Friday, June 29, 2007

Here It Is, the Manifesto of Censorship!

Well, it couldn't be spelt out more loud and clear, folks! This is what the mainstream media is up against.

June 29, 2007

Pak Lah thanks media

Watch the video

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian media has been responsible and co-operative with the Government in reporting events that could threaten the country’s peace and unity, the Prime Minister said.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the media had been conscientious when reporting racially and religiously sensitive issues because it had an understanding with the Government on the greater need to protect the peace and stability the people enjoyed.

Friendly greeting: Abdullah shaking hands with Inspector- General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan after launching the conference in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
Abdullah, who said the complementary role was vital, added that the media had helped create a stable environment, boost patriotism and forge unity in the country especially during crises and problems.

He said history had proven this and cited the country’s struggle for independence, the communist insurgency, confrontation with Indonesia, May 13 riots and political crises that could have seriously affected the country’s future.

“Otherwise, we would have a chaotic situation and uncertainties beyond our control. To be frank, the media is still responsible and I thank you so much,” he said when addressing the Mass Media Conference 2007 organised by the Internal Security Ministry.

Abdullah, who is also Internal Security Minister, admitted that at times, the Government sought the media’s assistance in issues that might spark off racial and religious discord among the people.

He added that in this era, news could be disseminated in an instant and sometimes the issues caused people to react based on their feelings.

Likewise, media practitioners also felt compelled to write commentaries on what they perceived to be the situation, Abdullah said.

At times the commentaries disregarded the general feelings of the people and their value for unity and harmony,” he said. (Really?)

He said news stories, analysis and criticisms including those that were highlighted as “human interest stories” could influence people who read, watch television or had access to the Internet.

Abdullah said those in authority, including in the newsroom, must have a sense of timing.

Editors-in-chief and media owners decide what to play up or leave out. Perhaps they need to have a ‘internal’ guideline, a reminder to themselves, on what to highlight, spike or blow up,” he said. ( Ahah...)

Abdullah added that like the country, the media was undergoing a maturing process and it existed in a situation where Malaysia was facing various forms of challenges, global and domestic.

Sometimes, the media has anxiety in deciding what it should do but I believe they wonder how the Government, or specifically Pak Lah or the Internal Security Ministry, would react (to a news item). (I bet they do...)

But some people also think ‘Pak Lah is tolerant so let’s try and see how tolerant he is’,” he said. (You mean, he's not?)

He also reminded the media that there were laws that governed them. (Yup, don't we know that!)

Whether we use them depends on the situation. Even if we don’t use them, we leave it there. When we discipline our children we don’t throw away the cane even if we don’t use it but hang it up as a reminder to them,” Abdullah said. (Is this a threat, or is this a threat?)

  • Full text of PM's speech at the Mass Media conference 2007
  • Wednesday, June 27, 2007

    How the Blogosphere Has Changed How We Behave (Hopefully)

    Here's an article by Thomas 'The World is Flat' Friedman that assumes that everyone knows about the blogosphere. But as we know, our politicians here don't so they won't realise what is happening in the world today where, as Friedman says, everyone is a publisher/paparazzo/filmaker. Not only will the public know almost in an instant what sleazy thing happened in Parliament today but so will the other side of the world. And you can't stop people from forming opinions and commenting. Which means that nobody can do anything with impunity anymore. Hopefully.


    Op-Ed Columnist

    TimesSelect The Whole World Is Watching

    Published: June 27, 2007, New York Times

    Three years ago, I was catching a plane at Boston’s Logan airport and went to buy some magazines for the flight. As I approached the cash register, a woman coming from another direction got there just behind me — I thought. But when I put my money down to pay, the woman said in a very loud voice: “Excuse me! I was here first!” And then she fixed me with a piercing stare that said: “I know who you are.” I said I was very sorry, even though I was clearly there first.


    Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

    Thomas Friedman.

    If that happened today, I would have had a very different reaction. I would have said: “Miss, I’m so sorry. I am entirely in the wrong. Please, go ahead. And can I buy your magazines for you? May I buy your lunch? Can I shine your shoes?”

    Why? Because I’d be thinking there is some chance this woman has a blog or a camera in her cellphone and could, if she so chose, tell the whole world about our encounter — entirely from her perspective — and my utterly rude, boorish, arrogant, thinks-he-can-butt-in-line behavior. Yikes!

    When everyone has a blog, a MySpace page or Facebook entry, everyone is a publisher. When everyone has a cellphone with a camera in it, everyone is a paparazzo. When everyone can upload video on YouTube, everyone is filmmaker. When everyone is a publisher, paparazzo or filmmaker, everyone else is a public figure. We’re all public figures now. The blogosphere has made the global discussion so much richer — and each of us so much more transparent.

    The implications of all this are the subject of a new book by Dov Seidman, founder and C.E.O. of LRN, a business ethics company. His book is simply called “How.” Because Seidman’s simple thesis is that in this transparent world “how” you live your life and “how” you conduct your business matters more than ever, because so many people can now see into what you do and tell so many other people about it on their own without any editor. To win now, he argues, you have to turn these new conditions to your advantage.

    For young people, writes Seidman, this means understanding that your reputation in life is going to get set in stone so much earlier. More and more of what you say or do or write will end up as a digital fingerprint that never gets erased. Our generation got to screw up and none of those screw-ups appeared on our first job résumés, which we got to write. For this generation, much of what they say, do or write will be preserved online forever. Before employers even read their résumés, they’ll Google them.

    The persistence of memory in electronic form makes second chances harder to come by,” writes Seidman. “In the information age, life has no chapters or closets; you can leave nothing behind, and you have nowhere to hide your skeletons. Your past is your present.” So the only way to get ahead in life will be by getting your “hows” right.

    Ditto in business. Companies that get their hows wrong won’t be able to just hire a P.R. firm to clean up the mess by a taking a couple of reporters to lunch — not when everyone is a reporter and can talk back and be heard globally.

    But this also creates opportunities. Today “what” you make is quickly copied and sold by everyone. But “how” you engage your customers, “how” you keep your promises and “how” you collaborate with partners — that’s not so easy to copy, and that is where companies can now really differentiate themselves.

    “When it comes to human conduct there is tremendous variation, and where a broad spectrum of variation exists, opportunity exists,” writes Seidman. “The tapestry of human behavior is so varied, so rich and so global that it presents a rare opportunity, the opportunity to outbehave the competition.

    How can you outbehave your competition? In Michigan, Seidman writes, one hospital taught its doctors to apologize when they make mistakes, and dramatically cut their malpractice claims. In Texas, a large auto dealership allowed every mechanic to spend freely whatever company money was necessary to do the job right, and saw their costs actually decline while customer satisfaction improved. A New York street doughnut-seller trusted his customers to make their own change and found he could serve more people faster and build the loyalty that keeps them coming back.

    “We do not live in glass houses (houses have walls); we live on glass microscope slides ... visible and exposed to all,” he writes. So whether you’re selling cars or newspapers (or just buying one at the newsstand), get your hows right — how you build trust, how you collaborate, how you lead and how you say you’re sorry. More people than ever will know about it when you do — or don’t.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007

    How To Look at Things in the Worst Possible Light

    There are people who always look at the bright side of things - the optimists - and then there are the pessimists, those who perpetually look at the gloom and doom. Here is a fine example. Instead of looking at what kindnesses we can do to others, and what kindnesses we hope others will show to us, he looks at the worst-case scenario. Why would someone who likes peanut butter give it to someone who is allergic to it? That is pure cruelty. What that means is that if you don't want someone to harm you, then you don't do anything to harm others.

    I'd really like to see a real example of 'A lot of harm has been done historically in the name of helping other people'. Some people might cite the US invasion of Iraq as one example since the excuse given was for the US to bring democracy to the Iraqis. But that's only if you believe the neo-cons. On the other hand, you could also say that since the Americans brought so much harm to the Iraqis, they are now feeling the consequences because they now feel less secure wherever they go in the world. So, unintended as it may be, that is tit-for-tat.

    The Golden Rule just means that you should treat people the way you want them to treat you. So, no matter how much you sugarcoat it, if you treat them badly, it's going to come back to you.

    I tried to look up these people he cites. Couldn't find anything on Henry Gensler but I did come up with Bernard Gert. Interestingly enough, Gert wrote a book called Common Morality: Deciding What to Do, which lists ten rules:

    1. Do not kill

    2. Do not cause pain

    3. Do not disable

    4. Do not deprive of freedom

    5. Do not deprive of pleasure

    6. Do not deceive

    7. Keep your promises

    8. Do not cheat

    9. Obey the law

    10. Do your duty.


    Pretty basic to me, not to mention pretty common to all religions. I guess if you follow these rules in the way you treat others, you're following the Golden Rule.

    Columnists > IKIM Views


    How far can we apply the Golden Rule?

    A lot of harm has been done historically in the name of helping other people, so one should take care that one is really helping people, and not harming them.

    DO UNTO others as you would wish them do onto you. Such reads a version of what many people term The Golden Rule (GR) or The Ethic of Reciprocity. Some even regard it as the ethic of transference of perspective.

    In many inter-faith and inter-civilisational dialogues, as in many talks and writings promoting common ethical grounds for co-existence, it is commonplace to find GR being invoked.

    It is clear that GR is regarded by its proponents as being well suited to be a standard to which different religions and cultures could appeal in resolving conflicts. In their view, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent as the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community.

    It is expected that once people accept GR, they will also stand in good stead the idea that every person shares certain inherent human rights simply because of their membership in the human race. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often regarded as one good manifestation of this growing worldwide consensus.

    Some of the GR proponents even argue that the greatest failure of organised religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that GR applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers.

    As such, they urge that religions stress that their membership use GR when dealing with others – persons of other religions, the other gender, other races, other sexual orientations, etc.

    Some observers have pointed out that GR is meaningless without identifying the recipient and the situation. Otherwise, a depressed person who wishes to be killed would be morally obligated to kill others. Or a person who likes peanut butter should feed it to someone who is allergic to it. (Oh for God's sake!)

    Moreover, whereas some policies that are beneficial to the majority may well be harmful to some minority, precepts such as GR somehow assume that there is some absolute and universal standard to what is beneficial and what is harmful. (I wish I knew what real-life examples he means.)

    As such, if one is to avoid all harm, one would be prevented from doing much good. George Bernard Shaw might be right when he remarked: “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.” (Why on earth should we listen to a misanthrophic grouch like GBS?)

    Such being the case, there have been attempts to reformulate GR in a way that is expected to minimise any paradox or absurdity that may have appeared if the rule is left in its original literal version.

    One such attempt is the interpretation that is formulated by Harry J. Gensler, a scholar who has conducted philosophical analyses on GR, in the form: “Treat others only in ways that you are willing to be treated in the same exact situation.”

    In Gensler’s observation, GR is best seen as a consistency principle. It does not replace regular moral norms. It is not an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong nor does it tell one specifically what to do.

    It only prescribes consistency – that one not have one’s actions toward another be out of harmony with one’s desires toward a reversed situation action. If one violates GR, then one is violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lies at the heart of morality.

    In order to make GR work, its proponents must be able to convince as many people as possible of its viability. And this includes their proving that it is not merely a good rhetoric but is also both intellectually firmly grounded and widely applicable.

    To do this, they need to account for situations in which a strict application of GR is contraindicated because it can lead to harming others.

    As a lot of harm has been done historically in the name of helping other people, before one can apply GR, one should take care that one is really helping people, and not harming them. This often requires more wisdom than is readily available. (Like what?)

    Eventually, it will also lead one to the question whether it is moral to harm a few individuals in order to prevent a larger harm to the rest of society? (Again, like what?)

    Furthermore, if the GR proponents are also adherents of any particular religion, they need to also account for teachings within their holy books which may contradict their own Ethic of Reciprocity. Usually this happens when non-believers in the dominant religion are discussed. (Is this known as moral relativism?)

    Instead of sloganeering, the proponents also need to supply detailed comprehensive explanation of GR. This includes their clarifying what it is not. An attempt at this, for instance, has sought to show that GR is not (1) tit-for-tat, or retributive justice; (2) non-aggression, or harm, principle; (3) a “rule” in specifics; or (4) majoritarianism. (This is how one makes a simple rule complicated.)

    In this respect, a critique made by Bernard Gert, a professor of Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College, in his article Morality versus Slogans is something for them to consider: “I am not denying that the Golden Rule, in some cases, tells us to do the moral thing.

    “What I am saying is that in those cases, you already knew what was immoral before you applied the Golden Rule. If you are wondering whether to kill somebody, you don’t need that Golden Rule to tell you, ‘I wouldn’t want to be killed, therefore I shouldn’t kill him.’

    “You knew it was wrong to kill him before you applied the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is of no help at all because it gives you the wrong answers as often as it give you the right ones. Using procedures that are not very reliable, that sometimes give you the right answer but just as often give you the wrong answer, is not very useful.”

    *********************************************************************************

    Well, gosh, maybe people are getting the wrong answers because they are asking the wrong questions.

    Homegrown Heroes Wanted!

    Or at least stories about them. The folks at theCicak.com have upped the ante and increased the prizes for this competition to nominate real-life young Malaysians as heroes. Here are the highlights:

    • Prizes worth RM 1,000 are up for grabs and the top 50 stories will be published into a book!
    • All one has to do is write about an unsung Malaysian hero between 12 and 29 years of age who has persevered against the odds to succeed or helped his community in unique ways that has not been previously highlighted. The story should not be more than 1000 words in English or Malay, and must be accompanied with a photograph of the hero.
    • People can choose anyone at all to be their heroes. Just as long as they tell us why he or she is one. Tell us about something heroic that the hero has done and justify it: theCICAK welcomes multifaceted interpretations of heroism and looks forward to reading the public's take on this competition's theme.
    • Judges include award-winning blogger Jeff Ooi, newspaper columnist and rights activist Marina Mahathir, published young poet Nicholas Wong, and theCICAK director and co-founder Teng Poh Si.
    • The submissions deadline is July 15th.
    • theCICAK is collaborating with The Star and Inkyhands, an online Malaysian literary magazine. The competition is supported by Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS), an organization that promotes community and public education through documentary film-making. A US$2,500 grant from the Swarthmore Foundation at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania will fund the competition.
    So get your keyboards out and start writing!

    Sunday, June 24, 2007

    Horrors Abroad, Heroes at Home


    It's Jakarta for me and mine this weekend. Family obligations beckon. The weather has been alternately hot and rainy although we have been lucky so far in that it's dry, which helps when you want to have people over. Jakarta has the most horrible macets (traffic jams) at the best of times but it gets truly horrendous when it rains. Or when some turbanned bearded Arab-wannabe preacher decides to hold a ceramah and the Front Pembela Islam decides to march through that den of iniquity known as Kemang (a bit like our Bangsar). Which happens to be down the road from us, hence the reason our guests turned up late. At least that was the excuse.

    Jakarta happens to be celebrating its 480th anniversary. You got that right; 480, not 48. That's older than most cities in the world I reckon. Plus one of the biggest and messiest. But for an affectionate take on her hometown, read this piece in the Jakarta Post.

    As often happens, when we cross the seas and look back at our own homeland, things look quite different. The story of the maid Ceriyati Dapin who climbed down three storeys of her apartment building before she lost her nerve may have merited just a few column inches in our newspapers but over here, it's big news. Under headlines like 'The Suffering of Overseas Workers in Malaysia', the papers here have done long articles on the plight of their citizens who, they feel, are constantly subjected to cruelty and torture in our country. In the case of Ceriyati, stories abound about her mother who fainted upon seeing the news about her on TV and her two teenage children who haven't heard from her since the beginning of the year. Many articles also liken her story to that of Nirmala Bonat, the maid who was severely treated by her employers and whose court case is still not over, after three years. The hope on the part of everyone here, from President Susilo Bambang Yudhiyono on down, is that Ceriyati's case will not drag on as long as Nirmala's.

    What we in Malaysia often don't realise is how intensely Indonesians here view these cases. To us, these are just cases of errant maids. But in Indonesia, it is seen as an affront to their dignity to have their citizens treated so badly. Workers who go overseas are seen as doing a huge service to the country by earning so much foreign exchange and are called 'pahlawan devisa' or foreign exchange heroes. Even Bisnis Indonesia, the main business newspaper, is calling for better protection of the heroes.

    Not that TKI (Tenaga Kerja Indonesia) are treated all that well when they get home. A prime example is Soekarno-Hatta International Airport where special lanes have been set up for TKI, ostensibly to protect them from the vultures outside the arrival gates. Unfortunately there are also vultures inside. A few years ago my cook returned to Jakarta and was forced to take a bus to a 'special holding area' where supposedly her family was supposed to collect her. She had to pay for the bus to go the short distance to the holding area. And there was no family to collect her because they live near Surabaya, several hundred kilometres away. (We route her through Jakarta simply because we can arrange for someone to pick her up). It took about 4 hours and one red-eyed cook later before we found her and that's with much agitated demanding on the part of the person we sent to collect her. Along the way, she had been subjected to not only being herded like cattle but also demands for money for the 'privilege'. It happened again another time, and that time the person we asked to look in the holding pen for her also demanded to be paid for his 'services'.

    Returning TKI are subject to harassment, exploitation and out and out robbery every time they get home. In many ways they are very obvious targets because they come off planes in droves from places like Saudi Arabia, laden down with bags full of presents for their families. But the sheer hypocrisy of the official protectors at airports is clear. One time, we flew into Jakarta with our nanny in tow and Immigration picked her out and wanted her to take the TKI special lanes despite her being with us. It was only when I started asking (in English!) what the problem was, that they backed down. As always, an aggressive no-nonsense stance always wins out and since then we have trained our helpers on what attitude to take to get through the airport safely.

    Not that any of this excuses the many cases of cruelty to the Indonesian women employed as helpers in Malaysian homes. While cruel employers are in the minority, the ones who get caught do pretty spectacular things to their maids, including caging them, burning them with hot irons, starving them and various other indignities that they would never dare do to fellow Malaysians. A foreign woman alone in their employer's home can be very vulnerable especially when they have no access to any help. I 'm often asked about testing foreign workers for various infectious diseases. While I think these are useful, the healthy maids however have no information on what dangers may lurk in the families they are employed by, whether it may be diseases or sexual predators. These things go both ways. According to our own Government reports, some 1200 Indonesian domestic helpers run away each month. There must be a reason for that. More ominously, there was a report somewhere (which I seem to have lost while trawling the Net) about how 1000 migrant workers die a month in Malaysia. Which I hope is not true, but if it were, warrants investigating.

    Meanwhile there are many Malaysians who do care about the plight of the migrant worker in Malaysia. Although statements like these, in a letter to the editor in The Star, don't really help:

    Have a heart. It is true that some of them are slow, or even dumb, and make mistakes.

    They wouldn't be maids if they were intelligent and very capable.


    Well...if non-intelligent and non-capable people become maids in Indonesia, how come in our country they become MPs?


    Friday, June 22, 2007

    But why aren't we ready, Nazri?

    Update: For more intelligent remarks from our Holds-Himself-In-High-Esteem Minister, do read Jeff Ooi today.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our esteemed YB seems to have telepathic powers. I would like to know how he knows that Malaysian Muslims are not ready for open dialogue. And when exactly will we be ready? When he decides?

    And can someone please make sense of this explanation?:

    "In foreign countries, the premier does not have (decisive) power. He can only propose something. And the matter of sensitivity does not arise abroad, so he is free to say anything as it will not offend anyone.

    "At home, although he has power, there is religious sensitivity (that should be taken care of). In our history, there was racial clash. Therefore, we have to be extra cautious," he said."

    What does it matter where the PM says what? With the Internet, we will know what he says wherever he is. So why should it be any less sensitive if he says it elsewhere?

    And if, as he says, the premier and Cabinet Ministers have had closed-door discussions, what is the outcome of these? Not only are the discussions closed-door, so are the conclusions. Unless there are no conclusions. Surely our esteemed Ministers are mature enough to handle these so-called sensitive topics and can also figure out how to provide reports on these in a sensitive manner. What is the point of the discussions otherwise?

    Where is the much-touted openness and transparency? But I suppose, given our MPs' inability to handle any sort of discussion and they are meant to represent 'the rakyat', then it would be fair to conclude that our people are not ready to handle anything. After all, we are who we elect. Since we elected a lot of dummies, then that must be what we are.

    And by the way, in democracies, there are no 'next time, you be carefuls'.


    Nazri: M'sian Muslims not ready for religious dialogue
    Pauline Puah
    KUALA LUMPUR (June 21, 2007): The majority of Muslims in the country are not ready for open dialogue on religious issues, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said.

    "Our intention is to have dialogues. However, religious issues are something sensitive. Dialogues need (the communication) of both sides.

    "If the majority of Malaysian Muslims do not want to take part (in dialogues), we can't do anything more. So we can only continue (with) our efforts without inciting any sensitive feelings by holding closed-door dialogues," he said in reply to Chow Kon Yeow (DAP-Tanjong) in the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament) today.

    Nazri also took Chow to task for accusing the prime minister of double standards on inter-religious and cultural dialogue by saying one thing in the international arena and taking a different stand at home.

    "In foreign countries, the premier does not have (decisive) power. He can only propose something. And the matter of sensitivity does not arise abroad, so he is free to say anything as it will not offend anyone.

    "At home, although he has power, there is religious sensitivity (that should be taken care of). In our history, there was racial clash. Therefore, we have to be extra cautious," he said.

    "Accusing the premier as having double standards is not only incorrect, but also unfair and disrespectful to the head of the government. This question was intentionally asked by the Opposition to fish votes."

    Earlier, Nazri said the premier and other cabinet ministers had meetings to discuss issues concerning Malaysians who have different religious and cultural background from time to time.

    "We hold closed-door dialogues. Having debates openly in newspapers is not the choice for the government. The closed-door dialogues do not mean that they are less efficient than open dialogues."

    On a supplementary question from Baharum Mohamad (BN-Sekijang) who said he was "offended" by Chow's question, Nazri said many other Malay Muslims out there shared the same feeling.

    "I hope the opposition will be careful in raising questions like this. We practise democracy so we allowed this question. Next time, you must be careful," he said to cheers from some backbenchers.


    Updated: 06:35PM Thu, 21 Jun 2007

    Wednesday, June 20, 2007

    Good Hearts Come in All Packages

    Here's another story in The Nation which caught my eye. Sounds like a good person to me.


    Transsexual beauty queen buys buffaloes to help poor


    A former transvestite beauty queen has spent her prize money on saving Thai buffaloes and distributing them to poor farmers in Lop Buri to help boost their income.

    Former beauty pageant entrant, Sararat "Arf" Klinthai, who was born Sawek Klinthai, now 30, said she underwent a sex-change operation at 17 and had entered nearly 700 beauty contests. She enjoyed considerable success including the Miss Alcazar runner-up at Pattaya and the Miss Siam Contest in Bangkok, and has 200 trophies.

    After retiring, Arf returned to her hometown in Tambon Tai Talad in Muang Lop Buri and raised some 100 Brahman cattle, on which she also conducted artificial insemination without help from veterinarians.

    Arf said she spent her prize money - and donations from fellow transvestite contestants - to save 50 buffaloes and cows bound for the slaughterhouse and gave 30 of them to the locals and let them sell the calves.

    She said her love of animals and the province's sharp decline of buffaloes inspired her, and along with some friends, she bought the buffaloes and cows and distributed them for poor locals to raise. She said this not only helped raise people's incomes but also conserved the animals for future generations.

    Arf's 58-year-old father, Ode Klinthai said at first he was alarmed when he discovered Arf was a transvestite but soon accepted the fact as he did not want to scold her or cause her misery.

    He said he taught Arf to be a good person, refrain from drugs, work hard and save up because a career in beauty pageants would not last.

    Ode said he was glad that, despite undergoing a sex change, Arf was still capable of doing things and had never let her family down.

    He said Arf had always loved animals and he was proud of her for having saved the buffaloes and helping poor neighbours.

    The Nation, June 19 2007

    Lop Buri

    Tuesday, June 19, 2007

    Censorship, Thai style

    I am in Bangkok this week and as usual looked through the newspapers to see what might be interesting and perhaps relevant to us. This appeared in The Nation yesterday. Looks like Thailand, once touted as the most open democracy, is going through some of the same experiences as us. Perhaps even worse. It doesn't mean however that those who think that our so-called freedom of the press is being abused can gloat at how 'free' we are compared to our neighbour. Why should we compare ourselves with those who are worse when we can compare with those who are better? (Although of course to politicians and those who want to control everything, countries with more censorship are to be envied.) But at least in Thailand, the mainstream media can be very critical without facing too much censure.



    REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE -The Nation, 18/6/07

    Thailand has become totally lost in cyberspace

    Thailand will soon be considered a country that has some of the world's toughest measures on Internet filtering.

    By default or not, the pattern of the government's responses, since the coup last September, to information and video clips deemed offensive, including political views and comments, has been uneven and disastrous. This will have far-reaching implications.

    As far as the Internet is concerned, the government has transformed Thailand into a repressive regime on a par with Burma, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. As of last week, at least 50,000 sites were banned, including commentaries, anti-monarchy sites, anti-government sites and sexually explicit sites.

    In the past six years, Internet usage in Thailand has increased many-fold. At the moment, at least 12 million regular users are facing heavy censorship by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) and the Royal Thai Police. At the moment, in the absence of an Internet law, these authorities are the highest arbiters determining what sort of information and images Thais should have access to.

    The Thai authorities lack the understanding and skill to respond to new communication mediums. Quite often websites are shut down because monitoring officials do not want to risk their careers if dubious Internet content goes unfiltered. Eventually, they end up blocking more online content than they should. These bureaucratic responses and this official mindset is akin to that demonstrated by officials handling requests for public disclosure of government information.

    After a brief, three-year period of enthusiasm following the passage of the Access to Information Act in 1997, the number of disclosure requests has now dwindled to the point of insignificance, as the responsible authorities' preponderance to turn down requests has increased exponentially. Officials who wrongfully disclose government information would face higher fines and more severe jail terms than those who broke the law and refused to give out information.

    The number of banned websites varies in Thailand. MICT minister Sithichai Pookaiyaudom said less than two dozen sites have been banned under his leadership. But informal statistics show a huge discrepancy in the number of banned sites and the authorities' claims.

    The problem is that the Thai authorities do not classify in detail the criteria used for online censorship. Previously, three types of content were prohibited online: pornography, anti-monarchy sites and sites critical of former PM Thaksin's style of leadership. The majority of banned sites between 2001-2005 were related to pornography and anti-Thaksin websites. That much was clear. However, following the coup last year, any online political views and commentaries critical of the Council for National Security and its interim government have not been tolerated. Strange as it may seem, similar critical comment of the government in printed media has not been banned. Sad but true, online critics have now been perceived as conspirators in the public relations campaign carried on by Thaksin, who has money and a penchant for using all available new media.

    That helps to explain the Thai authorities' hysterical attitude. The infamous incident on YouTube, which is currently banned in Thailand, was a good illustration of how the banning of a website had the immediate effect of further publicising the offending material. It immediately helped to create mirror sites around the world. Before the YouTube ban in early April, numerous video clips were placed on the popular video-share website praising the Thai king and commemorating his 60-year reign. Unofficial statistics showed that before the coup, only nine websites existed with information considered offensive to the Thai head of state. The most notorious was Manusaya.com, which was shut down last March. As of April, the Thai authorities have identified 19 more sites and blocked them. As everyone can see, the ban has the opposite effect.

    Now, the new cyber crime law, officially known as the Computer-Related Crime Act, is waiting for royal approval before its enactment. On the surface, the law may give confidence to Internet users as it sets out rules and regulations that oversee the Internet. Service providers, who helped draft the law, have been pleased with the content.

    However, Thai media experts are concerned that this law will do much damage to online and citizen journalism, as well as restrict overall freedom of expression. Some of the provisions would turn online journalists into criminals if certain content is considered to endanger "national security".

    To top it all, Thailand already has one of the world's most conservative censorship systems, with at least 27 laws which are either anti-press or limit freedom of expression. For instance, the antiquated legislation known as the Film Act of 1930 is still being used every day by the Thai Censorship Board to determine what Thai people will see in the globalised world of the 21st century. Similarly, the 1941 Printing Act also has done great damage to press freedom and to restrict publishers and journalists.

    There are rogue elements in the Thai bureaucracy and judiciary that still want to control the way the Thai people think and express themselves. They should realise that these archaic laws have greatly undermined the creativity and aspirations of Thais - and the consequences might be unfathomable.

    Kavi Chongkittavorn

    Saturday, June 16, 2007

    "Religion Is Difficult To Do Well"


    In a time when any discussion about religion is fraught with emotion and tension, having an event where the main speaker is one who has been banned by her hosts seemed somewhat incongruous. But like it or not, the name Karen Armstrong invokes strong interest and curiousity and this was made obvious by the capacity crowd that turned up to hear her speak in a public forum at the Mandarin Oriental today.

    Hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, Dr Armstrong had spoken at a conference on Islam and the West:Bridging the Gap the previous day. In his opening speech, the Foreign Minister, Dato Seri Syed Hamid Albar spoke warmly of Dr Armstrong's visit to Malaysia (her first) although, according to a little bird who whispered in my ear, he apparently had no clue who she was before he was invited to officiate. In any case, his speech was interesting in its depth, especially his allusion to citizen journalists such as bloggers (I forget what was the context but I think it was positive) and his mentioning that this September is the 800th anniversary of Jallaludin Rumi.

    Dr Armstrong's talk on Friday was titled "The Internal and External Challenges of the Muslim World" which sought to analyse some of the issues that now exist globally that have lead to the so-called clash of civilisations. She pointed out that Western society took some 300 years to modernise and become democratic, something which they now seek to impose on other societies in a far more rapid way (in the case of Iraq, overnight at gunpoint).

    For societies to become modern, she said, they needed two things. The first was independence, politically, religiously and intellectually. The second was innovation, She pointed out that modern societies were often born in times of traumatic wars, reigns of terror, religious wars and dictatorships. As terrible as those times were, they were also exciting times because people became more creative and innovative in finding ways to overcome them. Religions were also born during violent times and in her public talk, she detailed the similarities between the births of all the different religions which came to bring peace during very troubled times.

    In her wide-ranging talk (where she didn't seem to refer to any notes at all), Dr Armstrong talked about the need for Muslims to reject labels imposed on them. Not only should they reject extremist labels but Dr Armstrong also said she disliked the term 'moderate Islam'. She argued that 'religion means extravagant compassion' and believes that in the West, 'moderate' means "let's have a bit less of Islam".

    On pluralism, Dr Armstrong dislikes the word 'tolerance' and instead would rather go for 'appreciation' of difference and of commonality in the Other. At the moment, she said, everyone is 'nitpicking and looking for the bad' in The Other, which of course only leads to the situation we are in today. All world religions insist on the primacy of compassion and Islam particularly, she asserted, demands respect of The Other.

    It was the same theme of compassion that wound through her speech at the public forum. Speaking in simple language and often with humour, she articulated the very many similarities between all the world religions especially what is known as the Golden Rule: Do Unto Others as You Would Like Them to Do Unto You. Religion is less a set of rules than a process where we constantly strive to get rid of the ego and empathise with others. "Religion" she said, "is hard to do well". It takes a lot of effort and we need to constantly work at it, rather like athletes or musicians who have to constantly practise in order to become top in their fields. Religion isn't something one does only once a week in a designated place. It is inseparable from altruism and therein lies its role in the world today because of its great potential for peace and compassion.

    At the end of her talk, the audience which included the Foreign Minister again and my parents gave her a long sustained applause. There were many who lined up to ask questions, some of which were very erudite indeed. To a question about what she thought about her books being banned in Malaysia, she said that she wasn't losing any sleep over it and indeed there were many in the West who would like to see her books banned there primarily because of her defense of Islam. But she added that banning books does nothing to further the cause of Islam. "Malaysians are grownups, "she said, and are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what to think about anything, including religion, a remark which won her great cheers from the crowd.

    The audience was interesting in its diversity. There were lots of young and old people, academics, writers like Astora Jabat and Farish Noor, activists, businessmen, even ulama like Othman Muhamaddy (who didn't get a chance to ask a question because they ran out of time) and just really lots of interested ordinary citizens. There weren't any politicians that I recognised and apart from Syed Hamid, nobody from the Cabinet. Which left Syed Hamid as the only one asked to respond to a request from a member of the audience to convey to the Cabinet that they need to lift the ban on Dr Armstrong's books. (Despite having heard her for two days, he didn't quite commit to doing anything about it.) Interestingly enough, after her talk a very long line of people formed wanting her to autograph her books. Would have been funny if the police or JAKIM decided to arrest them all there and then.

    Before the talk, Dr Armstrong had a short meeting over coffee with my father. He has read all her books and was interested to meet her to discuss their very similar viewpoints. The meeting was arranged only the day before; apparently the organisers had to ensure that the 'coast was clear' before they could invite him. Which is interesting considering he is about the only one who can talk to Dr Armstrong with any level of knowledge on her writing. The whole irony of it was too hard to ignore. Banned by the Internal Security, invited by the Foreign Ministry, ignored by the entire Islam Hadhari advocates. But she is here for a few more days and I look forward to front page photos of her shaking hands with all our Top Guns, hopefully with our Minister for Religion looking sheepish in the background.

    (Previous posting with links)

    Thursday, June 14, 2007

    Baldly going where no actor has gone before...

    Perhaps it is time to simply shut down our film industry since Malay Muslim actors, male and female, simply cannot be allowed to do their jobs, which is to act. Acting, according to Wikipedia, means the work of an actor or actress , which is a person in theatre, television or film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character and, usually, speaking or singing the written text or play. The Encyclopedia Brittanica defines acting as the performing art in which movement, gesture, and intonation are used to realize a fictional character for the stage, for motion pictures, or for television. So basically, when someone acts in a movie or play, they are pretending to be someone they are not. Convincingly no doubt in the case of very good actors, but still fictional.

    Many years ago Jit Murad was berated for playing a Buddhist monk in a movie. He didn't become a Buddhist monk, he only acted as one. In one 3R episode, a young man (who had been voted Most Eligible Bachelor in some poll) could not be shown wearing an earring because that supposedly made him look like a girl. Now Sharifah Amani is getting it for shaving her head.

    But if a woman going bald is behaving like a man, what then is a man who grows his hair long? The same people who think that women should put their hair underneath a tudung seem so offended by a woman with no hair. If hair is so alluring, then surely no-hair is a real turn off? Is it offensive to find a young woman so confident of herself that she has no qualms about cutting all her hair off? Perhaps, this is what really rattles these ulamas; she contradicts their idea of what a woman should look and be like. Besides, as Amani puts it very well, it will all grow again. (Can someone please supply me with the exact ayat in the Quran which prohibits baldness in women?)

    If women are not supposed to behave like men, then does that mean that we should not wear pants, play football, become engineers, climb Everest? If it is sinful for men to behave like women, does that mean that all male chefs, hairdressers and dancers should retire? Who said these were exclusively the province of one or the other gender?

    What about women who lose their hair due to chemotherapy for cancer? Besides their suffering and pain, due we hurt them further by telling them they are unfeminine?

    All this story proves is that, a) the ulama read the entertainment press and b), they have nothing more important to talk about. Obviously all the many problems currently facing our society aren't as worthy of discussion.



    Actress berated for going bald
    Jun 14, 07 1:23pm



    An award-winning actress who shaved her head for a film role has attracted criticism from influential muftis who say her act is unIslamic and sinful.

    Sharifah Amani Syed Zainal Rashid, 21, drew widespread shock and interest after she went bald Tuesday, with photos of her splashed across the front pages of Malay-language newspapers a day later.

    But muftis in the conservative Muslim country have called on authorities to issue guidelines to prevent Malay Muslim artistes, especially actresses, from extreme behaviour or dressing, the New Straits Times reported.

    "Unlike Muslim men, going bald for women is forbidden in Islam. It is sinful for men to act or behave like a woman and vice versa," the mufti of central Selangor state, Mohamad Tamyis Abdul Majid was quoted as saying. (During the Prophet's time, women went to war as combatants.)

    The mufti of northern Perak state, Harussani Idris, said Muslim artistes were becoming increasingly daring and warned them against being influenced by the actions of their foreign counterparts.

    "As Muslims, we should not sacrifice our religion for the sake of wanting to be popular," Harussani was quoted as saying. ( I find this an incredibly ironic statement.)

    "I have been observing that nowadays our artistes are becoming too open and daring, either in their actions or attire," he said.

    "It is only appropriate for the relevant authorities such as the information ministry to introduce regulations to make them toe the line." (Toe the line....whose line?)

    'No regrets'

    A well-known actress, Sharifah Amani is featured in current perfume advertisements with her trademark long, straight hair.

    She shaved her head for a role in a movie by critically-acclaimed Malaysian independent filmmaker, Yasmin Ahmad.

    Yasmin's first and best known film, Sepet, broke social taboos by depicting an inter-racial romance between a Muslim Malay girl, also played by Sharifah Amani (photo), and a Chinese boy.

    The film was attacked by film industry leaders, who said the movie threatened Malay Muslim culture and could corrupt Muslim audiences. ( And did it? Have there been more interracial romances? What exactly is wrong with interracial romance?)

    Commenting on her decision to go bald, Sharifah Amani was quoted as saying in the New Straits Times Wednesday: "I have no regrets. My hair will grow back."

    - AFP

    50 Ways to Celebrate Heroes


    No, not that very addictive TV programme. TheCICAK, a Malaysian political and pop culture online magazine, is looking for 50 Malaysian Heroes and they want YOU to nominate them. All you need to do is write about "an unsung Malaysian hero between 12 and 29 years of age who has persevered against the odds to succeed or helped his community in unique ways that has not been previously highlighted". The story should not be more than 1000 words in English or Bahasa Malaysia, and must be accompanied with a photograph of the hero.


    TheCICAK wants people to see heroism in different ways, so it's not just about the young boy who jumps into a river to save his drowning friend. "People can choose anyone at all to be their heroes. Just as long as they tell us why he or she is one. Tell us about something heroic that the hero has done and justify it: theCICAK welcomes multifaceted interpretations of heroism and looks forward to reading the public's take on this competition's theme."

    The prizes are attractive enough. There are RM1000 worth of them up for grabs and the best 50 stories will be published into a book. So both you and your hero will be immortalised in print!

    So get your keyboards out because the deadline is July 15, after which the judges which include MegaBlogger Jeff Ooi, published young poet Nicholas Wong, and theCICAK director and co-founder Teng Poh Si, and moi, have to wade through the entries and select the top 50.

    This competition is a collaboration between theCICAK, The Star and InkyHands, an online Malaysian literary magazine. It's also supported by Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS), an organization that promotes community and public education through documentary film-making. A US$2,500 grant from the Swarthmore Foundation at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania will fund the competition.

    So...get going!

    Sunday, June 10, 2007

    Banned Author to Give Public Lecture


    Anyone who's interested in issues surrounding Islam and the West today mustn't miss the public lecture this coming week by Karen Armstrong.The details are:


    Title: The Role of Religion in the 21st Century
    Date: 16 June, 2007
    Time: 10.00am
    Venue: Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

    (This is a free lecture open to the public)

    Despite being one of the most vocal non-Muslim defenders of Islam in the West, Armstrong's books A History of God, Muhammad:A Biography of the Prophet and The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been banned here by the Internal Security Ministry. A History of God was in fact sold in local bookstores from its first publication in 1993 to 2005 when it was banned.

    Interestingly enough, Armstrong is in KL to speak at a conference organized by the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations (IDFR) on Islam and the West. IDFR is part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    I am still holding my breath to see if Armstrong's visit will really happen but if it does, it will be a very good opportunity to hear her 'live' and to have an open discussion on these very topical issues today.

    Zam gets Bizarrer and Bizarrer...

    This was in The Sunday Star today. I don't know about you but I find this really bizarre. While I do think that one of the problems we have is an oversupply of religious 'scholars' who have to earn a meager living either teaching Quran to kids or working at places like JAKIM, I'm not sure that the tourism industry is the most suitable place for them. Nor do I think that Arab tourists will necessarily welcome religious scholars as their guides on their Malaysian holiday. Why not organise Arabic classes for all the unemployed graduates, regardless of race or religion, so they may all have an opportunity to join the tourism business?

    Tourism option for religious scholars

    PASIR PUTEH: Religious scholars in Egypt will be informed that they have a big potential to enter the tourism trade when they return to Malaysia after their studies as there is a big demand for Arabic speakers.

    Information officers will be sent there to tell the students of their options in the tourism industry. (Wouldn't Education or Human Resource Ministry officers be more suitable?)

    Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin said many Malaysians students, notably from Kelantan, studying there think that they can only find work as religious schoolteachers.

    But with the country drawing more Arab tourists, their expertise in Arabic would help the country communicate better with Arabs, he said.

    Even the Chinese (hoteliers) in Penang are learning Arabic. They did not go to any religious school but yet some excel. They know they need to communicate in such a language with the arrival of more and more Arabs.

    Zainuddin said this at the Gemilang Titian Kasih programme opened by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak on Friday.

    Religious scholars must explore various job opportunities as there were limited slots for religious schoolteachers, he said.

    Zainuddin also said that religious scholars in Egypt needed to have a more open mindset. (especially if they want to work in hotels, no?)

    Wednesday, June 6, 2007

    June 9 is a VERY Happening Day!


    It's Johnny Depp's birthday! (He'll be 44)

    It's Michael J. Fox's birthday! (He'll be 46)



    It's my friend Nik's little boy Ehsan's 3rd birthday! And also my friend Norma's son Imran's 8th birthday. Happy birthday E and I!!

    In 1934 Donald Duck made his movie debut in The Wise Little Hen.

    In 1946 King Bumiphol Adulyadej ascended to the Thai throne.







    And in 2007, for the first time in Malaysian history, a Prime Minister is getting married!Many congratulations for a happy life together!

    Happy Birthday WAO!



    Women's Aid Organisation celebrated its 25th anniversary yesterday. WAO has been at the forefront in addressing domestic violence issues in Malaysia and was part of the coalition of women's groups collectively known as the Joint Action Group (JAG) on Violence against Women that successfully pushed for the passing through Parliament of the Domestic Violence Act in 1994. Then, after two years when it was stalled due to belated objections by some people, it finally got gazetted in 1996 and then implemented.

    WAO's work in highlighting violence against women over the years has been central to raising public awareness about the issue. Their advocacy work has not only helped many Malaysian women and children at their shelters but also foreign domestic workers who have been abused by their employers. It hasn't been easy work but nothing good ever is.

    Congratulations WAO! I'm proud to be a member! May you continue your fine work for women until the day comes when it won't be necessary anymore.

    For those who have something to say about violence against women, do take a look at this.

    Tuesday, June 5, 2007

    Telling the Truth No Matter How Unpalatable

    Someone once accused me of being a cut-and-paste blogger, meaning that I don't write much in my blog but only post articles by someone else. I take the point although it does take time to read enough to know what to cut-and-paste and then to decide which to post. My decisions are often based on what the subject is, and how it may also make us think of our own situation at home. As much as we think we are unique, often we are not and sometimes an issue somewhere else can have resonance in our country too. It does reflect the way I see things though and not everyone may agree but that's fine. If you spare the time to read it and even wonder why I might have posted it, then that's enough for me.



    Op-Ed Contributor
    Air of Truth

    By KIM ANDREW ELLIOTT
    Published: June 4, 2007, New York Times

    Arlington, Va.

    WHEN the Voice of America radio service first went on the air in February 1942, it promised German listeners: “The news may be good. The news may be bad. We shall tell you the truth.” Because Voice of America transmitted accurate news even when things were going badly for the Allies, the audience believed its reporting when the tide of the war turned. Telling the truth built credibility, the most vital commodity of international broadcasting.

    But in our current war, the Arabic-language television channel financed by our government, Al Hurra, faces Congressional criticism because of its reporting of the news. Over the past year, the station has broadcast a speech by the leader of Hezbollah, excerpts of a speech by a Hamas leader and coverage of a conference in Tehran denying the Holocaust.

    Al Hurra is reviewing the newsworthiness of these stories. Whatever the outcome of this investigation, it should not lead to a change in America’s basic approach to international broadcasting, as some members of Congress have proposed.

    At a recent subcommittee hearing about Al Hurra, Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, said: “I believe in a free and independent press. This is, however, a diplomatic mission of the United States of America. And are we communicating in a very practical way to employees down the line that this is not a ‘we report, you decide’ television station?”

    The president of Al Hurra’s parent corporation, Brian Coniff, suggested a willingness to move in the direction advocated by Mr. Pence. “We need to find as many venues within the organization as possible that this isn’t just straight journalism, but it’s journalism with a mission,” Mr. Coniff said.

    I have worked in international broadcasting audience research during the past 30 years. Surveys and focus groups tell me that people tune to foreign broadcasts for information that is more reliable than what they get from their state-controlled domestic news media. They want “just straight journalism.” They will sense if their news has “mission” mixed into it.

    A station transmitting full-time advocacy of American policies would not attract many listeners or viewers. They’ll tune elsewhere, probably to the BBC, whose Arabic-language television channel starts later this year. If Congress wants to do propaganda, the government should purchase advertisements in newspapers and on television stations in the target country.

    Ideally, America’s international broadcasting would be conducted by the private sector. This would help provide stations with the independence required to maintain credibility, and there would be no expense to the taxpayer. In reality, there are few prospects for commercially self-sustaining international broadcasting in Arabic, and almost none in Central Asian languages like Dari, Pashto, Persian or Urdu.

    So the government must pay for the stations, while at the same time giving them the independence necessary to provide a credible news product. Audiences may disagree with American policies and actions, but they will be appreciative that the United States is providing an accurate, balanced news service. Propaganda to sell unpopular policies might give the audience another reason to dislike the United States.

    Comprehensive news is a demonstration of democracy in action. It provides the independent journalism that is necessary for a democracy to function. It will cover the debate between the government and the opposition. And audiences will hear about politicians — American politicians — whose views are closer to their own.

    Even if audiences are not compelled to agree with American policies in the present crisis, at least good will and credibility will have accumulated. Those could be useful in the next crisis.

    Kim Andrew Elliott is an audience research analyst at the United States International Broadcasting Bureau.

    **********************************************************************************

    Perhaps Zam should take note?

    Saturday, June 2, 2007

    Meanwhile...Muslims elsewhere...

    A Growing Demand for the Rare American Imam


    Sheik Yassir Fazaga's blending of American culture and the Koran attracts youths in Mission Viejo, Calif. (Photo by Monica Almeida/The New York Times)


    By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
    Published: June 1, 2007

    MISSION VIEJO, Calif. — Sheik Yassir Fazaga regularly uses a standard American calendar to provide inspiration for his weekly Friday sermon.



    Sheik Yassir Fazaga greeting worshipers after a prayer service. He went to high school in Orange County, Calif., and now leads a mosque there.

    Around Valentine’s Day this year, he talked about how the Koran endorses romantic love within certain ethical parameters. (As opposed to say, clerics in Saudi Arabia, who denounce the banned saint’s day as a Satanic ritual.)

    On World AIDS Day, he criticized Muslims for making moral judgments about the disease rather than helping the afflicted, and on International Women’s Day he focused on domestic abuse.

    “My main objective is to make Islam relevant,” said Sheik Fazaga, 34, who went to high school in Orange County, which includes Mission Viejo, and brings a certain American flair to his role as imam in the mosque here.

    Prayer leaders, or imams, in the United States have long arrived from overseas, forced to negotiate a foreign culture along with their congregation. Older immigrants usually overlook the fact that it is an uneasy fit, particularly since imported sheiks rarely speak English. They welcome a flavor of home.

    But as the first generation of American-born Muslims begins graduating from college in significant numbers, with a swelling tide behind them, some congregations are beginning to seek native imams who can talk about religious and social issues that seem relevant to young people, like dating and drugs. On an even more practical level, they want an imam who can advise them on day-to-day American matters like how to set up a 401(k) plan to funnel the charitable donations known as zakat, which Islam mandates.

    “The problem is that you have a young generation whose own experience has nothing to do with where its parents came from,” said Hatem Bazian, a lecturer in the Near Eastern studies department at the University of California, Berkeley, who surveys Muslim communities.

    But the underlying quandary is that American imams are hard to find, though there are a few nascent training programs. These days, many of the men leading prayers across the United States on any given Friday are volunteers, doctors or engineers who know a bit more about the Koran than everyone else. Scholars point out that one of the great strengths of Islam, particularly the Sunni version, is that there is no official hierarchy.

    But this situation is fueling a debate about just how thoroughly an imam has to be schooled in Islamic jurisprudence and other religious matters before running a mosque.

    The downside for Islam in America, some critics argue, is that those interpreting Islamic law often lack a command of the full scope of the traditions carried in the Koran and the hadith, the sayings of the prophet Muhammad considered sacred.

    “I call it ‘hadith slinging,’ ” said Prof. Khaled Abou el Fadl, a specialist in Islamic law at the University of California, Los Angeles. “I throw a couple of hadiths at you, and you throw a couple of hadiths at me, and that is the way we do Islamic law,” he added. “It’s like any moron can do that.”

    Experts say the problem is exacerbated because few immigrant parents want their children to become imams.

    “Immigrant parents want their children to become doctors, engineers, computer scientists,” Dr. Bazian said. “If you suggested that they might want their kid to study to become an imam, they would hold a funeral procession.” Ultimately, in the absence of trained sheiks, good religion in many American mosques has come to be defined through rigid adherence to rituals, Professor Abou el Fadl said, adding, “It’s ritual that defines piety.”

    The few imams born or at least raised in the United States who win over their congregations tend to be younger men who can play pickup basketball with the teenagers, but also have enough training in classical Arabic and Islamic jurisprudence that the older members accept their religious credentials.

    Imam Ronald Smith Jr., 29, who runs the Islamic Center of Daytona Beach, Fla., converted to Islam at 14 to escape the violence in his African-American community in Atlantic City. As part of his training, he spent six years studying at the Islamic University in Medina, Saudi Arabia.

    “Foreign imams, because of the culture in their countries, kind of stick to the mosque and the duties of the mosque without involving themselves much in the general community,” Imam Smith said. “The hip-hop culture is difficult to understand if you have never lived it.”

    The foreign imams’ idea of mosque outreach, Imam Smith said, is sponsoring an evening lecture series where everyone sits around for an hour and listens to a speech about being devout or maybe world politics, which teenagers find less than compelling.

    Mosque leaders say the risk is that younger Muslims, already feeling under assault in the United States because of the faith’s checkered reputation, might choose one of two extremes. They either drift away from the faith entirely if they cannot find answers, or leave the mosque for a more radical fringe.

    Here in Mission Viejo, Sheik Fazaga wears street clothes much of the time, but dons traditional robes to deliver the Friday sermon at the mosque, a building distinguishable from the surrounding strip malls and low-slung office buildings mostly by its airy exterior dome of metal filigree painted sea green. It was a practice he started 10 years ago when he first returned home and kind of fell into the imam’s job around age 24, because some members considered him too young for the position.

    Born in the East African nation of Eritrea, he moved to the Arab world before coming to Mission Viejo at age 15. Drawn toward Islam by college students, he enrolled in the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, a Virginia campus of al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The United States government expelled much of the faculty in 2004 as part of the crackdown on extremist Islamic rhetoric.

    The school was accused of being an American outpost of the puritanical Wahhabi sect, a label Sheik Fazaga rejects. But that might be one reason he has been stopped for questioning some 20 times — every time he returns home from abroad.

    “ ‘How come you don’t dress like an imam?’— that’s their favorite question,” he said with a wry grin.

    Younger Muslims seek him out for guidance, he said, and the fact that he is studying for a master’s degree in psychological therapy helps. Teenagers have requested advice about being addicted to Internet pornography, he said, and about sexual orientation. He counsels adolescents — gay and straight — that sexual attraction is natural, but to act on it is wrong and that any addiction should be treated.

    Previous imams would simply admonish the youths that something was a forbidden abomination, subject closed.

    Gihan Zahran, 43, an Egyptian immigrant, remembers a previous Arab imam who even told a much perplexed teenager that wearing Nike shoes was “haram,” or forbidden in Arabic, without explaining why. Some Muslims consider this aloofness particularly ineffective in America, given that they are a minority faced by majority practices like drinking alcohol that clash with their faith and that teenagers confront daily.

    Ms. Zahran’s sister Nermeen Zahran, 42, recently went on a pilgrimage to Mecca. She is a real estate agent, and has not veiled her hair at least partly because it might affect her livelihood in a conservative place like Orange County.

    When she went on the hajj, as it is called in Arabic, a fellow pilgrim asked the Egyptian imam who accompanied them from Southern California his opinion of her not wearing the scarf afterward.

    “He was so mad, so offended and said he couldn’t believe it could happen,” Nermeen Zahran recalled over a glass of orange juice in the neat condominium she shares with her sister. His basic reaction, she said, was that there was no point in seeking forgiveness for previous sins if one did not take the veil afterward.

    Ms. Zahran has also consulted religious figures about periodic bouts of depression, but the usual response was that her faith lacked vigor.

    Now she talks to Sheik Fazaga about it, she said. “He tries to solve the problems and doesn’t tell you that you have to accept that this is your life, this is what Allah gave you, and if you don’t then you are not a good Muslim.”

    She wonders, in the end, whether a purer form of Islam will develop in the United States, with prayer leaders focused on the concerns of the community, rather than not treading on the toes of the government that supports them, as in much of the Arab world.

    Mosques will probably continue to address the wishes of the immigrant population for another decade, but after that the tide will shift away from them, experts suggest.

    “Islam in America is trying to create a new cultural matrix that can survive in the broader context of America,” said Prof. Sherman Jackson, who teaches Arabic and Islamic law at the University of Michigan. “It has to change for the religion to survive.”