged prefer not to think of themselves that way. One woman, who has an apartment overlooking the Hudson, a second home in the Hamptons, and a household income of at least two million dollars a year, tells Sherman that she considers herself middle class. “I feel like, no matter what you have, somebody has about a hundred times that,” she explains. Another woman with a similar household income, mostly earned by her corporate-lawyer husband, describes her family’s situation as “fine.”
“I mean, there are all the bankers that are heads and heels, you know, way above us,” she says. A third woman, with an even higher household income—two and a half million dollars a year—objects to Sherman’s use of the word “affluent.”
“ ‘Affluent’ is relative,” the woman observes. Some friends of hers have recently flown off on vacation on a private plane. “That’s affluence,” she says.
This sort of talk dovetails neatly with Payne’s work. If affluence is in the eye of the beholder, then even the super-rich, when they compare their situation with that of the ultra-rich, can feel sorry for themselves. The woman who takes exception to the word “affluent” makes a point of placing herself at the “very, very bottom” of the one per cent. “The disparity between the bottom of the 1 percent and the top of the 1 percent is huge,” she observes.
Sherman construes things differently. Her subjects, she believes, are reluctant to categorize themselves as affluent because of what the label implies. “These New Yorkers are trying to see themselves as ‘good people,’ ” she writes. “Good people work hard. They live prudently, within their means. . . . They don’t brag or show off.” At another point, she observes that she was “surprised” at how often her subjects expressed conflicted emotions about spending. “Over time, I came to see that these were often moral conflicts about having privilege in general.”
Whatever its source—envy or ethics—the discomfort that Sherman documents matches the results of the University of California study. Inequity is, apparently, asymmetrical. For all the distress it causes those on the bottom, it brings relatively little joy to those at the top.
As any parent knows, children watch carefully when goodies are divvied up. A few years ago, a team of psychologists set out to study how kids too young to wield the word “unfair” would respond to unfairness. They recruited a bunch of preschoolers and grouped them in pairs. The children were offered some blocks to play with and then, after a while, were asked to put them away. As a reward for tidying up, the kids were given stickers. No matter how much each child had contributed to the cleanup effort, one received four stickers and the other two. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children shouldn’t be expected to grasp the idea of counting before the age of four. But even three-year-olds seemed to understand when they’d been screwed. Most of the two-sticker recipients looked enviously at the holdings of their partners. Some said they wanted more. A number of the four-sticker recipients also seemed dismayed by the distribution, or perhaps by their partners’ protests, and handed over some of their winnings. “We can . . . be confident that these actions were guided by an understanding of equality, because in all cases they offered one and only one sticker, which made the outcomes equal,” the researchers reported. The results, they concluded, show that “the emotional response to unfairness emerges very early.”
If this emotional response is experienced by toddlers, it suggests that it may be hardwired—a product of evolution rather than of culture. Scientists at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, outside Atlanta, work with brown capuchin monkeys, which are native to South America. The scientists trained the monkeys to exchange a token for a slice of cucumber. Then they paired the monkeys up, and offered one a better reward—a grape. The monkeys that continued to get cucumbers, which earlier they’d munched on cheerfully, were incensed. Some stopped handing over their tokens. Others refused to take the cucumbers or, in a few cases, threw the slices back at the researchers. Like humans, capuchin monkeys, the researchers wrote, “seem to measure reward in relative terms.”
Preschoolers, brown capuchin monkeys, California state workers, college students recruited for psychological experiments—everyone, it seems, resents inequity. This is true even though what counts as being disadvantaged varies from place to place and from year to year. As Payne points out, Thomas Jefferson, living at Monticello without hot water or overhead lighting, would, by the standards of contemporary America, be considered “poorer than the poor.” No doubt inequity, which, by many accounts, is a precondition for civilization, has been a driving force behind the kinds of innovations that have made indoor plumbing and electricity, not to mention refrigeration, central heating, and Wi-Fi, come, in the intervening centuries, to seem necessities in the U.S.
Still, there are choices to be made. The tax bill recently approved by Congress directs, in ways both big and small, even more gains to the country’s plutocrats. Supporters insist that the measure will generate so much prosperity that the poor and the middle class will also end up benefitting. But even if this proves true—and all evidence suggests that it will not—the measure doesn’t address the real problem. It’s not greater wealth but greater equity that will make us all feel richer. ♦
I can slip into this unique meeting of a group of European policymakers with Immanuel Kant only because I am an intern with training in stenography who is discreet and presentable and good at making tea and arranging chairs.
My boss at the Ministry (who is not allowed entry and will be so jealous of me!!) was asked at short notice to organize the reunion which will explore in the broadest possible terms an outline of the country’s philosophical stance on Fiscal Union. Someone at the European Commission is insisting we find a historical defence of the institutions and procedures of the new macro surveillance mechanism to deploy against “cheap criticism” of the democratic legitimacy of EU institutions.
The Year Ahead 2018
The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.
Chancellor of Germany–Angela Merkel–An Intellectual in her own right
Schäuble is in a hurry. He whispered to Chancellor Merkel that time is short, they should push on. Merkel would have liked to wait for an agreeable atmosphere to settle upon the room. She changed her mind, however, when she overheard Immanuel Kantmuttering that “progress in time determines everything and is not itself determined, and every transition in perception to something that follows in time is a determination of time”. Kant arrived punctually, and has finished his tea. It would be advisable to begin discussion while the caffeine still circulates through whatever remains of his veins.
Merkel: Ladies and Gentleman…
Wow! She is talking directly to *me*. I am the only other lady in the room! Wow!
Merkel: The German government has always made it clear that the European debt crisis is not to be solved with a single blow. There is no such single blow…
Schäuble: All quick solutions, like printing money or collectivizing our liabilities without a common finance policy, are the wrong solution…
Merkel: Thank you Wolfgang. As I was saying, I hope our partners understand we are not willing to trade concessions such as bond-buying, joint debt-issuance and sovereign bail outs. This is not about give and take. The precondition of continuation with the single currency is that sovereignty in fiscal policy be delegated to European institutions. So, where today we have only loose agreements we need in future to have legally binding regulations.
Schäuble: It does not make any economic sense to start endlessly pumping money into stability funds, nor starting up the ECB printing press. This would create disincentives for countries to carry on consolidating and reforming. Piling on more debt now will stunt rather than stimulate growth. We need to take big steps to get Fiscal Union done. It was not possible politically in the 1990s but the crisis shows we need it now. That is why crises are also opportunities. We can get things done that we could not do without the crisis. Do you agree Prof Kant?
Kant: The only way for the philosopher, since he cannot assume that mankind follows a rational purpose of its own in its collective actions, is for him to attempt to discover a purpose in nature behind this senseless course of human events. An organ which is not meant for use or an arrangement which does not fulfill its purpose is a contradiction in the teleological theory of nature. This purpose of nature can be fulfilled only in a society which has not only the greatest freedom, and therefore a continual *antagonism* among its members, but also the most precise specification and preservation of the limits of this freedom. The highest task which nature has set for mankind must therefore be that of establishing a society in which freedom under external laws would be combined to the greatest possible extent with irresistible force. It requires a perfectly just civil constitution. Man is forced to enter this state of restriction by sheer necessity.
Draghi: Yes. And the sequencing matters… For example, it is first and foremost important to get a commonly shared fiscal compact right. Confidence works backwards. If there is an anchor in the long term, it is easier to maintain trust in the short term… It is time to adapt the euro area design with a set of institutions, rules and processes that is commensurate with the requirements of monetary union.
Kant: Europe’s citizens should be informed, so that they may comprehend the flow of history, that the fiscal union is but the most immediate feasible step in the direction of a federation of peoples in which every state, even the smallest, could expect to derive its security and rights not from its own power or its own legal judgement, but solely from this Great Federation. However wild and fanciful this idea may appear, it has been ridiculed as such only because they thought that its realization was presented as imminent. It is the crisis, not the Germans, that have made it imminent and feasible. This crisis is the signal that nature sends to man about the current dysfunction of his institutional organs.
Sikorski: But it is a crisis of apocalyptic proportions!!! I demand of Germany that, for your own sake and for ours, you help the eurozone survive and prosper. You know full well that nobody else can do it. I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity. You have become Europe’s indispensable nation.
Merkel: Radoslaw, let me assure you that is exactly why we are meeting today. I fear we are not winning the philosophical argument. It is bizarre that some people think we wish to dominate Europe. In order to win back trust, we need to do more. What is the fundamental historical argument we must make for Fiscal Union?
Westerwelle: Sound budgeting is not a German idée fixe based on our historical experience of hyperinflation. It is in the interest of Europe as a whole. There is no time to lose. It is vital to send a clear message to markets that the eurozone is determined to end the policies of debt-making.
Schäuble: When things get really difficult, suddenly solutions which seemed impossible become possible. The crisis represents an opportunity. I’m not saying that I enjoy being in a crisis, but I’m not worried. Europe always moved forward in times of crisis. Sometimes you need a little pressure for certain decisions to be taken. We can only achieve a political union if we have a crisis.
Kant: This crisis opportunity is not a lucky accident arrived at by random collisions but rather reveals that nature is purposive in its parts. As in war or any systemic catastrophe, the aftermath is felt by the state in the shape of a constantly increasing *national debt* whose repayment becomes interminable. And in addition, the effects which an upheaval in any state produces upon all the others in our continent, where all are so closely linked by trade, are so perceptible that these other states — Germany and France — are forced by their own insecurity to offer themselves as arbiters, albeit without legal authority, so that they indirectly prepare the way for a great political body of the future, without precedent in the past.
Schäuble: This is true. We achieved monetary union, in the short term we want fiscal union, and in a larger context naturally we need a political union… Yet the Mediterranean countries will not become German, and Europe will not be speaking German.
Kant: Although this political body exists for the present only in the roughest of outlines, it nonetheless seems as if a feeling is beginning to stir in all its members, each of which has an interest in maintaining the whole. And this encourages the hope that the highest purpose of nature, a universal *cosmopolitan* existence, will at last be realized. If we trace the influence of the Greeks upon the shaping and mis-shaping of the body politic… we shall discover a regular process of improvement in the political constitutions of our continent. We must always concentrate our attention on civil constitutions, their laws, and the mutual relations among states, and will then notice that a germ of enlightenment always survived, developing further with each revolution.
Weidmann: I’m with you Prof Kant. Right now we’re talking about the EU treaty and I don’t see how you can build trust in a system that violates laws. I am president of an institution which is bound by a legal framework. We should respect the division of labour in a democracy. This has nothing to do with pragmatism or dogmatism. You won’t solve the crisis by reducing incentives for the debtor governments to act. It’s really an absurd debate in which we are telling institutions: ‘don’t care about the law’. In any model you must penalize rule violations. In the Maastricht model, the rules would be the stability and growth pact, with automatic sanctions for violations and the no bail-out clause. In the fiscal union model you also need strict rules for deficit and debt. If you breached those rules you would need to delegate your national sovereignty on fiscal policy to a supranational level. I think the true question at the heart of this is: are governments, parliaments, and *people* ready to accept a supranational level, a European level that assumes the ultimate responsibility for fiscal policy, at least in case of a breach of the rules?
Kant: If the law is such that a *whole people* could not possibly agree to it (for example if it stated that a certain class of subjects must be privileged as a ruling class) it is unjust; but if it is at least possible that a people could agree to it, it is our duty to consider the law as just, even if the people is at present in such a position or attitude of mind that it would probably refuse its consent if it were consulted… in a referendum, for example.
Weidmann: And, furthermore, it’s not about being more German or not being German. Fiscal solidity is not only a German issue, and the crisis has clearly revealed its importance as the basis of financial stability and political stability.
Draghi: I agree. On my appointment as ECB president a British newspaper worried “the euro could be felled by an Italian trying too hard to be a German.” I mean it’s just absurd…
Kant: Take no notice, Mario. They probably meant another country whose name begins with ‘G’. Germany is a successful country. All this fuss about budget sovereignty! In times past we lost our cities not just our deficits. Because I’m forced to live in Russia I can see things as an outsider. I see that, after wisely moving away from corporatism, Germany and like-minded northern European countries have consolidated as the world’s sustainably strongest and most competitive economies. The BRICS will at some stage inevitably crash against or only slowly clamber over internal institutional roadblocks. Germany already has good institutions *and* the right economy. If the Great Federation is modeled on impersonal non-discriminatory legal-procedural process then it can also be sold to the German people as their victory to be proud of. The voters are bound to like it.
Merkel: Since we’ve drifted to the question of democracy I would like to mention that we are planning another meeting, this time with Max Weber and Jurgen Habermas, who have opposing views on the present democracy debate in Europe.
Weidmann: I think Habermas disagrees with our idea for taking away the budgetary privileges of national parliaments.
Kant: It sounds like the makings of a first-rate quarrel. Can I come too?
The meeting finishes. As intern, I busy myself helping everyone to find their way out of the room without mishap. I give them each my card — discreetly — and tell them what a pleasure it has been. Angela says to me “see you at the next meeting then”, which means I can truthfully tell my boss I will be expected to attend. The Chancellor expects it.
Italic Credits: Kant: Political Writings, The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Financial Times, The Economist, Reuters, Google
Former Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim says his book “Assalamualaikum: Observations on the Islamisation of Malaysia”, which was launched in October 2015, has now been banned by the government.
The former minister took to Twitter to make public the decision which comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry.
“So the year didn’t end that well, My book ‘Assalamualaikum’ is now banned. Looks to me this govt prefer Muslims to burn effigies of political opponent(s), destroy beer bottles than reading books,” he tweeted earlier today.
In the book, Zaid shares his thoughts on a new and fresh conversation about the role of Islam in Malaysian politics and in public life.
A check with a local bookstore website indicates that the book, which was on sale for RM19, is banned.
FMT is still waiting to get confirmation from the Home Ministry on the banning of the book. This is the latest case of book banning related to publications that touch on Islam.
Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa and Blogger Din Merican
On October 3, the Home Ministry had announced the banning of five books with Islamic content, by Turkish author Mustafa Akyol, and two Malaysians – Ahmad Farouk Musa and Faisal Tehrani.
Prolific Writer Faisal Tehrani
In an official government gazette dated September 28, 2017, the Home Ministry said the books were banned as they were likely to be prejudicial to public order as well as to alarm public opinion.
The sole English book banned was “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty”, written by Akyol, and which has been an international best-seller since it was first published in the United States in 2011.
The Bahasa Malaysia version of the book, “Islam Tanpa Keekstreman: Berhujah Untuk Kebebasan” was also banned. Aside from Akyol, Farouk, Nur Asyhraff Mohd Nor and Shuhaib Ar Rumy Ismail are also credited as authors for the translated work.
Two of Farouk’s own books – Wacana Pemikiran Reformis (Jilid 1) and (Jilid 2) – were also banned.
The publisher of the three books in BM is Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF), an Islamic NGO of which Farouk is chairman.
‘More corruption than anytime in history’
At the launch of his book in 2015, Zaid had said that Malaysia was deeply divided along racial, religious and class more than ever before.
“We have more corruption than at anytime in our history. Greed has become a way of life. Democracy and Rule of Law have been pushed aside.”
“Jakim, proclaiming itself as the protector of Islam, is more involved in big business and overseas travels than in promoting the principles of the religion,” he had said, referring to the Malaysian Islamic religion development department by its acronym.
“These are the complete antithesis of an Islamic government. Islam is a pristine, pure and a simple religion. It’s a religion of peace, promoting honour and integrity.”
Saying then that he was hoping for the book to be a conversation starter, Zaid said: “If the idea of Islamisation was to promote Malaysia as the country that exemplifies the virtues of the religion, then we have failed.”