Dr. Clive Kessler remembers Nik Aziz bin Nik Mat (1931-2015))

February 22, 2015

Dr  Clive Kessler remembers Haji Nik Abdul Aziz bin Nik Mat (1931 – 2015)



We go back a long way together, Tok Guru and I. To the beginning, each of us after his own prior apprenticeship, of our ensuing public careers in our closely intertwined fields of work.

Two synchronous starts

His work, that is, of pursuing and exemplifying an identifiably “traditional” and committed Islamic life within the modern political world; and mine —— born of a conviction, held against the grain and bias of prevalent academic attitudes at the time, that efforts such as that of Nik Aziz to “make Islam real in modern political life” needed to be understood —— as a scholarly analyst of and commentator upon such things.

I was convinced that the new, and newly assertive, politics of Islam within, and even against, the modern world had to be studied, not dismissed as a mere relic of an earlier, now waning pre-modern political era. He, on his part, believed that that kind of Islamic politics needed to be pursued and deepened. Both of us took the matter seriously, and each of us was committed to his own part of that task.

The two parts were complementary, but not symmetrically so. His side of the challenge did not need me or mine; my part made sense, and could only exist, in relation to his.

Our careers came together as they began. As we began those two public journeys and careers, he as a noted Islamist politician and I as a student and observer of Islamic politics, in Kelantan in 1967.

By then I was at last getting down to the project of field research that I had begun to think of in about 1962: a ground-level village-based anthropological study of the sources of the then unusual, even paradoxical, mass support that the Islamic party PAS had managed to mobilize and retain in Kelantan from shortly after Malaya’s achievement of national independence.

In 1959, PAS had dramatically won —— at the expense and to the great discomfort of UMNO and its Alliance Party coalition —— 28 of the 30 seats that then comprised the Kelantan State Assembly. In defiant opposition to the national federal government, PAS had captured state power in Kelantan.

And, after many delays and setbacks, I was by July 1967 beginning what was to become about two years of field research centred in Kelantan’s Bachok district, leading up to and beyond Malaysia’s fateful 1969 elections.

1967, a busy year for PAS

And 1967 was to be a big year for Islamic politics in Kelantan. PAS had survived the 1964 elections, held at the peak of Indonesia’s Konfrontasi against the new, expanded Malaysian Federation, and, though with a significantly reduced majority, retained its control of Kelantan. But, with its improved position, UMNO was now hopeful of defeating PAS, and “seeing it off” from the national political scene, at the next elections due in 1969.

This guaranteed that politics in Kelantan between the two rival parties competing for popular Malay support (and the political credibility and legitimacy that it provided) would, in the interim, be keenly, even tenaciously, contested.

The entire Malaysian opposition, especially the parties of the radical left, had been accused (notably in a government “white paper” entitled A Plot Exposed) of sympathy with and complicity in Indonesian confrontation and —— based upon the connection of PAS through its President, the pre-war radical leader Dr. Burhanuddin Helmy, with the “old Malay left” —— PAS too was under enormous pressure. In him, the radical or “populist nationalist” side of the PAS leadership was “put out of play” and detained as a risk to national security.

Meanwhile, the more Islamically-minded (or “ulama”) side of the PAS leadership had also been dealt a savage blow from which it had not yet recovered. The party’s pre-eminent Islamist political intellectual, Ustadz Zulkifli Muhammad (born 1927), rising from his connection with the new Kolej Islam in Kelang, and while serving as the federal MP for Bachok, had been killed in an automobile accident in 1964.

The party had fallen into the crisis custodianship of the Islamically educated radical nationalist Kelantanese politician, Mohamad Asri bin Haji Muda (1923-1992).

As 1967 began, the religious side of the party’s leadership was, if not in disarray, then in eclipse. There was a gap there be filled, an opportunity to be seized.

Two more events in 1967 were soon to shape dramatically the political contours of Kelantan and PAS. First, in July, the “firebrand” PAS MP for Pasir Mas was murdered outside the PAS headquarters in Kota Baru. There were murmurings of political conspiracy, but personal animosities may well have been the main motivation. A heated by-election was held to replace him.

No sooner was that by-election completed than the member for Kelantan Hilir (or “down-river” Kota Baru), one of the old PAS ulama (religious scholars) also died, and in November a by-election was held to replace him.

The candidate that PAS, somewhat surprisingly, produced was Nik Abdul Aziz bin Nik Mat, a well-known and widely respected religious teacher in the area but, until then, not a man publicly identified with PAS.

On the contrary, he came to PAS candidature from his previous employment as a co-ordinator of programmes of rural extension (“adult education”) religious teaching offered by the UMNO-led federal government through Kemas, the Jabatan Kemajuan Masyarakat (or Department of Social Development), generally seen as a kind of government-housed UMNO rural outreach instrument. All Kemas employees, it was assumed, were either explicitly pro-UMNO or else decidedly neutral and non-political.

With his emergence as candidate, Nik Aziz —— to the surprise of many, since he had been a conscientious but politically undemonstrative servant of Kemas, but amid grumblings about disloyalty and deception from some UMNO functionaries —— declared his true political colours and allegiances.

Starting gradually, Nik Aziz, or simply “Tok Guru” as people would come to refer to him, over the following years became a major political personality in Kelantan, a high-profile PAS identity nation-wide, and a powerful force and focus of the reassertion of the ulama presence and their power within PAS.

Nik Aziz and Bachok politics, 1968-1969

From the time of his election to parliament and as the 1969 elections approached, Kelantanese politics became increasingly heated. Partly this heightening of tension reflected national-level developments, as Malay discontent grew and found expression in agitation over such issues as Malay as the national language, education policy, and the obstacles to Malay bumiputera economic advancement.

But it was also in response to local, village-level developments too. In Bachok district it certainly was. In 1968 the State Assembly member for North Bachok died, and another by-election had to be held.

As I have noted elsewhere, “In this, the third by-election caused within a year by the death of a PAS incumbent in Kelantan, the UMNO was again eager to capture a PAS seat and thus promote a flood of defections to its side before the approaching general elections of 1969. Though it had twice increased its share of the vote in PAS strongholds, the UMNO had been denied the dramatic victory it sought. Rating its chances better in North Bachok than in the earlier contests, the UMNO decided to pursue victory aggressively” (Islam and Politics in a Malay State: Kelantan 1838-1969, Cornell U.P., 1978, p. 151). And it proved brutal.

UMNO deployed enormous power and resources in this third contest, now concentrated within a small, state assembly constituency area. It brought to bear a full range of government instrumentalities, an enormous government-provided “war-chest” to fund offers and inducements, and overbearing social pressure as well.

Humble villagers were approached on a near daily basis by teams of UMNO operatives and “grandees”, who sought politely to “win their hearts” but also socially to cajole, shame, humiliate and overwhelm them. To pressure them to say, just once, as a way of getting some relief from the sustained onslaught, that, yes, they would vote for UMNO.

Once they did that, they would find it difficult, under unrelenting daily reinforcement, not to deliver their vote on the day; and, meanwhile, having promised to do so, they would often find themselves cut off and shunned by their fellow villagers who, having resisted such blandishments, still supported PAS.

And, when PAS people tried to persuade those who had wavered and wilted that they might still vote their own minds and consciences, they would find the prospective defectors surrounded and protected by young UMNO supporters and “enforcers” who were determined to keep the “new recruits” isolated from their own village friends and to keep PAS operatives away from them.

In these circumstances, interpersonal tensions rose rapidly, and soon escalated into overt violence. When that happened it was generally the UMNO side that found its position upheld by the Police, and the PAS partisans found themselves on the wrong side of the law.


Things became very ugly. Especially in certain villages identified and targeted by UMNO as “ripe” for breaking open and capture.How was PAS to respond to this onslaught? It lacked UMNO’s vast material resources, its access to government infrastructure, and its ability to rely on police support.It could turn only to what we might term “moral resistance”.

To hold the situation, and hold their supporters together (and out of UMNO’s easy reach), PAS sent out to those “beleaguered” villagers a number of its religious teachers and ulama operatives —— not just for an afternoon’s pep talk but to stay and live with them, in their houses and villages, for days on  end, until polling day.

These men would stay with the PAS-supporting villagers, provide a focus of attention and activities, talk with them and tell stories, lead prayers, give religious lectures and offer personal assurance and advice. They came to be and also stay with their party’s local supporters, holding them together in tight social and political cohesion, bound together in exemplary Islamic terms by what many were ready to regard as “the rope of Allah”, of divinely encouraged Islamic solidarity.

The Nik Aziz political paradigm

Under the guidance of the party’s ulama emissaries, the Kelantan villagers came to see and experience themselves as part of the core drama, and moral paradigms, of Islamic politics and Islamic struggle, not just in Kelantan in the 1960s but at all times and places. They became, in their own eyes, true believers engaged, in full standing, in the defining drama and struggle of Islam itself.

As I have noted: “What had happened in their parish, they were instructed, was no obscure dispute in a remote village on the fringe of the Muslim world, but part of the whole fabric of Islamic history, woven from the warp of unending oppression and the woof of a responding intransigence. Islamic history was not simply the ancient, almost legendary events of distant Arabia, but a process in which, through unyielding commitment, they had participated on a basis of salvationary equality with all who have suffered for Islam. ‘What is Islam,’ mused one villager, ‘but a community of suffering? We here in our own way have been fully inducted into the ranks of the Faithful’” (Islam and Politics in a Malay State, p. 155).

And it was —— in the year or so following his election as Kelantan Hilir MP and based upon his experience as the programme organizer for the Kemas adult education and outreach activities —— Nik Aziz who conceptualized, devised, headed, developed and promoted those live-in ulama teams, their modus operandi and techniques. And what we would today call their persuasive “form of discourse”.

Nik Aziz did not just devise and personally oversee this programme of Islamically-informed “moral resistance”, of modern Malay politics in a locally accessible Islamic idiom. In doing so, he created or recreated himself as Tok Guru. As the prototype and archetype of the Kelantanese and Malaysian Islamic politician. As the persuasive template and identikit of the Islamic man of faith in action: not in the madrassah or in party political conclave but “out in the world”.

A lot of facile nonsense is uttered these days about “public intellectuals”. Well, Nik Aziz was something similar but also entirely different. And, of that specific social type, he was “the genuine thing”. He was the living epitome of the “public alim”: an exemplar of “ulama politics” who personally embodied and projected a powerful vision and doctrine about how the everyday challenges of Islamic politics —— of “being and doing Islam in the world” —— were to be faced as a single, coherent, ubiquitous and paradigmatic form of struggle.

How did he do it?

From Ustadz Nik Aziz to Tok Guru: it was a remarkable transformation or image “remake”.How did he do it? My answer to this key question comes not from talking to the man or any similarly close and privileged insight into him in those years but from observing him publicly. From watching and being fascinated by his presentation of himself and by his projection, through his austere persona, of his political outlook and message.

And I was not alone in seeing him as this often remote, aloof and ascetic yet compelling man or living symbol.  A leading international journalist who stumbled upon one of his political rallies in a Kelantan kampung during the 1986 national election  was similarly struck —— but in his published report greatly offended his admirers by likening Nik Aziz, his aura and demeanour to “Uncle Ho”, Ho Chi Minh.

It has become a commonplace for people to tell their stories of how modest, open and approachable —— often to their great surprise —— they found Tok Guru on meeting him.But, early in his public political career, I did not find him easy to approach. Though generally of gentle and withdrawn demeanour, he could be fierce, even terrifying —— especially when denouncing UMNO and inveighing against what he saw as the arrogance and abuses of those who represented it and projected it into village life.

In those days, to be honest, I suspected him of being a committed but quietly spoken fanatic. When our paths crossed, as they often did, in the Bachok villages, I suppose he wondered what I was doing there, suspecting that, whatever my purpose, I was (from his point of view) up to no good. And I also recognized that, given his politics and attitude to the kind of thing that I was doing there, he was probably right to think so. Hence I always felt awkward in his stern and forbidding presence.

So I did not pester or intrude upon him. I simply observed and listened to him, watchedKessler-C his “performative” social presentation of himself and attended closely to his words, their patterning, their subtly calculated and accumulating, even cascading, effects.

Until his election to Parliament in 1967, Nik Aziz was what was technically known at the time, via the standard Arabic term, as a mubaligh, meaning not just a religious teacher or “propagandist” but an exponent of balaghah —— of the arts of rhetoric, argument and persuasion.

Balaghah has always been a key component of the curriculum of the so-called Sekolah Arab religious schools in Malaysia, as elsewhere. Mastery of the traditional skills and art of public speaking and argument, of balaghah, has always been fundamental to PAS campaigning, and has long been the basis of its persistent ability to “out-argue” and “out-persuade” UMNO on the ground in kampung-level Malay politics. In its title, one famous prewar guide to Kelantanese argument characterized this verbal jousting as Tikaman Bahasa, as stabbing with words, or verbal dagger-work.

Ustadz Nik Aziz was a master of those verbal skills.  These, in his own case, had been further sharpened by his overseas studies, in this aspect more significantly at the formidable Dar Ul Uloom Deoband Academy in India than by his later studies at Al-Azhar in Cairo. As he now emerged as Tok Guru, he created and defined himself through their masterful deployment within the brutally uncompromising intra-Malay politics pitting PAS against UMNO in Kelantan in and from the late 1960s.

Rhetorical style and technique

When Tok Guru addressed a Kelantan village audience, he did not only speak in the local Kelantan dialect. He also adopted a “folksy” —— replete, elaborated and locally accessible —— narrative style. (Some insight into these processes is provided by Farish A. Noor, “The Localization of Islamist Discourse in the Tafsir of Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat …”, in Virginia Hooker & Norani Othman, eds., Malaysia: Islam, Society and Politics, ISEAS, Singapore, 2003, pp. 195-235.)

As he talked about, and drew political lessons from, the life of the Prophet, the stories that he told became “real” and immediately apprehendable in local terms, to local audiences. Related in a recognizably Kelantanese Malay “verbal register” and style, the struggles of Mekkah and Madinah centuries ago became recognizable to Kelantanese, in ways familiar to them.

This narrative technique not only had the effect of placing his Kelantanese listeners in the midst of the conflicts that shaped the Prophet’s career in Arabia; it also, as he told those stories in richly Kelantanese idiom and style, brought the Prophet and the whole cast of characters from his life-story into Kelantan. They became people just like the neighbours of these Kelantan villagers. It made sense in a new way to many Kelantanese, a familiar and recognizable Kelantan kind of sense.

This narrative technique produced —— as in that villager’s comment about the impact of the brutal North Bachok by-election —— a merging, a collapsing and folding together, that worked in two directions, not just one. It transposed the painful and harrowing conflicts of a small and remote Kelantan village into the heart of the Islamic world and experience, into the formative events and meanings of Islamic history. And, as presented by Tok Guru, it also brought that history, its events and validating meanings and messages to the PAS-supporting faithful in those far-off villages, making those struggles coherently graspable and endowing the lives of those caught up in them with rich Islamic meaning.

Sacred history and local anecdote became one. Ancient Arabia and Kelantan —— Mekkah and Madinah and Bachok —— were fused together by a unifying narrative. What was happening in Kelantan occurred, or so it was made to seem, in the same time, place and moral space as the careers of the Prophet and his companions. Accounts of their travails and triumphs were made to provide object lessons, parables, and instructive precepts and action-paradigms for Tok Guru’s listeners. He made what was happening in Kelantan seem a part, or a refraction, of all that had happened elsewhere at other times, notably in the life of the Prophet himself.

Mekkah and Madinah became, for Tok Guru’s listeners, places whose challenges were not altogether unlike those faced by them in their own villages and state. And, not that Tok Guru was in any way an image or model of the Prophet, through his example and words people felt they might begin to imagine how the Prophet might have lived and conducted himself.

It was powerful stuff, that, to be up against. If you didn’t believe it you had only to ask UMNO, whose more locally attuned leaders and operatives saw how hard this process was either to crack, on PAS’s side, or to replicate on UMNO’s. And how hard, in fact near impossible, it was for them to undo the profoundly adverse effects these processes had for UMNO’s hopes of ever winning and holding onto Kelantan by ordinary electoral means.

In this way, via Tok Guru’s artful balaghah, the Kelantanese were made to sit four-square within the formative and recognizable history of the ummah generally; and that history, centering upon the life of the Prophet —— thanks to his narrative ingenuity and agility —— was brought to bear upon and sit with them in the midst of their tribulations in confronting the massive and intimidating force mobilized against them by UMNO. Tok Guru brought these often demeaned Kelantanese into the paradigmatic history of Islam, and he brought that grand history to them, in locally comprehensible verbal and moral idioms, to clarify, dignify and in that way also to strengthen their struggle.

If Tok Guru could do this, could invoke and “make real” for these poor Kelantanese the very essence of Islam —— make it an immediate and almost palpable presence in their often deprived lives —— then who might possibly and plausibly deny that PAS, through Tok Guru, was making Islam real for them, literally making it “come to life” with clarity and compelling coherence, in their lives?

Certainly not UMNO, with its all too “political” politicians (so dramatically unlike the master “anti-politician” Nik Aziz) and its legions of politically ambitious and self-regarding party-religious ideologues.

UMNO leaders and operatives never quite grasped that, for the PAS-supporting villagers of Kelantan, the struggle of PAS was the struggle of Islam itself: not (as UMNO always imagined) because of some lies or misrepresentations or simply verbal tricks that PAS offered; but because experientially, in those unrelenting village conflicts and through the power of that narrative technique (identified above all with Nik Aziz), those villagers came experientially to “know” and become part of and “at one with” Islam through PAS. Hence they came to see PAS not just as toying with or “conjuring up” the presence of Islam but in fact representing it. PAS somehow made Islam real, for them, in their lives.

Focusing on Kelantan

Many of the accounts of Tok Guru’s career that have appeared in the days since his death suggest that in 1986 he opted to abandon federal politics and to focus exclusively on Kelantan. This is inaccurate.

The 1986 elections —— held when Dr. Mahathir had risen high in his early ascendancy, and before any of the major problems of his prime ministership had asserted themselves —— was also the first election held after the young Shari’ah-minded Islamists around Hadi Awang had seized control of the party from Datuk Asri Haji Muda.

It was not a good campaign for PAS, and it was made worse by the fact that it offered a strenuously Shari’ah-minded platform that owed much to recent revolutionary events in Iran. And still worse, unprecedentedly, it was held during the “haj season” when many devout PAS-supporting Kelantanese were away overseas and unable to vote.

PAS had assumed that it could hold onto Nik Aziz’s parliamentary seat (the old Kelantan Hilir, now known as Pengkalan Chepa) but it wanted to make sure of winning neighbouring Bachok with a strong candidate. So the party found a new candidate for Pengkalan Chepa and Nik Aziz stood for PAS in Bachok where he was widely known, respected and liked. But strangely, in that very strange election, he lost, by a small margin but (despite the absent pilgrimage people) on a huge voter turnout. Many newly enrolled military voters may have been added, for the first time, to the Bachok rolls.

Nik Aziz lost in Bachok. Sad, but no matter. He did not greatly like federal parliament, where his presence was largely decorative and suited his adversaries’ purposes, not his own. So he was content to be the state assemblyman for Semut Api, now named Chempaka, and to concentrate on Kelantanese matters.

UMNO ended up paying a heavy price for defeating Tok Guru in Bachok. With his energies now exclusively focused within Kelantan, he did the groundwork that enabled PAS —— which had ruled Kelantan from 1959 to 1978 and then been ousted from power by high-level UMNO manoeuvering using a disaffected faction within PAS —— to return to power in the state. UMNO had won Kelantan in 1978 and then held it, in Dr. Mahathir’s first two national election campaigns in 1982 and 1986. But now, Nik Aziz was back on the case. PAS once again won control of Kelantan in a stunning victory in 1990 —— and so began Tok Guru’s 23 years as Chief Minister (and also Mubaligh-in-Chief, as it were) of Kelantan —— and it has held onto the state through the succeeding elections  of 1995, 1999, 2004, 2008 and 2013.

While many in PAS these days, along with powerful elements within UMNO, eagerly look to the imminent possibility of a rapprochement between UMNO and PAS to establish together a “Malay Bumiputera Islamic government” whose preferred terms all other parts of the nation will have to accept, within PAS Nik Aziz was an adamant and powerful opponent of any such initiative.

Nik Aziz with Anwar

He had basic disagreements within the Pakatan coalition with the late Karpal Singh over the implementation of hudud law punishments. But they were allied in resisting the clamouring from some elements within PAS for it to leave Pakatan and make common cause once more with UMNO. Nik Aziz not only remembered all too well the bitter partisan rivalries throughout the Kelantan countryside of the 1960s. He also recalled with pain the treachery, as he saw it, of UMNO’s co-opting and then betraying of PAS in Kelantan in 1978 and the years that followed.

Asked why he opposed pursuing any second rapprochement with UMNO, his pointedly bitter reply was that it would be stupid “to allow oneself to be bitten twice by the same snake coming out of the same hole”. A pithy Kelantanese village locution once again.

Whether such a rapprochement will soon become irresistible now that both Karpal Singh and Nik Aziz have departed from the mundane field of political battles is one of the large questions of the present moment and immediate, pre-GE14 future.

Tok Guru, my teacher too

Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, or Tok Guru, will likely prove unique in Malaysian political history. He was the product of a complex combination of historical circumstances that are unlikely ever to recur.

He stands there, seemingly alone and on his own. As so many people have said lately in so many different ways, you did not have to agree with him to recognize his personal modesty and courtesy, his self-evident integrity and his own authenticity —— all of them grounded in the Kelantanese Islamic politics, society and culture of his time.

He became known almost universally as Tok Guru, and he was my teacher too.  He taught me a lot (though I am sure that it was not what he would have wished me to learn from him and his commitments) that has stayed with me throughout my life and career as a scholar for almost half a century now, since I first began observing him and how he operated.

Above all, I learned from him, from his example and by watching him carefully, about the great force that —— when effectively personified and presented, performed and projected —— Islam can be and can generate within, and also against, the modern world: against the distinctive “package” of benefits and challenges and “trade-offs” that “modernity” may present.

I learned from Tok Guru how, in the name of a faith and a sacred history “made real” for everyday folk, the agenda of an over-confident and heedlessly advancing modernity may be decisively obstructed and resisted.

Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales. He is the  author of Islam and Politics in a Malay State: Kelantan 1838-1969, Cornell U.P., Ithaca NY, 1978.


Tun Musa remembers Tun Abdul Razak

January 14, 2015

Tun Musa Hitam on his mentor, Tun Abdul Razak

by MD IZWAN@www.themalaysianinsider.com

Published: 14 January 2015 2:00 PM

To commemorate the 39th death anniversary of Malaysia’s second prime minister and “Father of Development” Tun Abdul Razak, The Malaysian Insider is running a series of interviews with his colleagues and close associates who, with Razak, steered Malaysia through the early days of rebuilding following the race riots of May 13, 1969.

Earlier today, we heard from four of Razak’s sons on his legacy and their personal memories of their father.


In this article, former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam speaks about Razak’s leadership style and of his experience working with the man who brought him back to UMNO after his expulsion. Musa had been expelled from UMNO after the race riots over a fall-out with the then Prime Minister and UMNO President, Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Readmitted to the party by Razak, Musa went on to rise in UMNO and also held the post of Minister of Primary Industries in  Tun Razak’s Cabinet.

Despite the political tension surrounding Tunku’s departure and Razak’s ascension as Prime Minister, Musa remembers his mentor for his gentleness, patience and consultative approach, coupled with his firmness to see a decision through once it was made. These were values, Musa says, that Razak knew were needed to manage a multireligious and multiracial country like Malaysia.

TMI: What kind of person was Tun Razak to you? As a leader, a friend or a colleague?

Musa: Tun Razak was a national leader in the true sense of the word. He had vision and perception. He understood the priorities of our country on attaining independence. The long-term interest of the nation, to him, was a united Malaysian nation based on the principle of unity within diversity.

Undoubtedly he recognised the immense challenges, appreciating that years of colonial rule had left the country racially compartmentalised. Razak thus started off with giving top priority to education and rural development where these, as it happened, coincided with disparities among racial groups.

In shaping the country’s priorities and targets, Razak was consultative but once conclusions and decisions were made, he ensured that these were implemented with firmness, justice and fairness.

As a leader, he was never rude (I never witnessed him raising his voice in any discussions or conversations), respected as well as respectful. His priority was national interest and never personal interest.

On a personal note, Razak was always the inspiring teacher and guide to my political journey right up to the end of his life. He was always willing, in fact always encouraging, to hear my opinions and views that I would care to bring up to him in many of my one-to-one meetings with him.

He was respectful and accessible to the young. And collectively, as the young in UMNO then, we found him always ready to listen (and) at the same time advise us. With such high respect I had of him as a national leader, I could never categorise him either as friend or colleague but as the Leader.

TMI: Please share some of the memorable things you can recall of his leadership and of personal experiences you had while working with him.

Musa: Being consultative as he was, his leadership style was focused, confident and relaxed. This, in turn, gave so much confidence (to) the different communities in the country, which in turn attracted widespread support.

One personal memorable occasion that I gained from him was a (piece of) very personal advice he gave me: “You just work hard with honesty and dedication… that way the party (i.e UMNO) and the people will discover you”.

TMI: Following the May 13, 1969 racial riots, can you recall his role from the time he replaced Tunku Abdul Rahman as Prime Minister? Did you agree with the pressure against Tunku then?

Musa: After the May 13 turmoil, as chairman of the National Operations Council (NOC), the powers bestowed upon Tun Razak were near absolute. Yet, he appointed personalities who were ideas-oriented and passionate in trying to look at the best way of putting the country back on track. He dedicated himself to finding the best route to national reconciliation.

Prior to my departure from government (because of my difficulties with the Tunku, who was PM then), both Tun Razak and Tun Dr Ismail (then Minister of Home Affairs) separately gave me appointments for a hearing, listening intently to my criticisms and views. Even at a number of meetings which I attended, I had always felt welcome to air my views on all issues, ranging from hawkers to squatters to security as well as future direction of the country. These privileges were not exclusive to me, of course. Thus was Razak’s leadership, well-informed, clear and firm.

To cap it all was the formation, the structure and the methodology of the National Consultative Council. The NCC was all-inclusive of both civil society and political interests. The NCC greatly contributed to the shaping of the New Economic Policy.

On the Tunku, Tun Razak was well aware of the “out-datedness of the Tunku” as Prime Minister, but pleaded for time and patience. I was one of the strongest of the Tunku’s critics but within the confines of the top leadership.

To me, it was the experience and gentle skills of Tun Razak that managed to get the Tunku in the end to make way, thus paving the way to the progress of modern Malaysia.

TMI: Tun Razak set up Barisan Nasional (BN) to replace the Alliance. Do you think this formula of one-race parties sharing power in an alliance is still relevant today, or should Malaysia move towards more inclusive, multiracial political parties?

Tun RazakEducationist and Diplomat

Musa: The formation of the Barisan Nasional was the culmination of Tun Razak’s personal approach towards national reconciliation through the concept of consultation, accommodation and inclusiveness. It was also his acceptance of the realities of race as a major factor in Malaysian politics; yet (it was the) start of the long journey towards a multiracial Malaysia.

Unfortunately, within UMNO itself there is still a very strong lack of political willingness to accept a multiracial Malaysia in the original version as envisaged by our founding fathers led by the Tunku, Tun Razak and Tun Dr Ismail, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tun VT Sambanthan, joined later by leaders in Sabah and Sarawak then.

The irony of it all was that it was some UMNO dissidents who broke away and formed the opposition grouping that seem to venture into political multiracialism and pluralism.

“Pluralism” and “liberalism”, which actually translate into multiracialism, however, are “dirty words” currently and under intense attack by some UMNO personalities as well as related groups.

Thus, it remains to be seen how these original national objectives of our founding fathers would survive. Beside the need for a strong assertive political leadership, education, overall, is the only factor that could counter such trends and threats.

TMI: Has the New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced by Tun Razak been successful in closing the gap between the rich and the poor?

Musa: The NEP has achieved considerable success. The Malays, particularly, are way above their original position of backwardness and neglect. One needs to look back to appreciate how it was then and how it is now to appreciate how successful Tun Razak was in his vision of putting Malays up to the level of playing equal parts in modern Malaysia’s national development.

One could choose selectively any lack of progress in any particular field, of course, and find fault. It was considerably the result of the NEP that racial groups in Malaysia now can no longer be compartmentalised into professions and stereotypes. There are so many social, cultural and mentalities that could easily be accepted as “Malaysian” as indeed Malaysians are proud of.

The NEP was meant to be the means to an end. The NEP itself was the means to the end objective of nationhood. Detractors are aplenty with questions of “at what cost…?” to each community. Such whining is to be expected because there is surely no perfection in any human endeavour.

As far as the NEP and its effects on the country as well as issues relating to national unity are concerned, there is an urgent need to try to get them out of the way of partisan politics and open them up to rational discussions. That is why I am encouraged by the emergence of the Group of 25, the Group of 33, etc, and the tendency towards rational debate and discussions.

More encouraging and meaningful would be if these groups could engage themselves in closed-door, non-publicised meetings in the true spirit of looking for a genuine national understanding and consensus.

Perhaps it would be helpful if one were to learn from the experiences of the National Consultative Council (NCC) formed after the May 13 turmoil. The NCC was a platform for all to have their say, yet addressors were prevented from playing to the gallery for political support. The idea here is not to duplicate but rather to use the NCC as a model to achieve positive, consensual results. Perhaps a small beginning could be such as between the G25 and the G33? Without constructive efforts, digging heels in the current atmosphere of racial and religious stresses and tensions would bring disaster!

Considering that the NEP was launched in 1970 and that it has gone through 45 years of up-and-down experiences, it should never be dismissed as a failure. On the contrary, as I said earlier, it has achieved considerable success. It is the pull from different directions by a much more successful, enlightened and demanding civil society that has contributed to more intense demands and criticism that we all are witnessing now. It is to the credit of the BN government that a much more democratic environment exists in Malaysia.

The challenge for the governing parties now is how not to panic and resort to easy short cuts in the way of curtailing the freedoms (now that were) initiated by former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

TMI: How would you describe Tun Razak’s legacy to Malaysians today?

Musa: The best tribute to Tun Razak and the best way of recognising his legacy is for the government to stay the course with calmness, with patience and a high level of tolerance in managing our beloved country. Indeed, as the most outstanding leader among our founding fathers, it was Tun Razak who wished our country to be a multireligious, multiracial one that would be to the well-being of all Malaysians.


Farewell to Sen. Edward Brooke

January 4, 2013

Farewell to Sen. Edward Brooke, Civil Rights Pioneer

January 3 at 8:26 PM–The Washington Post

Edward Brooke-1966The Handsome Sen. Edward Brooke (circ 1966)

Edward W. Brooke, who in 1966 became the first African-American popularly elected to the U.S. Senate and who influenced major anti-poverty laws before his bright political career unraveled over allegations of financial impropriety, died January 3 at his home in Coral Gables, Fla. He was 95.

Ralph Neas, a family spokesman and former legislative aide to the senator, confirmed the death. The cause was not immediately disclosed.

Mr. Brooke, a liberal Massachusetts Republican, was one of only two African-Americans to serve in the Senate in the 20th century. He was the first to serve since Reconstruction, when state legislatures appointed senators. Six African-Americans have served in the Senate since Mr. Brooke left office in 1979, including Barack Obama, who was a U.S. senator from Illinois when he was elected president in 2008.

In a statement Saturday offering condolences to Brooke’s family, Obama said Brooke “stood at the forefront of the battle for civil rights and economic fairness,” adding that “he sought to build consensus and understanding across partisan lines, always working towards practical solutions to our nation’s challenges.”

Mr. Brooke grew up in a racially divided Washington. After distinguished combat service in the segregated U.S. Army during World War II, he forged a legal and political career in Massachusetts, becoming the state’s hard-charging attorney general before winning election to the Senate.

Edward Brooke

Former Massachusetts Senator Edward William Brooke stands at the Capitol before receiving the Congressional Gold Medal in October 2009. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

He was one of the most popular politicians in Massachusetts, known for his independence — from civil rights leaders and from conservative members of his party. Tall and husky, with a nimbus of closely cropped hair, he was regarded as charismatic and vigorous in a way that reminded many voters of another Massachusetts political figure: President John F. Kennedy.

In the Senate, Mr. Brooke served on the powerful Appropriations Committee and became the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, which gave him influence over U.S. commerce, monetary and housing policy.

He was a black, Protestant Republican representing a state that was more than 95 percent white, overwhelmingly Catholic and two-thirds Democratic. “I do not intend to be a national leader of the Negro people,” he told Time magazine after his Senate election. “I intend to do my job as a senator from Massachusetts.”

Because he represented an overwhelmingly white state, Mr. Brooke found it politically expedient to play down race and push for civil rights legislation discreetly, said Judson Jeffries, a professor of African American studies at Ohio State University who has written extensively on blacks in politics.

Throughout his career, Mr. Brooke approached the politics of race gingerly. He opposed two Richard M. Nixon nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court over civil rights issues. Yet he refused to join the Congressional Black Caucus, although he did speak at its annual convention. He voted in favor of busing as a means to desegregate schools, although many of his Boston constituents reviled the policy.

As state attorney general, Mr. Brooke once fought the NAACP’s effort to boycott Boston’s public schools in protest of the city’s de facto segregation. Mr. Brooke ordered the students to attend class because the law required them to do so. It was an early instance of the independence he would show during his career. During the Watergate scandal, he was the first Senate Republican to call for President Nixon’s resignation.

Fair housing Housing was his overarching passion. With Senator. Walter Mondale (D-Minn.), he sponsored the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion or ethnicity.

Mr. Brooke hoped to influence civil rights through housing policy. “It’s not purely a Negro problem. It’s a social and economic problem — an American problem,” he told Time in 1967.

An amendment he introduced to the 1969 Housing Act capped public-housing rent at 25 percent of income. In 1981, the cap was raised to 30 percent.He later introduced the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which allowed women to obtain credit independently of their husbands.

“He was well-respected on the Hill, because he was someone who could cross the aisle and work with people of a variety of perspectives,” said political scientist Darrell West, a former Brown University professor who works at the Brookings Institution.

In 2004, Mr. Brooke received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award, in large part because of his ability to bridge factions, West said. Mr. Brooke culled friendships with segregationists including Sens. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) and John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), who invited him to swim with them in the Senate’s pool. “They invited me to join them and urged me to use the pool as often as I could,” Mr. Brooke wrote in his memoir, “Bridging the Divide: My Life” (2006).

In political and media circles, Mr. Brooke was considered a potential presidential or vice-presidential contender. But his career tumbled after he filed for divorce in 1976. He and his wife, the Italian-born Remigia Ferrari-Scacco, had been separated more than a decade, but she contested the divorce. His deposition revealed that he had incorrectly reported to the Senate a loan from a friend and that he had helped his mother-in-law conceal money to help her qualify for Medicaid assistance for her nursing-home care. He used some of the money to buy a Watergate condo.

Mr. Brooke said his deposition disclosure was a mistake, based on misunderstandings of his own finances. A 10-month Senate ethics investigation followed, and he was charged with welfare fraud.

The allegations cost him at the polls. He lost in 1978 to then-Rep. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), who made a primary run for president in 1992. The charges were later dropped because the district attorney said the misstatements had no outcome on the divorce. The Senate ethics panel in 1979 said the offenses were not serious enough to warrant any punishment, and because he was no longer in the Senate, the committee’s role was moot.

Raised in Washington

The youngest of three children, Edward William Brooke III was born October. 26, 1919, in Washington. His father was a Veterans Administration lawyer.

The future senator graduated from Dunbar High School in Washington. He entered Howard University and became president of the university’s chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha, the nation’s oldest black collegiate fraternity. He pursued premedical studies until he failed organic chemistry and concluded he wanted to become a doctor only because of the prestige it offered. He changed his major to sociology and received his bachelor’s degree in 1941.

During World War II, Mr. Brooke served in the all-black 366th Infantry Regiment in Italy. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for leading a daylight attack on an artillery bunker. After the war, still stationed in Italy, he met Ferrari-Scacco, the daughter of a Genoese paper merchant. They married in 1947.

Following the war, he moved to Boston after two Army friends convinced him it was friendlier toward African-Americans than Washington was. He entered Boston University Law School on the GI Bill and edited the university’s law review. He graduated in 1948, then opened a law firm in Roxbury, a burgeoning black community in Boston.

Two friends prodded Mr. Brooke to run for the state House in 1950. Since election would be difficult, he ran in both the Republican and Democratic primaries, a strategy known as cross-filing that was legal at the time.

He received the Republican nomination but lost the general election. At the time, the Republican Party had a strong liberal wing, especially in the Northeast. He ran again in 1952, but slurs against his interracial marriage were so brutal, he renounced politics and focused on his law practice.

In 1960, Mr. Brooke ran for Massachusetts Secretary of State. He lost the election but was appointed to the Boston Finance Commission, a watchdog group, where he earned a reputation for rooting out corruption. In 1962, he won election as state attorney general by combining moderate politics with adroit campaigning skills, becoming the first African-American to hold that post in any state.

He served two terms and vigorously prosecuted corrupt politicians and organized crime, obtaining more than 100 grand jury indictments.

After his 1978 Senate defeat, Mr. Brooke became chairman of the National Low Income Housing Coalition and practiced law and later sat on several corporate boards. In 2008, journalist Barbara Walters acknowledged maintaining a long-running affair with him during the course of his first marriage.

Survivors include his wife of 35 years, Anne Fleming Brooke of Coral Gables; two daughters from his first marriage, Remi Goldstone and Edwina Petit; a son from his second marriage, Edward W. Brooke IV; a stepdaughter, Melanie Laflamme; and four grandchildren.

In 2002, Mr. Brooke was diagnosed with breast cancer, a rare disease in men, and underwent surgery to remove both breasts.

Mr. Brooke was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’s highest civilian honor, in 2009 for his contribution to fair-housing laws and for his inspiration to later generations of African-American officeholders.

“If one looks at civil rights broadly, I would not call him a civil rights icon,” Jeffries said, “but I would call him a pioneer of the civil rights movement.”


My friend Ani Arope has died


UPDATE–December 22, 2014


December 20, 2014

My friend Ani Arope has died

by Stephen Ng@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Ani AropeAni Arope–a Patriot and Man of Integrity

Ani Arope, 82, passed away today at 5.20am while undergoing treatment at the Sime Darby Ramsay Medical Centre in Subang Jaya.

The former chief of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) had been fighting a battle against prostate cancer over the past two years. After a short funeral, his body was laid to rest at Perkuburan Islam Shah Alam this afternoon. Condolences can also be posted on Ani Arope’s Facebook page.

Ani Arope was best known for standing his ground in 1996 and quit his post as executive chairperson in TNB instead of signing the lopsided deal with independent power producers controlled by a number of cronies of then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Under the deal, TNB was forced to buy electricity generated by these IPPs at a significantly higher price.

He released his memoirs last year. In the book ‘Memoirs of Tan Sri Ani Arope’ published by the Fulbright Alumni Association of Malaysia, Ani revealed how, after the landmark blackout in Peninsular Malaysia in 1992, TNB was forced to surrender the land it had acquired in Paka, Terengganu, and Pasir Gudang, Johor, to a third party for power plants.

‘He had been a fighter’

Born in 1932 in Seberang Perai, Penang, the late Ani Arope left behind wife Saenah Ahmad and three children – Sakinah, Salina and Ismail. Sakinah  said that her father had been battling cancer for a long time.”We had expected him to go,” she said. “In fact, we are relieved that he is now resting in peace. He had been a fighter all throughout the time that he was not well.”

Prayers at Balai Islam, Tenaga Nasional HQ in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur

Her younger daughter, Salina, who is still in Switzerland, said the family has accepted the fate. “From God, we came, to God, we shall return,” she wrote in her WhatsApp message to Sakinah. “Thank you for being there for him.”Salina added: “What a journey (that father has taken). We pity him. He had endured so much medical treatment. Too much… He had been a soldier and braved through so many treatments.”

Among the dignitaries who came were the Sultan of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Putra Jamalullail, former Minister Sanusi Junid, nephew Hamid Pawanteh, Lembah Pantai Parliamentarian Nurul Izzah, Raja Eleena Sultan Azlan Shah, and his oncologist, Dr Ahmad Kamal, who cut short of his holiday in order to be present for the funeral.

Earlier at Tenaga Nasional Headquarters’ Balai Islam in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur family, friends and associates gathered to pay their respects and said prayers before his body was sent to Shah Alam for burial.


Part 1: Race riots could be costly, warns Ani Arope in memoirs

Part 2: Ultra Malays out to polarise nation, warns Ani Arope

Part 3: Ani Arope on how TNB got a raw deal from IPPs

Part 4: Why such uneasiness among Muslims


Remembering Foreign Secretary Robin Cook

October 8, 2014

Remembering Foreign Secretary Robin Cook

by John Kampfner

The Guardian, Friday 3 October 2014 17.00 BST

Robin Cook2A Rare Voice of Principle in British Politics

Only the credulous or the craven might consider a British politician their hero. I plead guilty, but only on one count. It is nearly a decade since Robin Cook’s sudden death. Parliament was robbed of a rare voice of principle, a man who combined erudition and acerbic wit with a forensic ability to assimilate and distil information to devastating effect.

Cook’s political career was punctuated by great moments, from the demolition of John Major over the Scott inquiry in 1996 to the demolition of his own Labour government, again over Iraq, in 2003. His intolerance of Whitehall deceit was matched by impatience towards those who couldn’t keep up with him. Cook’s refusal to schmooze – he would much rather go to the horse-racing – prevented him from getting to the very top, but he left his mark in a way that many of his colleagues and time-servers have not.

He may be best remembered for leading the opposition to Tony Blair’s great foreign misadventure, but Cook was actually an advocate of military action in defence of human rights, while trying (and largely failing) to curb arms sales. A fierce advocate of centre-left values, he was at the same time rarely tribal, and embraced the unfashionable cause of electoral reform.

I remember a trip we made not long after he’d been made foreign secretary. Fresh from giving a public dressing-down to Croatia’s nationalist President, he flew back to Scotland and straight to a constituency surgery.

He spent a couple of hours listening to a long line of concerns ranging from domestic violence to leaky roofs to housing benefit, writing down various points long-hand in his notebook. He was painstaking in the detail, but he saw in these examples a bigger picture. Even during this so-called time of plenty, long before the financial crash, he warned of the dangers of society’s stratification. He was always very aware of inequality.

I was thinking of Cook while putting the finishing touches to my study of 2,000 years of the global super-rich. Having been immersed in acquisitiveness, narcissism and the odd show of noblesse oblige, it is worth remembering that it doesn’t have to be this way.

• John Kampfner’s The Rich is published by Little, Brown.