Is Kassim Ahmad Old at 75?

Ho, Ho, Ho! – Reaching Into The Heavens for a Bottle of Wine

Or, Kassim Ahmad And His Autobiography: Mencari Jalan Pulang – Daripada Sosialisme Kepada Islam

It is about reaching for an ending of a normal kind for an extraordinary life that former Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia (PSRM) president, Kassim Ahmad, has put into a book, Mencari Jalan Pulang, an autobiography that is a full-bodied jug of inebriating wine.

While it ought to answer the critical questions why he left the PSRM after 18 years at the helm and then joined UMNO, the book answered little of those mysteries of Kassim, the writer, scholar, and mainly a gadfly with a voracious appetite for ideas and an equally powerful enthusiasm to let loose those ideas into a society that has been reluctant to accept them.

Those ideas were often imported along with their masters, forcing Kassim having then to look to them to help him weather the storms he brewed, or explain to society the abstruse philosophies they brought.

After he left PSRM Kassim first launched Dr. Rashad Khalifah and his rejection in toto of the Hadis (Prophetic Traditions). It was meant to demolish a basic structure of Islam, the Hadis being a source of Islamic Law.

Rashad was later killed in his own mosque in Tucson, Arizona. Kassim, himself knowing less than he should about Islamic culture, was visibly shaken by the event. He later found Lyndon LaRouche and soon dragged his ideas into the country.

This was a useful move. LaRouche’s movement not only served Kassim with good ideas but LaRouche would later prove useful to Kassim as an American connection who did not appreciate Anwar Ibrahim.

LaRouche was leader of a Quaker political movement which later became a faction of the Democratic Party. His ideas were and are revolutionary; he threads the development of political, economic and scientific ideas carefully from their earlier Greek sources and extrapolating them to the future of humanity.

In the process of these flights to fulfill some emptiness in his life, Kassim lost his friends and lieutenants, something he has difficulty explaining in his book, and perhaps also to himself.

Kassim’s trouble was that he could not be a genuine member of UMNO however much he tried. He was primarily a socialist thinker and leader; he should have remained in PSRM where he felt at home.

For reasons of his own, Kassim left PSRM in 1984, explaining in his book that he had been meeting then UMNO President and Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who, though reluctant at first, was later to agree to consider PSRM joining the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition.

But did PSRM know of his meetings with Mahathir or had Kassim taken matters into his own hands and then expected his party to simply agree to abide by his edicts?

Some PSRM members said, “Kassim stole PSRM’s money and he had to flee,” a metaphorical description that stuck on Kassim like a leach that would not let go. He had leapt away like a frog after leading the party for 18 years, and his party members preferred him dead.

They regretted the years some of them spent in political detention as a consequence of their being party members. In one instance, a few of his party members interrupted this writer’s speech to tell the forum four members of the audience had been in detention in Kamunting “because of being loyal to Kassim.”

Now that the leader had joined UMNO, what were his followers supposed to do? Should they all hug, kiss and bid their past goodbye as Kassim had apparently done in his book? Were they all then merely to fall in line behind him and together aggress against the Hadis and then assiduously read LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Journal?

Even if Kassim had tried to explain that he had lost faith in socialism, he cannot erase the image he had built of himself as a socialist for as long as the men and women he had led remained alive. These workers and peasants haunted him. Some spent more time than Kassim in detention, who was incarcerated from 1976 to 1981. Many of his followers broke down in detention; now Kassim has changed his political color and his soul as well.

I was a witness to this distressing abyss in Kassim’s life. He had called me through Dr. Chandra Muzaffar to help with his (Kassim’s) Hadis that he had presented in a series of seminars at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Chandra was later to remark that Kassim never acknowledged the contributions he and I made to help Kassim with those papers that later became his book.

Now in his autobiography Kassim wrote that those meetings we had in Chandra’s house and at his office in 1985 were about Islamic Reformism. We discussed that for only one or two days. The rest of the time was devoted to his Hadis book, with us discussing what we deemed to be the proper concerns of the subject as we felt that Kassim did not know enough about the subject. He had not known then about the Medinah Charter (Shahifah Medinah) and the treaties, letters and pledges the Prophet had made and which defined the bases and limits of Islamic diplomacy. Kassim also failed to take into consideration the Islamic financial institutions and instruments that were developed mainly through the Hadis. These financial institutions and instruments are today offering the best alternatives to the world that is wrecked by a systematic financial breakdown.

LaRouche predicted this breakdown decades earlier, but he had nothing to say about Islamic financial institutions, instruments and products, which are measures of civilized progress, no less.

Kassim kept telling a few of us that he had been meeting with Prime Minister Mahathir and that he (Mahathir) agreed with Kassim’s views. What views specifically?

What would Mahathir’s agreement do for Kassim and us? How would that help Kassim become a Muslim reformist in or outside Umno? When had Mahathir become a prophet of Islam?

Kassim’s friend and business partner Hamid Merican became so fed up with Kassim’s talk about his meetings with Mahathir that Hamid finally told Kassim to simply ask the premier for a fat contract or shut up.

It is now clear from Kassim’s autobiography that Mahathir’s position was the same as that of the rest of us. He accepted authentic hadis and therefore had no intention of damning the structure of the Shariah (Islamic Law).

In the meetings with Chandra Muzafar and this writer, Kassim was confronted with instances where Islamic law had only the Hadis to rely upon. We insisted that Kassim change his views of the hadis. He finally did, but he would revert to his iconoclasm time and again, at which point we called it a day as far as our relationship with him. He had committed himself too widely off the accepted path for him to retract. He had cast the dye.

My friend Kassim had not provided any additional insights in his autobiography on what caused him reject the major role of hadis; he is in effect blowing apart a basic and accepted structure of Islam.

Kassim may have liberated himself intellectually and spiritually, thinking that he may have elevated them to new levels of maturity, but this has little relevance to the advancement of Malays and Malaysians. Kassim is merely playing a game with his own shadows for the purpose of showing to his friends that he is still the same Kassim they knew but in a different guise. Kassim wishes to remove the opiate from his system.

I disagree with and have argued against Kassim’s blind distaste for Islamic traditionalism. I did this at a time when we Muslims were putting together an Islamic financial institution, an endeavor with which I was a little involved. As mentioned, we derive our guidance and regulations defining these financial institutions and instruments mainly from hadis.

Kassim kept insisting that theological states are unique only to Islam and refused to think of such “theological states” as Japan and Israel, or of India under the BJP. In any case, how many theocracies are there in Islam today for Kassim to make his general assumption?

It would seem like Kassim has not been able to forget me because of these disagreements. He mentions me in his book. On page 207, he alleges that I had been a member of Uthman el-Muhammady’s group at Tar Tujuh (sic) in Pasir Mas in 1974-75 and we (Uthman and I) were waiting for the world to end. This is not true. Uthman’s group was contemplating building a community which he hoped would develop into something akin to the Darul Arqam of Ustaz Asha’ari Muhammad, but his project never materialized. The leader, one Abdullah Sharif, did not measure to the height of Darul Arqam’s Asha’ari.

I was never a member of Uthman’s outfit. I went to Pasir Mas to join Abdul Wahab (an economist, since deceased) and Sharifuddin (a chartered accountant) to set up a business base and a school. Wahab soon became terminally ill, and we shelved our project. We had however, become a strong enough force to threaten PAS under Asri Muda’s leadership. It reached a point where he demanded that we leave Kelantan in 24 hours.

Asri could not lift a spoonful of rice to his mouth to feed himself after more than 75 percent of his party followers had left him from the first quarter of 1974. We could easily have taken half of Kelantan in the next general elections.

You could do without Islam in Malaysia at that time. You cannot do without Islam in the world now, especially considering that the current global geopolitical structures and designs will have to change with the financial and economic crises.

Kassim’s cannonball attack in 1984-85 against our formal Islamic structure came as a bolt from the blue. Many who knew my friend Kassim wondered whether or not he was having a difficulty to live with himself after leaving PSRM and thus this attack on Islam was merely his tossing a tantrum.

In Mencari Jalan Pulang Kassim admitted that he lost his friends because of the pressures of the ensuing controversies. I suspect that Kassim rather enjoyed those controversies. I doubt however if that had been the only reason he lost his friends. Rather, he was losing his friends because they saw him laboring to cover a deep gash in his life rather than seeking to form a group of ideological juggernauts in or outside UMNO to combat Islamic conservatism or extremism.

Quitting PSRM after having served as its leader for 18 years must have left him with a scar visible to party members, especially those who had suffered through detentions. Some claimed that their families were ruined “because of Kassim.”

Many felt that my friend Kassim seemed unable to see beyond himself. For many, pursuing the path that Kassim had taken would reduce them to flopping on the floor, blabbering insanely in order to convince themselves that they had done the right thing.

How does anyone abandon an 18-year leadership of a party on the pretext of philosophical immaturity as Kassim seemed to claim in his autobiography? Other than being a writer, can he claim to be useful an agent of other movements after that? Kassim quit UMNO in 1996, believing it was time to let the past rest and relax in the present shadow of his doubts.

This autobiography of Kassim, published in his 75th year, is his own description of the means a prodigal son had chosen for his return journey from the wilds of philosophical search and ideological conflicts, to ultimately come to rest in a pleasant country home. It is very interesting reading, and this Mencari Jalan Pulang, Dari Sosialisme Kepada Islam.

A. Ghani Ismail

November 13, 2008

Ps. The food advertisement with the picture of Kassim on the cover of his book is appropriate as it shows him fit. Keep writing; he is only 75!

Kassim Ahmad Responds:

A Short Rejoinder to A. Ghani Ismail

By: Kassim Ahmad

28 November, 2008

I am pleasantly surprised to find my old friend re-surface after more than five years of absence from my circle of regular contacts. It does not matter greatly, for my priorities and importance is different. I thank him for saying that at 75 years I am not old, and that I should be writing! As a matter of fact, I am, in spite of my not very good health launched my autobiography two months earlier, which he reviewed in his blog.

He would certainly be a candidate from whom I would ask a favor to read some of my draft chapters, if not all. By the way, I am currently writing my latest book which I am provisionally titling, “Islam – the Religion of Divine Unity”. I am certain that my publisher would try to give a more catchy title, like “Islam – How It Has Been Corrupted by Its Ulama!”

Talking about giving credit where it is due, Ghani Ismail’s story about my failing to give due credit to him as well as another good friend Dr. Chandra Muzaffar for my Hadith book is his take, no more, no less. He has been a journalist for many decades, and a very good one at that. Hence he is good at making stories! Like me, he has been a writer too. I wished his version was true, so that at least he would have to share the burden of the “anti-Hadith” label with me since 1986. However, I would not be so mean as to want that to happen to him! I mean I really and truly yearn to say, “Thank you” to him, and to others, instead of to God alone!

It is obvious that I could not have asked him to read the drafts. The five articles that were the basis of my hadis book were originally meant as my answers to my critic, whose name I have forgotten, in the then weekly magazine Watan where I had a column, “Berani kerana benar” (“Courage because of the truth”). I gave myself two months to prepare those five articles but because the editor of the magazine would not let me answer my critic through his publication, I resorted to a university seminar to voice my views. This too was also subsequently successfully thwarted by the religious establishment. My last resort thus was to have the five articles published as a book. I had no time, nor did I ask anybody to read the manuscript, with the exception of Dr. Mahathir, who was the then Prime Minister. He congratulated me for having written it. He was a careful reader as he pointed to certain errors on my part in the numbering of the verses of the Quran.

There are other similar “stories” or factual inaccuracies in Ghani Ismail’s review. I would not want to dwell into them. I have learned that it is one of those things that very often happened in life; I take them in stride. Remember, at 75 I am not young, but thank God, I am still writing, and I want to spend my time finishing my book, rather that cross swords with my old friend, whom I rather remember with fondness.

NOTA KECIL KEPADA ESEI

PEMULIHAN UMNO

Oleh: Kassim Ahmad

18 November, 2008

Dua perkara yang saya utamakan dalam tulisan-tulisan saya ialah kebenaran dan kesaksamaan. Dalam esei saya yang baru tentang pemulihan UMNO, seperti satu dua yang dulu, saya tidak berapa beri perhatian kepada faktor-faktor lain yang menyebabkan Barisan Nasional gagal mendapat majoriti dua pertiga di peringkat Puast, dan kalah di lima buah negeri, selain dari penyelewengan mereka dari perjuangan kebangsaan yang asal.

Kebanyakan orang, baik di pihak Barisan Nasional, mahupun di pihak Pembangkang tidak menjangka keputusan itu. Kesilapan yang dibuat oleh Presiden UMNO dan Perdana Menteri Abdullah Badawai ialah masa pilihanraya umum itu tidak sesuai bagi bagi Barisan Nasional dan Kerajaan. Banyak isu tidak selesai: pita Linggam, kenaikan harga minyak dan kenaikan harga barang-barang, masalah Hindraf dan masyarakat kaum India, dan lain-lain. Tetapi Abdullah Badawi tetap memilih tarikh itu, kerana mereka fikir mereka pasti menang.

Pihak Pembangkang mengeksploitasi isu-isu ini sepenuhnya. Di samping itu, peranan penulis-penulis blog, khasnya Editor laman web Malaysia-today, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, yang menggunakan blognya dengan berkesan sekali.

Inilah yang menyebakan kekalalah UMNO/Barisan Nasional pada 8 Mac itu. Khususnya, ini masalah kegagalan kepimpinan UNMO. UMNO telah lupa daratan dan tenggelam dalam politik rebutan kuasa dan penyelewengan. Jika UMNO mahu kekal relevan, ia perlu mengambil langkah-langkah untuk kembali kepada perjuangan nasionalis dan demokratiknya yang asal, seperti yang telah saya huraikan dalam tulisan itu.

Bolehkah UMNO melakukan ini? Sebenarnya, mereka tidak ada pilihan lain. Jika mereka masih ada perasaan sayang kepada parti dan bangsa, inilah yang harus mereka lakukan. Jika tidak, UMNO/Barisan Nasional akan kalah sama sekali dalam pilihanraya umun akan datang, dan parti-parti lain akan menganti mereka. Inilah undang-undang Tuhan yang siapa pun tidak boleh elak.

MALAYSIA: TUANYA SIAPA?

Oleh: Kassim Ahmad

12 November, 2008

Sejak kebelakangan ini, khasnya selepas Pilihanraya Umum ke-12, perbincangan tentang “Ketuanan Melayu” menjadi-jadi. Ini menunjukkan bahawa negara-bangsa Malaysia yang kita tubuhkan pada 31 Ogos, 1957 , atau sebenaranya pada 16 September, 1963, belum wujud di alam nyata. Ini suatu konsep, suatu idea dalam fikiran kita, yang harus dibumikan. Ia akan mengambil masa – dua atau tiga generasi sekurang-kurangnya. Umur negara-bangsa kita baru 51, atau 45 tahun.

Satu kumpulan dalam masyarakat kita menafikan kewujudan bangsa. Asabiah, yang diharamkan dalam Islam, dakwa mereka. Mereka sudah megelirukan dua konsep yang berbeza, iaitu kebangsaan, yang menjadi sunnatullah, dan perkauman yang merupakan suatu kesombongan oleh sesuatu bangsa, dan dengan itu salah. Firman Tuhan,

Wahai rakyat, Kami ciptakan kamu dari lelaki dan perempuan yang sama, dan menjadikan kamu berbagai bangsa dan berbagai kaum supaya kamu saling mengenal. Yang paling baik di antara kamu di sisi Allah ialah yang paling takwa di antara kamu. (Quran, 49: 13)

Dalam Piagam Madinah yang digubal oleh Nabi Muhammad sendiri, Perkara Pertama mengisytiharkan, “Mereka membentuk sebuah masyarakat yang berbeza dari masyarakat-masyarakat lain.”

Mereka juga mengelirukan dua perkara yang berbeza. Yang satu ialah bangsa, dan yang kedua pegangan agama. Pakaian, umpamanya, tergolong ke dalam adat sesuatu bangsa, dan berbeza dari bangsa ke bangsa. Pegangan agama tauhid itu falsafah hidup, dan tidak kena-mengena dengan bangsa.

Nyatalah kategori bangsa dan konsep negara-bangsa (patut disebut di sini bahawa negara-bangsa yang ditubuhkan di Semenanjung Arab ini negara-bangsa yang pertama di dunia, dan Piagam Madinah juga perlembagaan bertulis yang pertama di dunia.) selaras dengan hukum Tuhan. Ini nyata sekali dari kedua-dua petikan di atas. Negara-bangsa ialah tempat dan rumah sesuatu bangsa menjalankan aktiviti kehidupannya, berkembang dan maju, sambil berinteraksi dan bekerjasama dengan bangsa-bangsa lain.

Dalam perbincangan tentang tajuk “Ketuanan Melayu” ini ada tiga aliran fikiran. Pertama, aliran tradisional atau konservatif yang mepertahankan konsep ini secara dogmatik; kedua aliran liberal yang menafikan konsep ini sama sekali; dan aliran ketiga aliran pertengahan yang mengiktiraf keterikatan sejarah dengan konsep ini, tetapi yang menerima juga konsep Bangsa Malaysia mengikut acuan asas sejarah ini.

Ucapan Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah ketika menerima memorandum yang diserahkan oleh gabungan Melayu Perak di Istana Iskandariah, Kuala Kangsa pada 5 November, 2008 menghuraikan perkara-perkara ini dengan jelas. (Sila lihat Utusan Malaysia, 6 November, 2008 yang menyiarkan ucapan ini sepenuhnya.)

Konsep “Ketuanan Melayu”, yang merujuk kepada kesinambungan sejarah negara-bangsa Malaysia kepada Kesultanan Melayu Melaka, telah disalah-ertikan sebagai dominasi sukubangsa Melayu ke atas suku-bangsa lain dalam Malaysia. Timbullah reaksi penentangan dari semua sukubangsa, termasuk sukubangsa Melayu sendiri, dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-12 pada Mac, 2008. Penentangan ini menjelma dalam dasar baru Pakatan Rakyat, iaitu “Ketuanan Rakyat”.

Penentangan ini timbul dari penyelewengan pimpinan UMNO sendiri. Dari sebuah parti yang berjuang untuk mendapat kemerdekaan daripada Inggeris serta membangunakn bangsa, bersama-sama dengan MCA dan MIC, pada peringkat awal, dan kemudian dalam Barisan Nasional, dari tahun 1974, perjuangan UMNO merosot dengan UMNO menjadi sebuah parti elit yang memberi habuan kepada kroni-kroninya, sedangkan orang Melayu sendiri (dari kelas bawahan), dengan hak kepada pelbagai keistimewaan, diabaikan. Rasuah, pembaziran dan pelbagai bentuk penyelewengan berlaku. Dasar bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa pengantar ilmu diporak-perandakan. Ini semua menunjukkan bahawa semangat nasionalisme atau patriotisme pimpinan UMNO sendiri sudah hilang. Inilah masalah pokok UMNO, yang harus dibetulkan segera.

Masih ada masa untuk pembetulan ini. UMNO harus menggariskan falsafah perjuangannya dengan lebih jelas supaya ia boleh memimpin ahli-ahli UMNO dan kader-kadernya. Dengan dijelaskan falsafah perjuagnan ini, UMNO akan kembali semula kepada landasan perjuangannya yang hak, dan ia akan mendapatkan semula kepercayaan sukubangsa Melayu, dan juga sukubangsa lain. Falsafah perjuangan ini mestilah terdiri dari prinsip-prinsip nasionalisme/patriotisme Melayu/Malaysia, humanisme, demokrasi, keadilan dan internasionalisme. Jika separuh daripada 3.2 juta ahli UMNO sekarang menghayati dan bergerak di atas landasan falsafah ini, ia akan menjadi kebal. Tiada parti mana pun boleh mengalahkannya.

Di antara parti dengan Kerajaan, yang mana lebih penting? Jawabnya, partilah yang penting, kerana parti itu badan sukarela, yang lahir dan bergerak dari kesedaran perjuangan bangsa. Sedangkan Kerajaan itu alat yang digajikan untuk mentadbirkan negara mengikut dasar nasional yang dibuat oleh parti. Jadi, parti harus pimpin Kerajaan, dan bukan Kerajaan mendominasi parti, seperti sekarang.

Parti harus ditadbirkan secara demokratik. Parti membuat dasar melalui perbincangan dari atas ke bawah dan dari bawah ke atas. Proses perbincangan dan perundingan akan mengambil sedikit masa, tetapi ia akan membawa hasil yang paling baik. Semua ahli yang layak dibolehkan bertanding untuk semua jawatan dalam parti dengan seorang pencadang dan seorang penyokong. Untuk menghindar calon yang mungkin tidak bertanggungjawab, disyaratkan supaya calon dikenakan sejumlah wang pertaruhan yang tidak boleh dibayar balik. Pertandingan satu kaedah yang harus dianggap normal untuk mendapat pimpinan yang paling baik, dan tidak harus membawa kepada perpecahan.

Cawangan-cawangan UMNO di dalam bandar dan di luar bandar harus memainkan peranan pimpinan kepada rakyat dalam kawasan-kawasan mereka di dalam semua bidang, bukan setakat mengembelingkan sokongan dalam pilihanraya saja. Peranan dan tugas ini boleh menyelesaikan banyak masalah, termasuk mengubah pemikiran rakyat, yang gagal diubah selama ini.

Semua dasar perlu dilihat kembali dan diperbaiki, berdasarkan falsafah perjuangan yang kita sebut di atas. Rasuah, pembaziran dan segala bentuk penyelewengan mesti dihapuskan.

Jika UMNO dapat melakukan ini semua dalam masa setahun akan datang, ia pasti akan mencapai kejayaan yang besar pada masa akan datang, termasuk dalam Pilihan Raya Umum yang ke-13 pada 2013.

Nampaknya, sekarang ini telah timbul suatu fikiran baru bahawa parti yang beradasarkan kaum – itulah masalah politik Jika kita hapuskan parti-parti berdasarkan kaum, semua masalah akan selesai, kata mereka. Ini tidak benar. Jika parti-parti ini boleh bekerjasama dan menjalankan dasar yang baik, itulah yang akan membawa kepada kejayaan, bukan dengan menghapuskan parti yang berdasarkan kaum. Ini tidak bermakna kita tidak mengalu-alukan perkembangan ini. Kita mengalu-alukan perkembangan ini, tetapi kita harus membezakan bentuk dari dasar. Di antara dua perkara ini, dasar lebih penting.

Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas Malaysia. Beliau boleh dihubungi di kassim03@streamyx.com Laman web beliau www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

MOHON MAAF KEPADA PELAWAT-PELAWAT BLOG SAYA

Oleh: Kassim Ahmad
9 November, 2008


Saya mohon maaf kepada pembaca blog saya, kerana tiada tulisan yang baru lebih daripada sebulan. Saya memang bercadang hendak menulis (i) tentang keruntuhan total sistem liberal kewangan dan ekonomi Inggeris-Belanda yang sedang melanda dunia sekarang, (ii) tentang kemenangan Barack Obama menjadi presiden Amerika Syarikat yang baru, (iii) tentang pilihan dan pemulihan UMNO, dan (iv) tentang apa yang dipanggil “Ketuanan Melayu”, atau acuan sejarah negara-bangsa Malaysia.

Yang menyebabkan saya tidak menulis di sini dalam masa hampir dua bulan itu ialah kerana kesibukan saya menyelidik dan menulis sebuah buku baru, dengan judul sementara, “Islam the Religion of Divine Unity”. . Kemungkinan besar inilah buku saya yang terakhir. Saya pun baru melangkah masuk 75 tahun. Pada bila-bila masa, Pencipta dan Tuan saya akan memanggil saya mengadap Dia untuk memberi pertanggungjawapan terhadap kehidupan saya!

Di bawah ini diperturunkan pendapat saya tentang tajuk-tajuk tersebut.


A: Keruntuhan Sistem Liberal Kewangan dan Ekonomi Inggeris-Belanda

Islam mengajar kita memilih “Jalan Yang Lurus” atau “Jalan Pertengahan.” Jalan yang lurus ini sebenarnya luas, boleh berbeda dari satu zaman ke satu zaman, dan dari satu negara ke satu negara. Namun demikian, ada jalan yang menyeleweng. Dalam konteks dunia sekarang, ada tiga jalan besar yang menyeleweng. Pertama, sistem kapitalis-liberal; kedua, sistem sosialis-kominis; dan ketiga, sistem teokrasi agama.

Ciri-ciri sistem yang berdasarkan jalan yang lurus ialah (a) keadilan dan kesaksamaan, (b) dilakukan melalui perundingan, (c) ditadbirkan oleh mereka yang layak dari segi ilmu (pengalaman, kebolehan dan kepakaran) dan dari segi akhlak (beramanah dan jujur), dan dilakukan untuk kebaikan masyarakat manusia (negara-bangsa dan masyarakat antarabangsa).

Dalam sistem ini, diharamkan riba, kezaliman, pembaziran, rasuah dan penipuan.

Pada 1971 Presiden Nixon telah melekangkan dolar AS dari tambatannya kepada piawaain emas dan mengapungkan kadar pertukaran. Pelbagai bentuk riba (derivatives, hedge funds, pasaran hadapan, dsb) telah diperkenalkan sejak itu hingga sekarang. Ekonomi-ekonomi fizikal A.S. dan Eropah (yakni penghasilan barangan) merosot menjadi perjudian yang besar. Inilah yang menyebabkan keruntuhan sekarang. Quran memberi amaran bahawa Tuhan dan rasulnya mengisytiharkan perang terhadap riba. Quran menyatakan perniagaan tidak sama dengan riba; perniagaan mengembangkan ekonomi, sedangkan riba memporak-perandakan ekonomi.

Apa yang perlu dilakukan sekarang ialah apa yang dicadangkan oleh ahli ekonomi A.S. Lyndon H. LaRouche. Dalam Februari, 1966, beliau mengesyurkan sebuah konferensi “Bretton Woods Baru” berdasarkan visi Roosevelt sebelum beliau meninggal pada 1945 untuk menghapuskan empayar-empayar kolonial. Konferensi ini harus mewujudkan sebuah sistem kewangan dengan kadar pertukaran wang yang tetap setelah semua pinjaman disusun semula. Berdasarkan emas, pertukaran luar dan kredit perniagaan jangka panjang yang rendah faedahnya, boleh mempercepat industrialisasi Dunia Ketiga. Pelan Jembatan Darat Eurasia, atau “Jalan Sutera Baru,” LaRouche mencadangkan projek-projek “pembangunan koridor” yang dihubungkan dengan perjalanan rel laju yang besar sebagai pemecut sains. Hanya sesuatu yang sebesar ini boleh mencetus lomptan eksport untuk A.S. dan negara-negara industi lain untuk membolehkan dunia keluar dari depresi sekarang.


B: Kemenangan Barrack Obama

Memang suatu peristiwa politik yang bersejarah di A.S. Hasil perjuangan orang kulit hitam di A.S. Juga kemarahan rakyat A.S. terhadap dua pentadbiran Bush yang membawa peperangan yang tidak habis-habis. Nyata rakyat A.S. mahu suatu perubahan. Inilah yang dijanjikan oleh Obama. Juga rakyat sedunia mahu suatu perubahan dalam dasar luar A.S. Sebab itu kemenangan beliau dialu-alukan di seleuruh dunia.

Namun demikian, bolehkah Obama membuat perubahan yang dikehendaki itu? Perubahan-perubahan yang dikehendaki untuk membetulkan politik dan ekonomi A.S. bersifat pokok, bukan kecil. Ciri-ciri imperialistik dalam dasar A.S., dalam dan luar negeri, mesti dihapuskan, dan digantikan dengan ciri-ciri pro-dan mesra rakyat di A.S. sendiri dan di seluruh dunia. A.S. mesti sanggup hidup aman dengan rakyatanya sendiri dan dengan dunia.

Dalam hal ini, selain daripada dasar kewangan dan ekonomi baru ala Rossevelt, seperti yang dicadangkan oleh ahli ekonomi Lyndon LaRouche, ialah masalah keterikatan A.S. kepada kelangsungan negara Israel, dan bagaimana hendak mewujudkan penyelesaian yang adil terhadap masalah Palestin, yang sudah berlarutan selama enam puluh tahun. Akibat dasar imperilistik A.S. mahu mendominasi dunia telah menimbulkan masalah-masalah besar di Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea Utara, dan Iran.


C: Pemilihan dan Pemulihan UMNO

Kerana pentingnya UMNO dalam politik Malaysia sekarang, walaupun setelah 51 tahun kita merdeka, kita mahu UMNO dipulihkan supaya ia dapat memainkan peranannya sebagai sokoguru pejuang dan pembangun bangsa.

Seperti yang kerap saya katakana, soal pertama ialah falsafah politiknya. Walaupun UMNO sekarang berbangga dengan keahliannya seramai 3.2 orang, bilangan majoriti ini tidak bermakna apa-apa apabila mereka tidak tahu apa yang mereka perjuangkan. Falsafah perjuangan ini sekarang mestilah berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip (i) nasionalisme/patriotisme, (ii) humanisme, (iii) keadilan, dan (iv) internasionalisme. Perkara ini, kalau belum ada dalam Perlembagaan UMNO, mestilah dimasukkan ke dalamnya sebagai perkara yang utama. Perkara ini mesti diterjemahkan menjadi kursus-kursus politik untuk ahli dan bakal pemimpin. Hanya melalui didikan politik yang berterusan ini UMNO boleh menjalankan peranan dan tugasnya sebagai pejuang dan pembangun bangsa. Hanya melalui didikan politik ini UMNO boleh menghapuskan pelbagai penyelewengan, termasuk apa yang dipanggil “politik wang”, dalam parti dan dalam Kerajaan.

Juga harus dilaksanakan dasar “parti memimpin Kerajaan”, bukan sebaliknya. Ini kerana partilah yang menjadi tenaga sukarela perjuangan bangsa kita. Kerajaan ialah alat yang digajikan.

Di semua pelusuk negara, di bandar dan luar bandar, cawangan UMNO ada. Guna dan tugaskan cawangan untuk menjalankan semua kerja pimpinan dalam semua bidang kehidupan, bukan setakat mengembelingkan sokongan dalam pilihanraya saya. Ini akan menjadikan parti sebenar-benarnya pemimpin rakyat.

Inilah perkara pertama yang perlu dilakukan dalam proses pemulihan UMNO.

Selepas itu barulah kita kaji balik beberapa perkara dasar yang perlu diperbetulkan. Dalam perkara dasar, saya hanya mahu menyebutkan dasar pendidikan nasional. (Ini tidak bermakna ini saja dasar yang harus dikaji balik.) Saya rasa banyak perkara dalam dasar pendidikan yang harus dikaji balik, bermula dari beg buku yang terlalu besar untuk dibawa oleh murid kepada pengajaran bahasa-bahasa asing (Inggeris, Arab, dll, tidak termanuk bahasa ibunda, seperti Mandarin dan Tamil), kepada pendidikan guru-guru, dan kepada mutu pengajaran oleh guru-guru.

Dulu kita ada kelas dewasa. Sekarang kelas ini sudah hilang. Ia patut dihidupkan semula dan dibaiki untuk dijadikan kaedah yang berkesan bagi mendidik rakyat kita di kampong-kampung dan pedalaman dalam semua perkara, termasuk untuk mengubah cara mereka berfikir. Dr. Mahathir, yang menjadi Perdana Menteri selama 22 tahun, mengaku gagal mengubah pemikiran orang Melayu! Mesti ada caranya kita boleh berbuat demikian. Bukankah selogan kita “Malaysia Boleh!”

Saya akan menulis tentang tajuk ketuanan Melayu kemudian.