A brilliant book, I think Yuval is a master story-teller, to compress 100,000,000 year of human history into a single book with 500 pages is already an outstanding feat. Although I don’t think the book was a pure scientific book because he also discussed metaphysical things such as religion, belief, God, which is not empirically testable. 

He started his book with the notion that we are not the only human, along with Sapiens, evolution gave us “cousins” such as Erectus, Denisova, and Neanderthals. But for some inconclusive reason or reasons, our cousins did not make it and become extinct, we, Sapiens, survived, thus our story begins.

Our first revolution that separate us from other species was the Cognitive Revolution. This is when we acquired the ability to communicate with each other in the form of language. But other animal communicate with each other too, what make ours different? Our cognitive ability enables us to talk about things that we cannot see, touched, and smell, or in other words, we can created fictional realities such as religion, nation, and tribe. This myth helps us do collective works of complex in nature with people we don’t intimately know. These collaboration abilities are what set us apart from other species. Yuval put 150 as a threshold for any collective to work properly, without a collective myth, beyond this threshold the group began to break. Our cognitive abilities to create a common myth in our collective minds enable us to surpass that threshold.

 Starting with our ancestral forager, Yuval admitted that reconstructing the stories from this age is very difficult. Apart from no written record, the artefacts were very limited, most of the item used are woods which are perishable. People called it the Stone Age which to him was a mistake, it should be called the Wood Age, although few of these woods artefact survived under rare conditions. Ancient painting on cave’s wall also cannot help us tell their stories. These painting can be speculated on what does it symbolised, but the speculation did not give us a clue of what our ancestor if thinking, but rather it tells us the bias and the thinking of our scholars who tried to interpret them. 

As Sapiens spread across the earth, to different continent and to remote islands, they (or we) did not spread in peace. The spread is accompanied by the extinction of other species. The first wave of extinction is when our forager ancestor spread. The second wave is during the agricultural revolution. The third wave and current one is the result of industrial revolution. Yuval rejected the motion that we co-exist with nature before the industrial revolution, as the matter of fact, we are the deadliest animal wreaking havoc on the ecosystem since our beginning. But he agreed that the scale of the third wave of extinction is unprecedented, whilst the first two only limited to animals on the land, our industrial adventures spared no one including the one that live deep in the oceans.

We often think that during the agricultural revolution, we domesticated plant such as wheat for our benefit. Yuval flip this over, instead, wheat domesticated Sapiens. Whilst we were forager, we enjoyed variety of food in our diet, our life is simpler, we hunt for food then we can do whatever we want. But after wheat domesticated Sapiens, we were put into houses and laboured day after day, tending and nurturing wheat, our diet become less varied, our lives turn more laborious. The agricultural society according to Yuval was a luxury trap, but once one tribe settled down, the others must follow suit or perished. Agriculture produced more food which help the tribe sustained large families, the tribe that did not settled will be easily outnumbered and defeated. Agricultural society is not a peaceful society, they are violent, but as they grew bigger so do the system of government, they transformed into kingdoms and the level of violence grew smaller.

In biological term, there is no creator, declared Yuval. People who adheres to any religion might feel restless a little bit reading this line of argument. Here I found that Yuval, take a same approach as Richard Dawkins, to use science and biology as a tool to advance atheism. Science on the other hand, should be neutral on the question of God, this is due to the mere fact that metaphysical argument is not testable by science. Science only can inform us with an objective reality back by empirical evidence. But there is no harm in reading his view, its a tempting and interesting just-so stories, because of this conflation, I don’t think the book is a pure scientific book.                

One of the religion, criticized by Yuval was Humanism. The core doctrine of this religion is “follow your heart”. But human heart according to Yuval was a double agent, who always shaped by what we hear every day. So, our desire are easily manipulated by the bombardment of consumer advertisement, we ended up adhering to romantic consumerism – which is to fulfil our desire that was created by the media. This manipulation directed us indirectly to try different experience, and consuming the never-ending production of consumer goods. We buy things that we don’t need with money we don’t have, still we will not be fulfil because tomorrow there will be a different thing to try, different trend to follow, we will wake up tomorrow and chasing again.

When our agrarian culture transform village into kingdom, we face a mental limitation. Complex system of government needs to collect tax and store volumes of mathematical data about debt, income etc. These mathematical data cannot be stored even in the mind of the most intelligent man. Thus born a new system to store data, first known was by the Sumerians in the Mesopotamia, these advance system was called ‘writing’. The first recorded name in history belong to an accountant by the name of ‘Kushim’.   

In defence of homosexuality, Yuval argue that what ever that is possible is biologically natural, in his view its culture that prohibit certain act, not biology. He went further saying that our understanding of what is “natural” and “un-natural” is coming not from biology, but from theology. From rational point of view, this opens up a wide range of possibilities, even criminal one. Thus, one can said that what Hitler does is biologically natural because it’s possible? He then painted a bleak picture of the purpose of existence. He went on saying that from purely evolutionary biological perspective our organ does not have any purpose, mouth for example are not only meant to eat, we use mouth to kiss, speak, or opening a pack of potato chips. But his argument contradicted with his own line, later when he tried to explain the evolution of organs, he said that the organ evolved to do “a particular function”.

In realm of political philosophy, Yuval argues that in our time, we try to reconcile the value of “equality” and “individual freedom”, these two, although regularly discussed in tandem, are two contradicting values. If you want to give people equality, you have to curtail individual freedom, for example by taxing the rich more we are curtailing his right to use his own money in whatever pursuit he sees fit. When we want to give people individual freedom, we have to sacrifice equality, the rich may have the freedom to use their own wealth for his individual desires, even if that means evicting poor families from his land. But Yuval noted that this contradiction is the engine of our culture, the debate sharpen our mind and excite us to be creative.

Analyzing the direction of history, Yuval noticed that there is the emergence of ‘world order’. Previously humans (or Sapiens) lived separately in their own world, with limited to non-existent relationship with others. But in macro perspective, these worlds united and begin to resemble a global order. Cultures blended, some diluted, some become dominant, culture become increasingly global in nature. Yuval pointed out three drivers for this unification. One is imperialism, that conquer other people and culture and treated them all equally as their subject. Second is the universal religion such as Islam and Christianity that break from local religion, they believe that all people share the same universal God. Third was capitalism, that work to unify the globe as a single market.

Discussing the role of imperialism, Yuval noted that there is no absolute good or bad in them, you can collect their crime and fill a book, you can also collect their benefit and fill another book. As imperialism has been in the world for a long time, many of what we have today are in fact is an imperial legacy. He pointed out that the culture of drinking tea in India, was never there until the British came. There were no ‘pure’ culture that does not have an influence from previous imperialism. If Indian nationalism want to have authentic culture and erased all what the British inherit to them, they will have to solve the culture that previous conqueror left, Taj Mahal for example was the work of Muslim Conqueror, as they go deeper and deeper, they will just have to defend one imperialism after another. Before the Muslim came there were Gupta Empire, before that Kushan Empire, the list goes on, so which one is the authentic one?

The Nazis were the product of Darwinian evolution logic. According to Yuval, the Nazis fought Communism and liberal humanism because they believed in natural selection, only the fittest should survive and reproduced. Other system which allowed the weak to thrived and reproduced will eventually pollute future human gene causing them to extinct.

Interestingly, the book also asked a question, why we studied history? The same question historian such as Howard Zinn once asked. For Yuval, history is not a means to predict the future, but to understand our present, why we were arranged in such a way, and to understand that in historical perspective, they can be alternative arrangement, that the social arrangement today is not natural, it is just a product of one historical possibility and there are a whole lot more possibilities that can be explored and realized. 

Commenting on the progress of science, Yuval contended that science did not progress independently of politics, ideology or religion. Because there are many things that we can study, but which one is important and need to study first? This is not a scientific question, and need to be answered using ideology or religion. Furthermore our resources are limited, to fund a research study scientist need to justify them to government to get a grant, government of course will decide based on politics and his ideological leaning, again science will progress on path determined by ideologies.

The saddest part of history in book which I found was the wiping out of the natives of Tasmania, after 10,000 years of living in isolation, when the British came, they were wiped out systematically, to the last woman, man, and child. The British and their Christian missionaries tried to civilized and convert them, but they are not interested. The surviving natives became melancholic, lost interest in life, and chose death. Even after death, they are hunted, dissected, studied, and their corpses put in the museum. The last natives of Tasmania was a woman named Truganini.

There are many other interesting points in the book, but one I think, should receive a mention is this. Toward the end of the book, Yuval asked an interesting question, does the progression of history bring more happiness to human being? If not, what is the use of the French Revolution? If happiness can be achieved using biochemistry, why do we need ideologies and revolutions? We can consume prozac to increase our serotonin level. When discussing the meaning of life, Yuval wrote that happiness consist in seeing life as meaningful and worthwhile, there is cognitive and ethical component to happiness, and it depends on our values that we hold. Quoting Nietzsche, he wrote “if you have a why to live, you can bear almost any how”. And that should be the positive note to end this review.

The book Oh Crap! I Have a Toddler: Tackling These Crazy Awesome Years – No time-outs Needed by Jamie Glowacki is blunt and funny. If you are searching for a polite book, then this is not your book, but if you seek practicality – and language you can easily understand, then you want might to give it a try.

Jamie started her book by explaining to parent that their children from 0-6 years old are in the process called individuation – that is they are coming to a conscious that they are a separate human being from their parent, capable of making their own choice. But as they have literally inadequate experience in this world, they needed their parent to survive.

If you read a lot of parenting book, you will notice one trend – they tended to contradict each other. If you read book by Faber & Mazlish for example, they advocate for giving choices to children. In some area, there are some sense if we are to use Faber & Mazlish’s approach, for example choosing a pajama, but if could be dangerous in other situation such as crossing a street. Jamie contended that 0-6 are the years of governing, not guiding, as children brain is not yet capable of making complex and long-term choices, but for simple situation, of course they can, and we should give them.

She contended that it is the child job to push your limit and testing things. They are learning every day, even if we are not talking, they learn by observing and feeling. That is why, the first important thing in her book, is set up rules and boundaries, so that the children can be creative in a safe environment. They can explore within safe boundaries. You should strive to be authoritative but not authoritarian. Because they are very new to the world, everything is an exploration for them, and we the adult might mistakenly seem them as a bad behavior. In reality they were just curious how the floor would look like if they were all covered with talcum powder!

Parenting is also about the parent!

Jamie also stress out that parenting is not just about your child, it’s also about you, your partner, and your marriage. I personally loved this advice. Some parent devout their whole life to the child, they become the center of their universe, at the cost of their personal well-being and the health of their relationship with their partner in their marriage. This is wrong. When they crash and burn, they will pull down their children together with them, all parties stand to lose. That is why caring for your partner and marriage must be on the agenda, when this is healthy, it will become an umbrella protecting your child and enable them to grow and flourish.

How we connect with our children, was one of my favorite themes in the book. The need for us to be there 100 percent with our children. If we watch movie together, and wanted it to be a connection time, we should watch with them 100 percent with attention without scrolling our phone. But if we gave them screen time for us to take a break, we should say so, so that he will not expect us to sit with them. Jamie stressed out that short 100 percent connection time is much more valuable and productive, then spending time together without our thought never actually “be there”.

Phone is really a gap that create disconnection between parent and their children. While many advise us to put it away, Jamie understood that parenting can sometimes make us lonely and isolated. Being with a child all day is not the same as spending time with adults where you can understand each other’s. But we had a choice to make, whether we want to connect with a child or the world, it can’t be both at the same time. Its better for us to put 100 percent attention to a child until their emotional tank full, then we can spend time on the phone 100 percent. Dividing the attention will not work.

The other point that I think was an important one raised by Jamie, is the issue of parent’s self-care. Especially the first 5 years when the kid entered your life. In these crucial times, self-care is brutal, sleep deprivation and emotional stress slowly creeps in. There’s always a push and pull between partners on whose turn to take the time and look after the kids. This issue is an important one, because there is no family without parent, so a healthy parent, both physically and relationshiply are important for the kid’s development.

You dont have all the time!

Then there is the issue of time management, yes, we were told that busy is good, so we always keep ourselves and our kids busy! But that is not the case, you need a time to not being busy. There is no problem of letting your kids being bored, Jamie rightly pointed out that boredom is the gateway where we find creativity, when we did not plan anything for our kids, they have time to think for themselves what they want to do, what they want to play. If we keep planning their day up to minutes-detail, then there is no room for them to get creative and work their wonders.

Although different parenting books might give you different opinion, different approach, some contradicting each other, but what I found useful in it is that all of them always been a good reminder. A reminder that you are new to child rearing, you can’t master it without experiencing yourself. Jamie made a good reminder that, whatsoever our expectation was about parenting, we don’t know anything about it until we have our own child to take care of. Until we go through that sleepless night, all that tantrums, all that screaming and shouting, that is when we understand what is parenting actually is.

One unconventional thing I found in the book is that Jamie freely recommend TED talks for parent to further explore their conquest for parenting knowledge, I find talk by Gever Tulley on letting our children do dangerous things very enlightening. The book also gave a broader range meaning of creativity, especially what it means for little children.

The topic on sleep window do ring a bell. I for instant felt very sleepy at 10 pm that is my sleep window, and if I missed it, I will only be sleepy again at 2 am. Jamie make it as an utmost important points about sleeping, how sleep help your child and their behavior, you should let them sleep more, not less! She also talks about being firm, being firm means that you mean what you said. If you said something, you had to do it to mean it, this is related on setting boundaries, so that children understand where things stand.

You got this!

In conclusion, what I get from this book is that, your parenting needs to have a flexibility, if something is not working, you should change it, don’t be afraid of straying from your original parenting philosophy. Jamie ended the book by saying “you got this!”.

Oleh: Ahmad Akmal bin Sabri

Saya membaca buku “Berfikir tentang Pemikiran” sebanyak dua kali. Membaca kali kedua supaya dapat menulis ulasan buku ini dengan lebih baik. Pada pendapat saya, buku ini sangat sesuai dengan pemuda yang masih atau pernah terlibat dengan gerakan Islam, usrah dan ada semangat islah yakni membaiki masyarakat. Kalau tidak pernah terlibat, pembaca mungkin akan sedikit terkejut.

Buku ini juga sesuai untuk sesiapa sahaja yang berminat dengan isu politik negara dan luar negara dan bukan seorang yang penyokong “fanatik’’. Penulis neutral dalam isu politik dan mengkritik semua parti.

Saya rasa tema buku ini juga tema berfikir dan pandangan dari sudut pandang yang jauh. Penulis membawakan kisah Carl Sagan yang melihat gambar bumi dari jarak 6 billion kilometer yang diambil dari kamera Voyager-1 iaitu gambar bumi yang kelihatan sangat kecil. Pada pendapat saya, itu satu kisah pedoman yang baik untuk seorang pemikir. Kadang-kadang manusia perlu melihat dari skop yang lebih jauh, luas untuk apa-apa persoalan atau masalah. Lihatlah dunia luar, jangan melihat dalam kelompok sendiri sahaja. Di dalam buku ini penulis banyak memberi rujukan dan contoh-contoh dari pandangan luar dan besar dan saya akan petik beberapa dalam ulasan ini.

Ada pepatah Arab lebih kurang begini maksudnya tangan atau kuku sendiri lebih tahu di mana bahagian yang gatal untuk digaru. Hazrul Hazwan pernah cakap pepatah ini dalam program usrah di Moscow, saya cari di google tidak jumpa pula. Tapi pernah ternampak di dalam buku Hamka. Maksudnya manusia lain-lain rasanya dan lain juga apa yang membuatkan manusia tersentuh. Ulasan saya ini ulasan yang general dan sedikit pendapat peribadi untuk dikongsi dan akan menyentuh beberapa topik yang diutarakan oleh penulis yang bagi saya menarik untuk diamati.
Dalam buku ini saya ingin menyentuh beberapa topik yang ditulis oleh penulis.

Dakwah

Isu dakwah, tarbiyah dan pengerakan, penulis memberi mesej dan nasihat untuk pendakwah dan gerakan dakwah. Dakwah perlukan kefahaman, tidak cukup dengan semangat sahaja. Penulis menukilkan kisah dari seorang penulis bernama Naíma Robert dalam bukunya “From my sister’s lips”. Nai’ma menceritakan bahawa kebanyakan wanita barat memilih Islam adalah kerana kefahaman mereka setelah mengkaji, bertanya dan membaca mengenai Islam. Dakwah juga perlukan pengorbanan dan keikhlasan. Penulis memberi contoh kenalan-kenalan beliau yang beliau segani dan salah satu sebab beliau terus konsisten dalam jalan dakwah adalah kerana contoh-contoh yang baik dari murabbi-murabbi beliau.

Sebenarnya dengan berkorban membuatkan hati anak didikan kita lebih terpaut dan itulah juga cara Nabi. Ada pautan hati dalam berdakwah. Saya pernah membaca satu kisah sahabat nabi yang memberitahu, mereka rasa macam merekalah yang paling disayangi nabi dek kerana layan Baginda terhadap mereka. Isu ikhlas pula saya setuju dengan pandangan penulis bahawa tidak salah mengwar-warkan kebaikan kita supaya dapat dicontohi oleh masyarakat. Sekarang ini kisah-kisah tidak bermanfaat dan trend semasa seperti menari tepi kereta lebih dipublisitikan berbanding perkara yang baik. Dakwah juga perlukan konsitensi. Pembaca mesti terkejut kerana penulis membaca contoh ulasan Noam Chomsky tentang gerakan parti komunis. Gerakan tersebut kuat pada waktu itu kerana continuity dan kosistensi manusia-manusia yang terlibat.

Di dalam isu dakwah, saya sangat suka dengan hujung Bab 5 “Sisi-sisi yang tidak dapat ditinggalkan’’ dalam bahagian “siapa yang perlu berdakwah”. Bagi saya, semua umat Islam yang rasa selesa dalam kelompok sendiri harus membacanya. Penulis menceritakan pengalaman beliau di Saint Petersburg bergaul dengan orang-orang Uzbekistan. Untuk pengetahuan semua, Imam Bukhari yang terkenal dengan kitab Sohih Bukhari berasal dari sana. Bukhara adalah merupakan bandar di dalam Uzbekistan. Tetapi sedihnya kebanyakan orang Uzbekistan yang penulis bergaul sangat kurang kefahaman dan praktis mereka dalam Islam. Mereka tidak berpuasa dengan konsisten dan malah ada juga yang meminum arak. Pada pendapat penulis, mereka hanyalah mangsa sistem sekularisma yang mencengkam wilayah mereka yang diwarisi dari Kesatuan Soviet yang komunis dan ateis. Sekiranya mereka lahir di negara yang mengamalkan Islam, dalam keluarga yang mengamalkan Islam, dan dibesarkan dengan didikan Islam mungkin mereka tidak sebegitu. Pada pendapat saya, kita sepatutnya bersyukur dengan nikmat kefahaman tentang Islam. Kadang-kadang kita ini baik bukan sebab diri kita sendiri. Kita hanya beruntung, bernasib baik sahaja. Saya dahulu macam rasa marah dengan kenalan-kenalan yang tidak solat tetapi saya rasa mungkin isu itu berakar dari didikan zaman kecil lagi. Dari marah saya menjadi kasihan.

Di sebalik kisah sedih tadi, penulis berkongsi juga kisah yang baik tentang orang Uzbekistan, bernama Hamidullah. Beliau merantau mencari kerja, sementara itu beliau membuka kelas pengajian al-Quran percuma di masjid. Begitulah semangat Islam yang ada dalam diri beliau. Penulis juga disapa oleh orang tua di sana yang masih belajar iqra, mengenal huruf arab dan mengatakan kita sangat beruntung. Bagi saya kisah ini sepatutnya memberi semangat dan keinsafan tentang diri sendiri. Adanya insan-insan ikhlas seperti Hamidullah, Islam akan bersinar semula dan sama ada kita terlibat atau tidak, janji Allah pasti datang.

Untuk pengetahuan penulis, saya berkongsi kisah ini dengan seorang pemuda yang terlibat dengan tabligh. Saya jumpa pemuda itu di surau ketika saya berehat, menunggu isteri saya di klinik kesihatan. Ketika itu saya memang tengah membaca buku tuan penulis, dan saya gembira dapat berkongsi kisah orang Uzbekistan ini dengan pemuda tersebut.

Politik

Bagi saya bab 10 “Kritik terhadap politik tempatan dan antarabangsa” adalah bab paling panjang dalam buku ini. Saya paham apa yang penulis cuba sampaikan. Apakah itu demokrasi? Demokrasi ini sistem Islamkah? Jika Islam benarkan, acuan yang bagaimana yang boleh? Bagi saya , semua manusia perlu faham politik ini bukanlah isu 0 atau 1 semata-semata.

Kebanyakannya dalam ‘’grey area’’. Kalau seseorang terlalu jumud dalam isu politik, bagi saya dia tidak membaca. Isu politik juga sangat penting untuk kita terbuka. Di zaman sahabat, gerakan Syiah ini adalah lebih kepada gerakan politik, kini ia berubah kepada gerakan agama yang bagi saya sudah menyeleweng kefahaman mereka tentang Islam.

Dalam topik ini saya suka isu American Exceptionalism. Saya rasa ini skop besar seperti melihat bumi dari jauh jugak untuk kita memahami isu politik dan demokrasi dengan lebih luas. Bagi saya, isu exceptionalism dan rasa exclusive  ini pun terlibat dalam gologan kecil juga, seperti rasa kelompok sendiri lebih baik (keluarga, politik, bangsa) dari kelompok lain.

Antara topik dari sudut pandang yang jauh yang dibawa penulis adalah tentang autobiografi Nelson Mandela, “Long Walk to Freedom” dalam isu menangkap imiginasi rakyat biasa. Bagi saya semua rakyat perlu tahu tentang kisah ini supaya kita boleh bertanya pada diri sendiri. Betul ke ahli politik ini ambil kisah tentang kita seperti Nelson Mandela?

Isu kesatuan juga dibincangkan. Berpecah memang melemahkan sesuatu organisasi, tetapi memang menjadi lumrah manusia akan berbeza pendapat. Dalam bab kritikan tentang perpecahan pegerakan Islam dan parti politik, penulis ada memberi contoh bagaimana negara Eropah Bersatu membentuk European Union, dan berjaya membawa wilayah mereka menjadi satu kuasa kuat yang mampu menyaingi hegemoni Amerika walaupun sebenarnya mereka berbeza.

Topik politik ala Machiavellianisme juga suatu yang baru untuk saya. Quote “it is much safer to be feared that loved’’ itu sangat tepat. Penulis menerangkan hasil kajian Machiavelli tentang sejarah-sejarah politik dahulu, bagaimana kuasa pemerintahan boleh jatuh dan bagaimana ia boleh berkuasa dengan stabil. Point penting dari hasil kajian beliau adalah moral dan politik adalah sesuatu yang tiada kaitan.

Perjuangan

Semua manusia adalah pejuang, pentingkan hal diri sendiri juga adalah perjuangan. Tetapi kita perlu lebih dari itu. Penulis membawa kisah dari buku seorang penulis, Profesor Norman G. Finkelstein bertajuk “The Holocaust Industry” . Finkelstein mengkritik Israel dalam buku dan hasil kajiannya tentang Holocaust walaupun beliau adalah seorang Yahudi. Beliau aktivis yang aktif berjuang untuk hak rakyat Palestin. Begitulah contoh yang patut kita ambil. Seorang yang setelah mengetahui kebenaran, memeluk erat dengan pegangan itu. Fikelstein walaupun seorang Yahudi, beliau melawan bangsanya sendiri, memilih berjuang menjangkaui perjuangan peribadi. Ini pengajaran yang penting dalam tema perjuangan.

Berfikir, Berdebat, dan Memberi Pendapat

Isu berdebat ini quote ini sangat penting bagi saya.

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him ‘’ – Leo Tolstoy .

Dalam beberapa hari lepas, saya berbeza pendapat, berdebat di Facebook dan terus saya teringat quote ini.

Pada pendapat saya kebanyakan manusia sudah ada pegangan masing-masing ketika berdebat. Susah untuk kita bersemuka, berdebat untuk menjadi pendengar dahulu, memahami buah fikiran lawan kita dan kemudian berubah. Saya pernah berborak dengan penulis sewaktu di dalam pengajian di Selatan Malaysia. Penulis berkongsi cerita tentang debat Sunnah-Syiah di Perak. Penulis ada nukil kisah ini di buku beliau. Di akhir debat tersebut, pendebat Syiah berkata beliau pun tidak mahu sesat, semua orang mencari kebenaran. Penulis dan saya setuju dengan kenyataan itu. Semua orang hendak berada di pihak benar dan siapa ingin di pihak yang salah (kecuali ada kepentingan dan isu ego seperti Arab Quraish).

Kadang- kadang kita perlu tahu sebab apa kebenaran bagi orang yang lain dari kita berbeza pula. Iya hidayah milik Tuhan. Penulis juga pernah memberitahu saya yang beliau membaca buku tentang atheist, di dalam buku ini beliau nyatakan juga tentang bacaan beliau dan mendengar perbincangan orang ateis seperti Richard Dawkins. Bagi saya itu tidak salah dan mencari kebenaran memerlukan kita berfikir, menganalisa. Mungkin tersalah dalam apa-apa pendapat itu lumrah.

Penulis membawa skop pandang jauh tentang isu mencari kebeneranan dan berani untuk berfikir dengan berkongsi kisah Aristotle. Aristotle membuat kesimpulan bumi berbentuk bulat , bukan mendatar dan bumi merupakan pusat alam. Matahari, bulan mengelilingi bumi. Di zaman itu semua orang menganggap bumi ini mendatar. Kemudian, setelah manusia semakin maju dalam bidang sains dan astronomi, ternyata pandangan bumi adalah bulat betul tetapi bumi adalah pusat alam adalah salah. Namun, Aristotle masih dikenang sebagai seorang pemikir yang hebat walaupun model bumi beliau tidak tepat sepenuhnya. Beliau adalah seorang pemikir yang berani.

Teringat saya tentang tulisan komen di facebook. Di dalam isu Syiah, seorang ustaz membawakan hasil kajian beliau dengan dalil-dalil dari sejarah dan juga bukti tentang salah faham Syiah, tentang agama, dan kenyataan-kenyataan dari pihak Syiah. Kemudian seorang memberi komen yang berbunyi begini:

“Takkanlah Tok Guru tak tahu tentang ini. Aku tak percaya kau. Aku lebih percaya Tok Guru aku”.

Begitu dangkalnya manusia sebegini. Tidak mengunakan anugerah akal dari Tuhan untuk berfikir, hanya mengikut sahaja. Saya sangat marah ketika membaca komen tersebut. Saya yakin saranan membaca dalam Islam juga bermaksud membaca, menganalisa dan berfikir. Itulah saranan yang pertama dalam Islam dan sangat cocok untuk zaman ini. Owh isu fictional reality juga menarik.

Ekonomi

Penulis memberi penerangan tentang Kapitalisme dan Komunisme. Ada istilah-istilah baru yang saya dapat belajar seperti kaum proletariat, borjuis dan nama-nama seperti Adam Smith dan Karl Marx. Walaupun pemikiran komunis, sosialis agak radikal kerana isu tidak percaya kepada kewujudan tuhan, tetapi idea komunis ada menyumbang juga dalam sistem sekarang. Sistem bekerja 8 jam sehari merupakah hasil perjuangan idea tersebut. Saya baru tahu tentang itu setelah diterangkan oleh penulis di dalam buku ini.

Antara topik yang menarik bagi saya adalah kajian dari buku bertajuk “Why Nation Fail”. Ia adalah kajian berkenaan faktor sesebuah negara maju dari segi ekonomi. Adakah faktor geografi, hasil bumi, atau faktor lain? Kesimpulan buku tersebut, faktor terbesar adalah dari polisi negara dan institusi politik negara tersebut. Polisi yang elok membuat rakyat kreatif. Saya ada kawan yang cemerlang dan ada idea yang bernas dalam bisnes. Sekarang beliau berjaya juga (bukan niaga kedai makan atau jual produk kecantikan).

Penambahbaikan

Saya tahu sebahagian dari kandungan buku adalah dari blog penulis. Ada sebahagian topik penulis mengunakan ganti nama diri aku, kebanyakan gunakan perkataan saya. Mungkin perlu selari?

Kemudian, saya rasa kalau disusun kembali sebahagian tajuk dalam tajuk besar lagi baik. Seperti tajuk dakwah dan kemudian subtopik pandangan penulis, tajuk politik, dan ada subtopic pendapat penulis. Tetapi saya faham konsep buku ini, seperti travelog. Buku Ustaz Hasrizal berbentuk begini juga. Ada satu perengan yang saya rasa kurang jelas. Muka surat 263, perengan ke-3.

Kesimpulan

Terakhir, saya berharap 10 atau 20 tahun akan datang penulis dapat mengkritik padangan penulis sendiri yang penulis rasa mungkin isu sekian-sekian sudah berubah atau tersalah. Haha review buku seperti sinopsis pula. – AAS.

Tulisan ini merupakan ulasan bagi buku “Berfikir Tentang Pemikiran” oleh Syed Ahmad Fathi, terbitan The Independent Insight pada tahun 2018. Ulasan oleh saudara Ahmad Akmal bin Sabri ini pertama kali disiarkan di laman Goodreads.com pada 16 Disember 2019.

Reading history book is much more easier than reading economic or political science book, that I must say. Much of this, I think, is the human inclination toward stories rather than abstract theories, rhetoric, and argument. It took me just 11 days to finish Firas Alkhateeb’s book Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilization from the Past.

To compress 1400 years of history of Islamic civilization into 274 pages is very hard, if not impossible. To do this, of course, you have to pick and choose on what is important, what to be included, what to exclude and what is history and what is not. This selection  is exposed to the bias of individual historian, all historian cannot escape from this dichotomy, Alkhateeb included.

 Alkhateeb made ‘lost’ as a title to fill the gap that American textbook left about the Islamic history in their teaching of world’s history. So, for average Muslim, who received Islamic education, much of the book is pretty similar to what they were thought in school, especially on the early history about Prophet Muhammad and the first four caliphs. There are a lot of interesting stories, speculation, myth, but none were dealt in details as this work is a compression of 1400 years of history. But all in all, it was a pleasant read, one that spark your brain cell to have a long thinking.

Commenting on how Muslim scholar such as al-Razi and Ibn Sina contributing to the human knowledge, which further the studies of previous scholar such as Galen and Hippocrates, which was used to lay the pillar of modern medical science in the West, Alkhateeb dispelled  the theory of ‘the clash of civilization’ stressing that civilization not only interact in aggressive and warring attitude. They also inspire each other and advance the work of each other in many fields in harmonious ways.

If there is one thing that is new from the book, at least for the Muslim who are well versed with Islamic history, is that Alkhateeb is successful in breaking the romanticized narrative of Islamic history. As we often thought that across the time there were great unity among the Muslim, the fall of one Islamic empire is succeeded by another, politely taking turns. This was not the case. The division is bloody, especially after the killing of Uthman, the third caliph. There are a lot of politicking and civil war, in fact in the 900s, there were three dynasties claiming the caliphate: the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Umayyads.

The saddest part of Islamic history may be the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols on 10 February 1258. Not only the population of estimated 200,000 to 1 million was massacred, but the fall of Baghdad also means that hundreds years of scholarship in the field of mathematics, science, history, lost forever as the Mongols razed down the ancient institution of House of Wisdom and dumped all the books into the Tigris River, turning the river black with ink.

The story of Islam in Spain also were discussed, from my point of view, in adequate detail, although the student of history might want to find other sources which delve in it deeper. From the founding of Ummayyad Caliphate of Al-Andalus by Abdul Rahman Al-Dakhil until the fall of the last Muslim Kingdom in Granada under Muhammad XII, known as Boabdil by the Spaniards. The most interesting part of that history is how the Berber Muslim of North Africa frequently crossed the strait of Gibraltar to defend their Muslim brethrens, first by the Murabitun, then by the Muwahhidun, but in the end the infighting among the Muslim brought down the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula.

As a Malaysian, I chuckled a little bit as I read how Alkhateeb wrote the issue of how the Malay identify greatly their identity with Muslim identity. Not that it was wrong, it kind of funny to read how our culture were written in the international writing. He even quoted ‘masuk melayu’ the term given when someone embraced Islam with the meaning that he had enter the realm of the Malay. This issue actually very contentious at home, as the Muslim in Malaysia want their non-Muslim brother to understand that you can keep your culture even if you embraced Islam.

We often think that Mustafa Kamal, was the one responsible to secularized Turkey from their Islamic roots. But, the fact was it started much earlier, from the reign of Abdulmecid I (1839-1861) which brought in the era of Tanzimat or re-organization. During this era the legal code was changed from Shari’a to the French system in favour of a liberal and secular Western approach.

As the Islamic empire crumbled, the Muslim was instilled with nationalism, their land were carved under colonialism and imperialism. In the end they entered the modern world as individual nation states, much of which the boundaries of these new nation states was drawn by their previous colonial master. Ending his book, Alkhateeb noted that in this modern world, the Muslim now are in the cross road. To return to their former glory, some revivalist scholar preached that they need to return back to their faith, at the same time emerged a new class of scholar that preached that they should not return to the past but embraced the new ideals of the modern world. These two ideas are still contesting with each other, and their future will be determined by how this contest played out.       

I was naive to think that I could understand Marx’s thinking by simply picking up the Communist Manifesto out of the blue and start reading it. Indeed, after this futile exercise several years ago, I understand and remember nothing except for the call for workers to unite, the last line of the manifesto.

Paul D’Amato did a brilliant job in this title explaining to layman reader the essence of Marxist thinking. It is a perfect place for any person to begin their journey to understand Marx’s elaborated thinking. I discover the book some time ago when I asked myself a question “If we gave everyone equal decent living wages to everyone, what will be the motivation for people to work, innovate and use their creativity?” – I landed on one of D’Amato writings on the net and discovered his book.

In his introduction, D’Amato exposes the need to have an alternative thinking to solve various social issues. The raison d’état for this need is the failing of capitalism – or the uncontrolled mess created by modern capitalism to be inherited to future generation. Capitalism created a huge gap between the rich and poor, often unbalance with unimaginable wealth and great misery stood side-by-side. He gave a stark example where per capita income of Sub-Saharan Africa stood at $490 whereas per capita subsidy for European cow is $913.

Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel’s philosophy, in fact he was considered a Young Hegelian during his early years. Initially he considered the workers as a suffering being, not a shaper of the world social condition. He still believed that change must come from philosophy, not crude material struggle. But after witnessing French workers commitment, workers strike in Britain, Germany, and France, Marx ceased to view workers as a secondary component to social change.

Marx materialist method insist on the importance of material change instead of only abstract value, ideologies, or theories. In the absence of enough food, equality as a value means slow death – an equality of suffering. Working class, now, viewed by Marx as active agent for their own liberation. When he wrote that “The philosophers have merely interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it” he is not saying that abstract ideas are meaningless, it is meaningless if its stay on its own without any change on the physical and material ground, idea must transform material changes in society to be considered useful.

Through this thinking materialist rejected the idea that “people are poor because they are lazy, if they work harder, they can become wealthy”, which suggested human has unrestricted “free-will”. The fact is however, people were poor because of material condition such as factories close, wages are low, or people fell ill and can’t work. These all are material condition that can be change, its not a matter of abstract theory.

Because Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel, D’Amato discussed in adequate depth the concept of Hegelian Dialectics, which I enjoyed very much. He discussed how the death of old idea, and the birth of the new idea, is not separate and distinct, but one that negate from the other, the old idea create a condition for a new idea to emerge. Its like a plant which grew out from a seed, it grew into a new shape and form, yet both are the same plant. Marx applied this Hegelian Dialectics with materialism for social change. He viewed that the development of new society only made possible with the abundant material produced by capitalism. In other words, capitalism provided material condition to create a new socialist society. For example, the efficiency of food production makes it possible to eradicate hunger, the material condition exists, what’s needed is a new distribution system.

Other than Hegel, the book also discussed Thomas Hobbes in the chapter of Marxist view of history. Hobbes stated that a state, separate from the society is needed as an alternative to war. The state, in Hobbesian view, acted as referee that regulate social brawl, regulate conflict between different parties within society to maintain order by exerting its coercive force. But this view is flawed as it assumes that the state could be neutral, in reality the state also had interest in every issue. He explained how Marxist rejected this justification for power, stating that, through the writing of Engels, that the concept of state came at the later part of history and does not arise in the earlier time when the society exist in its egalitarian and classless form.

The discussion on economics, or Marxist economics was confined in one chapter in this book. It started with the flawed mainstream economic models that cannot predict economic crises, the mainstream economics dressed up themselves as “science” but it isn’t. He then put forward the labor theory of value (LTV) which was the foundation of Marx’s theory on capitalism. The theory supposed that value came from workers labor, and to create profit, capitalist cannot simply mark-up the price because these will cancel each other’s out in the commerce, they need to pay workers less than what their labor produce, the surplus become profit. This is the core of injustice towards workers, the book also discussed workers condition in company such as UPS and Amazon where workers literally managed and treated like “robots”.

In the capitalist system “over-production” means that a product was overproduced and cannot be profitably sell for profit. The supply and demand of overproduction does not correspond to human needs. That is why we can have “grain-glut” yet millions of people go hungry every year. India have 200 million malnourished people, yet India export 5,000,000 metric tonnes of rice in 1995.

Socialism according two D’Amato was possible and necessary for two main reason, one, the material abundance created by capitalism. This abundance makes it possible for everyone to live with dignity, without hunger, what socialist advocated is the distribution system base on human need not greed. Two, is the periodic crisis brought by capitalism, socialist advocate for a much more sustainable system, that is not based on short term profit, but by long term sustainable planning. The systemic change also possible, by the creation of a new set of people by capitalism, the proletariat.

Revolution is not a fancy vacation. Through out history it filled with blood, the question then is, can we reform the system without revolution? Or change the system gradually within the bound of constitution? D’Amato brought a wealth of historical example on the failure of the “reformist” and “constitutionalist”. One of them is the killing of Allende of Chile, he concluded that the ruling power will not give the key to power and privilege easily, it needs to be wrestled. To make sure that the power can be wrestled, the military must be on their side, and remain on their side once they have the power, so that restructuring can be carried out without falling back to the counter-revolution.

The history of Russian revolution also was discussed, albeit somehow briefly. D’Amato take the readers on how the Revolution was won, the tactics and strategies played out by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and also how the revolution was lost, degraded into autocratic dictatorship of Stalinism. One of the strategies of Lenin was to never halt the work even though if the organization was thrown into illegality, the work must continue underground, according to the current condition, and resurface once condition allowed. The Russian Revolution failed because of the lack of material condition at that time, in order for socialism to succeed it needs material abundance, something that Russia was lacking. This disadvantage put a halt to the revolution from becoming, in Trotsky’s word “permanent revolution”, that is revolution works permanently until all her aim achieved. Permanent Revolution also means that it will not stop at national border, socialism cannot survive when confined in a nation as an island surrounded by an ocean of capitalism.    

At the core of his argument, D’Amato insist on the definition of socialism, it not about nationalization, but what important is that workers control over production and distribution. What we have today is abundance of produce but disproportionately distributed, the system distributed product base one profit. Socialism on the other hand will base their distribution on human needs. This distribution system can only be achieved through internationalism, it cannot survive as island of socialism in the middle of capitalist ocean, as the failing of Soviet Union has shown.

Quoting the English writer William Morris on profit:

“It is profit which draws men into enormous unmanageable aggregations called towns, for instance; profit which crowds them up when they are there, into quarters without garden or open spaces; profit which won’t take the most ordinary precautions against wrapping a whole district in a cloud of sulfurous smoke; which turns beautiful river into filthy sewers; which condemns all but the rich to live in houses idiotically cramped and confined at best, and at the worst, in houses for whose wretchedness there is no name.”

On Zionism, D’Amato is very clear that the project is racist, but different from their South African counterpart, Zionism goes further than just oppressing native population, it seeks the removal of native Palestinian from their land to build exclusive Jewish state. D’Amato dispelled Zionist propaganda that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”. He also elaborated on the connection and contact of Zionist leaders with the Nazis, as they share the same goal, the Nazis want Europe without Jew, the Zionist want all Jew to fled Europe to resettled in their new Jewish nation, both shared the same goal of “separation of Jews from gentile”.

Finally, what does the future that socialism seek to build?

D’Amato answered this with the words from Eugene Debs “Production and distribution for all the people, collective ownership of industries and their management, elimination of rent, profit, and interest, the end of class rule, slavery, ignorance, poverty, cruelty, and crime”. Socialism seek to abolish class, and with that it rendered the existence of state as instrument of enforcement disappears. Whilst we may find that many of the solution proposed is hard to churn, many would agree on the failing and flaw of capitalism in structuring our modern society. We don’t have to be a Marxist or socialist, but, we all need to work together to re-created a more just and sustainable society.

Sad, angry, depressed, hopeful, were few of the thousands of emotions aroused reading ‘From Beirut to Jerusalem’, a memoir by Ang Swee Chai. Through her passion, love, perseverance, bravery, and determination, the world is indeed greatly indebted for her work both as a doctor and also as a witness to the massacre suffered by Palestinian refugee in Sabra-Shatila during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Her maternal grandfather was a conservative and traditionalist, he believed that an educated woman will not make a good wife. But her mother was a defiant daughter, register herself to school and went to become a teacher. Her father ran away from his grandfather in mainland China refusing to marry a girl arranged for him and went to became a journalist in Singapore. During the Japanese invasion on Malaya, both of them met in the Outram Road prison in Singapore.

After Japan was defeated, they settled as a family. When her mother was pregnant, she went back to her hometown in Pulau Pinang to give birth to her. She was raised in Ayer Itam district in Pulau Pinang with her younger brother, Lee Cyn. They eventually moved back to Singapore following their father’s work. Raised in poor family, her mother raised her with discipline, she then continues her studies in medical school. She married Francis Khoo, a lawyer and activist. Francis was accused to be a communist, he fled Singapore in 1977 avoiding arrest under Internal Security Act (ISA) and took refuge in Britain.

Her parent was areligious but they allowed their children to choose a religion of their own. She embraced Christianity during her studies in medical school.

Ang was well versed about Israel even before volunteering. The church has taught her that Israel was God’s chosen people, and the return of the Jew to Israel was a verification of biblical prophecy. There are many reasons why she supported Israel, one of it was the oppression of the Jew by the Nazis, and the Nazis were Japanese ally during world war, with the creation of Israel the Jew can defend themselves, its a realization of justice from God.

She was prejudiced towards Palestinians, the church has told her that they were terrorist, an old foe, the Philistines of the Old Testament. She was a bigoted, self-righteous fundamentalist Christian, like many Christians she rejoiced in the military triumph of Israel. But that morning in Sabra and Shatila, God destroyed that self-righteousness.

In her memoir, she recreated that journey, from a bigoted Christian fundamentalist to peace activist and friend of the Palestinian people. It started in 1982 when she watch the horror of Israeli invasion and bombardment of the people of Lebanon through British television. The killing of women and children shook her to the core, she resigned prom her hospital in Britain, pack her bag, and went to Beirut as a medical surgeon volunteer.

In Beirut, Dr. Ang Swee Chai served at Gaza Hospital, Palestinian refugees named their hospital with their town in Palestine, its a symbol of longing to their homeland from where they were expelled by the Zionist colonialism. Many of the camp residence were refugees who fled the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. The hospital situated near the Sabra and Shatila camp. Here, she witnessed the kindness of Palestinian people, the gentleness they showed toward their guest, she also saw their courage, resolution, patience, and resistance against Israeli aggression and occupation.

Before the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Palestinian fighters from Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to evacuate from Beirut as a condition of a ceasefire. Dr. Ang noted “this is the first time that I realized that PLO fighters (who she preconceived as a terrorist) have a home and family in Lebanon, they withdraw and left their wives, children, siblings and parents”. The Palestinian gave away their weapon, the roads are cleared from any barrier. On 14 September 1882, water and electricity supply were restored. They believed in the promised of United States and western powers, that they will be let to live unharmed. They were wrong.

The next day, the camp were encircled by Israeli army and under siege, Israel coordinated Phalangist militia to enter the camp and massacred the people, children, baby, women, old people were brutally murdered. Dr. Ang realized the scale of barbarity and hope that the PLO did not withdraw on the first place, so they can defend the camp people. But it was too late. She recollected this barbaric massacre in her memoir which was first published by Grafton Books & Times Book International in 1989.

Reading her memoir really shock reader’s emotion to the core, your tears will be flowing like a river as she collected her horror, by page 70 your tear will run-out dry, there is so much to take. The story of a people exiled from their homeland in 1948 only to be massacred again by the Israelis in 1982, Dr. Ang could not help but ask, where should they go?

She recalled a story on the height of the killing, there was a woman and a child brought into the hospital, the woman was shot on her stomach and badly wounded. After operation, she needed a blood transfusion. She overheard that the nurse told the doctor that the blood pint given to her was the last, and the child need blood transfusion of the same blood type. She refused the blood pint so that the child can have it and asked for painkiller instead. She died shortly after.

She also written a story about a boy named Mahmoud, who was her patient before the massacre, he injured his wrist whilst helping his father rebuilding their house. After the massacre, when she walked down the road in the camp, Mahmoud appeared, ran toward her and hug her, he was so happy to know that she was alive. Soon, children began to appear around her, they saw her camera and asked for a photo, they wanted the world to see that although their house have been destroyed, their parent massacred, they still can smile and raised their hand with victory sign. Their courage was astonishing.

Reflecting on the Palestinian tragedy, she wondered why Palestinians need to suffer to accommodate the victim of Nazis persecution and European racism? At the end of the memoir, in the post-script, she also reflected on her Christian belief. She wrote “[I was] a bigoted, self-righteous fundamentalist Christian. I thought that I knew the Bible, and God was on our side. I rejoiced in the military triumph of Israel. On that morning in Sabra and Shatila, God destroyed that self-righteousness. Many of my Zionist Christian friends shunned me, but I am no longer intimidated by all this. I have seen a different face of God – that of love, compassion, and grace. He promised Ishmael would be a father of many nations. Palestinian are the children of Ishmael and the children of Abraham. He will wipe away all tears and bring us home..next year in Jerusalem.”

Dr. Ang Swee Chai then became a co-founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), she became an activist and regularly invited to talk about the plight of the Palestinians. Her experience in Lebanon changed her life completely, she became the witness of Sabra-Shatila massacre which taught her to never relent in the face of injustice. In her letter to her husband, Francis Khoo she wrote “we are just two small persons in the history of liberation..I saw the face of death, I saw their power and ugliness, but I also saw fear deep inside their eyes, the children of the new generation will come, and they are not afraid”.

The book opens with a foreword and preface of the new version which basically gave a summary of what had happen since the first publication in term of reception. The work was cherished by heterodox economist and sparked debate over the way of economics was taught as a subject. This was in light of the economic crash in 2008-09, which was not predicted by many ‘experts’.

The idea however was rejected by mainstream neo-classical economist due to the fact that it challenges the established theory.

David Orrell blamed the abused of mathematical models, used by bankers, analyst, and economist, not just the models cannot predict the crash, he argued that the model helped cause the crash. But he went further, not just the mathematical models were flawed, the fundamental theory in which we understand economy is plain wrong.

Orrell maintained that whilst economist based their economic law from reductionist model of Newtonian physics, humans are not like atoms, they are not rational and cannot be modelled. He is not alone on this, Ha Joon-Chang also maintains in his book that economics is not a science like physics.

But while Chang criticized free-market economics, Orrell went further and dispelled the fundamental ‘law’ of economics – the supply and demand theory. He insisted that the supply and demand curve, which was taught in every economic school, has never been proven empirically with real data, the curve is “like a unicorn, always drawn but never really seen”.

The problem with the curve is that it exists on ceteris paribus – other things held constant, but in real life, this was never the case, supply and demand always change and dance together. The danger of perceiving the concept as ‘law’ will have a severe consequence in real life, we will be searching (wasting our time) for a creature that is non-existent.

Orrell then pointed his gun to the ‘efficient market’ hypothesis which assume that people are rational motivate by profit, have access to market data, and independent in making decisions. This theory take root from atomic theory which equate individuals like a particle of atoms. He lamented that this is fundamentally wrong as human always did irrational things and they communicate, advocate, and influence others, to create a mathematical model out of individuals based on atomic theory will lead us to a catastrophic trap. This trap made IMF made a comment in 2007 that “world economy will have a robust growth in 2007 and 2008” before they eventually crashed.

He then cited evidence from the UK housing market, where people under constant pressure from advertisement to buy house and made profit through speculation. People buy houses more than they needed, to make profit. This creates a psychological pressure and induced others to follow suit, they did not act rationally, but emotionally fearing of missing out, and behave in “herd” behaviour. Obviously, you can’t make mathematical model from human emotions. The notion that market will regulate itself in mathematical precision is therefore highly unlikely and nowhere to be seen.

One of Orrell point is to make finance less efficient, this point was in common with the call made by economist, Ha Joon-Chang in his book about problem with capitalism. Orrell argued that by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act which separate daily commercial bank with speculative investment bank make the financial system more integrated. Therefore, default is contagious, one failure can drag the whole system down. He called for re-compartmentalization of these banks, although it reduces efficiency, it introduced a control mechanism to limit failure. Another aspect that might save us in time of crisis is redundancy, in nature this can be observe on the extra kidney we carry, while in the economy, this mean that banks need to have limit to their gambling risk and hold extra reserve to survive the bad time.    

The economy is unstable according to Orrell, to elaborate this argument, he explained the banking system in the word of economist Hyman Minsky who contended that the borrower can be categorized to three, first the hedge, this is a regular borrower who can pay their principal and interest. Next, the speculative, who can only service his interest such as the mortgage borrower. Than the final one, the ponzi, who had a lot of hope, can only pay if the asset price continue to rise. As the debt continue to accumulate, it will eventually burst, starting with the ponzi, followed by the speculative, and finally dragging down the hedge – this will be the Minsky moment.

Financial system is not a natural system, we had a say and can better engineer them. Orrell suggest that we model them from the current extreme form which focussed on short-term profit towards a more normal ones which gave lesser profit but much more resilient from crashes, he then laid his suggestion on how to achieve this goal. One of them, is create a barrier by testing financial product to understand their risk before releasing them to market. Regulation, contended Orrell, will caused some inefficiency but it gave stability, he then poked the concept of the ‘invisible hand’ by saying that if we looked at our own hand, it is heavily regulated – from temperature to cell salinity – putting economist to shame.

Other interesting discussion in the book by Orrell is about the differences of government monetary policy between Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. Whilst Friedman inherit the free-market ideology and anti-regulation propagated by the Chicago boys, Keynes expanded government involvement in the economy and advised the boosting of government spending during recession to compensate demand. He also took a punch on Friedman stating that its ironic he opposes government intervention but at the same time the Chicago boys sustained themselves in part by government grants.

Many of his argument do ring a bell, underlaying assumption in economics such as people are rational is somewhat laughable. Human are not computers, they are highly emotional, and because humans are the building block of the whole economy, the economy must be emotional, we can’t exclude the most important trait of human being, produced a model out of it and applied it to the real world.

But there is also an oxymoronic argument put forward in his book. In one of the chapters he tried to make a case that the economy is gendered, he even brought forward the concept of yin and yang claiming that the aggressive bet and speculation are attributed to male trait (female did not gamble?). But while trying to make his point, he took a sharp turn and wrote that ‘it would be terribly reductionist to blame…solely on people with a tendency to grow facial hair’. So which is it, is it really gendered or it is a reductionist assumption?

Current economic theory is not a science, Orrell contended, but rather an ideology peculiar to a certain period in history because it does not add up to the empirical data and made various assumption which does not hold true in real life situation. He went on outlining the similarity of the global economy with a ponzi scam by Bernie Madoff. Such similarities includes a complicated but plausible story, trust, incentives, a network of rich and powerful people, influence with regulators, illusion of growth, and an outdated machine (a price theory that said price is always right).

Orrell also called ethics to be included in the economic equation, as there are many aspect that will lead to harmful consequence if the whole decision was left to market to decide. For example, he asked if we leave resources such as oil for investment company such as pension fund to decide, why should they put a cap on production? Their motive is short term gain without consideration of long-term environment decays. These are the area that need to be addressed by ethics in the form of government intervention and regulation.

I do find one question fairly amusing. When he tried to make a case that other field of studies actually needed to construct new economic model, he asked a question ‘are philosophers in agreement that market can make ethical decision?’ This question, I think, is also an oxymoron. Philosophers were always in disagreement almost about everything between them.

Finally, concluding his book, he asked readers to confront every economist in their lives and observe their reaction. They can reply in denial, anger, depressed, or in good case, accepted the criticism and chartered a new path. For a change to happen, we need to acknowledge first that the problem exist.

This article is a review of the book ‘Economyths: 11 Ways Economics Gets it Wrong’ by David Orrell.

What was missing in the economic theory that lead to the financial crisis in 2008-09? This was the first question Drennan want to answer in this book. His thesis is that income inequality plays a role in the lead-up to the financial crisis by maintaining consumption through surging household debt. The second question he asks was ‘Why the economist get it wrong?’. Drennan’s answer to the second question is that the consumption theory of neo-classical economics does not include income distribution to their economic theory.

To prove his points, Drennan brought forward econometric evidence to link income inequality with the financial crisis. He also used various set of data to show that many people resort to debt to maintain their consumption, meaning that people borrow more money to buy the necessities to maintain their lifestyle. He also present historical data as evidence to show that the 2008-09 crisis is not something new and has happen before.

Drennan also noted that the two feature that were on the rise leading to financial crash were the stagnant growth of income and income inequality – although this two do not necessarily occur together. Although Drennan try to back his argument with data and statistics, layman reader will not find this useful, understandable, and almost definitely lost in the process.

What are the possible causes of rising income inequality? Asked Drennan. Economist pointed out that one of the candidates is globalization, but he cast doubt to this theory as other countries such as Japan, Germany, and France were exposed with the same globalization forces but does not produce higher income inequality. Other candidate favoured by economist to explain income inequality is skill-biased technological change (SBTC). This include higher order specialization, for example box mover can learn to operate forklift easily, but factory worker might have problems changing their career to higher-order specialization such as a programmer. Some economist listed SBTC as the cause of the rising income inequality.

But all these candidates do not give the whole picture. The more compelling cause, is the institutional structure. Drennan noted that as the economy turn from manufacturing to service economy, the labor union diminished. This is because the service sector does not have a strong labor union traditionally. The structure of the law also plays important roles in containing the labor union force, without them worker have a lower protection and had to accept lower wages as they don’t have any bargaining power.

Then there is government intervention. Contrary to free-market ideology, that income stabilize in its current level due to rigorous market forces, there are many government legislation interferences that favors the rich and enlarge the income inequality gap. Among the law includes treatment to corporate stock option award, access to bankruptcy, copyright and patent protection, to name a few. Various conservative think-tanks served as an advocacy lobby to ensure government keep policies for the benefit of the rich, their objective is rent-seeking – spending money not on production of product or service but to take advantage and enlarge their own economic pie at the expense of someone else’s share.

After presenting his theoretical background, Drennan continue with the data to back his theory. Although he emphasized in the introduction that the role of the data presentation is ‘not to obscure the fact’, he did just that for a layman reader as they lost in the jargon terms and various graph. Drennan drew from Federal Reserve’s data that there are a huge build-up of debt-to-income ratio for the bottom 95 percent whilst consumption remains more or less the same, which means that consumer are shifting to debt to maintain their consumption, this lead to financial burst eventually. These consumptions include shelter, health care, and education which are a necessary expenditure which cannot be postponed, such as taking a vacation trip.

In the book, Drennan also help explain economic principle such as the Pareto efficiency principle which stated that “any change that make one people better off, without making any other worse off, is an improvement”. This principle is a fundamental tenet of neoclassical economics, which describe the gain of top 1% of the income distribution as Pareto efficient. This is one reason why economist turn away from income inequality.

Other theory, such as Kuznets’s inverted-U hypothesis, also made economist less worry on the income inequality and its effect. Drawing from various historical data from numerous countries, Kuznets argued that the economic shift from agriculture to industrialization will lead to the rise of income inequality for some time, but as countries develop, democracy expands and more protection were given to labor causing the inequality to fall back. He also discussed Arthur Okun’s tradeoff theory although Okun provided no strong evidence.

In analyzing the data, Drennan also drew his criticism towards Milton Friedman model for theory of consumption, noting that the theory does not true for the period 1984-2007 and for the early twentieth century. He went further to underline the basic flaw of Friedman, Modigliani, and Brumberg’s model which become the mainstream theory for consumption, the models devoid of motive and proclivities, whereas in real life human behavior play an important role in their daily choices and consumption.

In his final chapter Drennan drew attention that this crash has happen before, and in his conclusion, he argue for the need to drop traditional economic theory that did not stood the empirical test from the data. Unless we take into account other element such as ‘behavior’ in our economic theory, we will be chasing unrealistic economic development using unrealistic theory.

If you have read ‘Freakonomics’ by Dubner & Levitt and searching for a kind of book that provide the same unconventional, myth-busting analysis on economics occurrence, this book is definitely it!

Written in layman term without heavy technical terms, Chang open the access gate to wide range of ordinary readers about the working of economics. As he himself noted in the introduction, you don’t need to be an economist to understand his book. He lay out his aim explicitly on what he intended to do, which is to exposed free-market capitalism, he still believes that capitalism is the best economic system, his problem lay on specific type of capitalism which has dominated the world economy which is the free-market capitalism.

Chang argues that free market does not exist. Every market has rules, boundaries, and restriction which govern them. As we accept all these rules unconditionally, we fail to see them as market restriction. Labor market has many restrictions, you can’t hire child laborer this day. Also, most countries have immigration control to protect local labor market, and to hold the wage standard from falling. All these restrictions were not been put based on sound economic reason, they are political decisions. That is why Chang argues that the free-marketeer was as political as the one who opposed them. 

Workers in rich countries doing the same job are paid more compared to their counterpart in poor countries. Why is this so? It is not because of the people in rich countries are more productive, brilliant, or creative. It is precisely because of the immigration control that retain the wage standard. The gap also presented not because individual in rich countries are highly educated, it is because they have better technologies, better institutions, and better infrastructure. This line of analysis is consistent with what was presented by Turkish American economist, Daron Acemoglu and British political scientist, James A. Robinson in their famous book ‘Why Nations Fail’.

Chang discussed about Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary and the architect of the modern American economic system. Hamilton laid out protectionism strategy to protect American industries ‘in their infancy’. Have he come up with the same policy that develop America then today, Chang argued that he will be criticized by US Treasury Department and denied loan by IMF and World Bank. Chang brilliantly argued that developed countries forced market liberalization on developing countries, whilst they themselves used protectionism policy when they were developing. In other words, the rich countries said to poor countries “do what we say not as we did”.

Why do European migrated to the U.S. in 1880-1914? – asked Chang. He argued that the New World lack of feudal legacy which led to higher social mobility compared to the Old World. The U.S. also had a massive tract of land and a shortage of labour, thus wages are three to four time higher than Europe. But he argued, today American does not have the highest living standards. They worked longer hours and had inferior healthcare system. Average income also did not gave an accurate living standard in the U.S. as she had a bigger unequal income distribution, with bigger size of underclass.

Chang also criticized many economist approaches on the question of Africa’s poverty. Chang argued that  rather than blaming free-market policy failure to develop Africa, free-market economist shift the blame towards Africa’s geography, climate, history, demography and ‘resource curse’. While all these factors are not all irrelevant, the outcome can change, for example, there are many resource-rich countries that were well developed. Some factors like geography and history cannot solve the question as they can’t be change. The most important factor, Chang noted, is policy. Policies can be change when they failed, especially and evidently in Africa.

On trickle-down economics, Chang brought evidence that the policy failed to deliver its promise and failed to accelerate growth. The book also discussed the failure of micro-credit, as a system to finance small enterprise and lift people out of poverty. The idea was famously attributed to the economist who won a Nobel Peace Prize, Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank. Factors for the micro-credit failure includes the used of the funding for consumption, not for their initial intended purpose. While some used the funding for their business, the business failed to develop and re-create itself once their market was overcrowded and profit fell.

One of the most profound idea I found in the book is on how we limit our choices to make decision. Chang brought this idea base on Herbert Simon’s thought. Human cannot easily make decision when they were flooded with seas of information. That is why we develop routine, although they might be a better way to do things, people stick to routine so that they don’t have to make too many decisions. Market, Chang argued, were far more complex with billions of product, people, and companies. So, government intervention using regulations is justified, to limit the uncertainties and risk in the market, so that we can make a more rational and easier decisions.

Switzerland is one of the top few richest and most industrialized countries, but it is by far the lowest in term of university enrollment. Chang argued that excessive education does not lead to more productive economy. Subject such as history and biology does not much needed for average factory workers. He argued that knowledge-based economy is an exaggeration with many rich countries still rely on their manufacturing output, so, developing countries cannot skip manufacturing phase of the economic development.

Equality is not enough, said Chang. It does not make any sense if a rich boy and poor boy given the same opportunity to attend school, but the poor need to compete with a hungry stomach. So, its not just the opportunity to enter competition needs to be given, but the condition must be equalized.

His logic about big government is a compelling one. Big government he argued, make the economy more dynamic. When basic income was guaranteed, people will not be afraid of changing jobs from sunset industries into sunrise industries. When government provide re-skilling opportunities, people can more easily shifted from less productive industry into more productive one. People don’t afraid of loosing job because they know it will not be the end of the world, they have a safety net, and can move on.

Overall, the book is very rich with myth busting, facts, case studies, jokes, that will transform your understanding about economics. You know that the system is broken, but it is broken for a wrong reason and can be fix. The fix, as argued by professor Chang in his concluding remark, will not be comfortable or fair, but it is needed to give a chance for billions of people, and alleviate them from poverty.

Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World by Ian Bremmer published by Portfolio Penguin in 2012.

The book was written by Ian Bremmer which was also the author of ‘The End of the Free Market’. In this book, Bremmer put forward his thesis that the world is moving toward a leaderless world, a world where no single nation or group of nations can impose anything to other states to coordinate international respond and solve global problems. He termed this new world G-Zero, as opposed to the grouping of established power which created a club G7- a club of 7 powerful nation.

The G7 has diminishing power as the U.S. power slowly wane off and the EU disintegrates, while a much larger club like the G20 produces nothing of substance. On contrary, we have a number of emerging nations assuming greater economic and political power on the global arena, but none of them was capable or willing to assume global leadership.

One of the areas which are crucial for the survival of our planet is on the issue of global warming. This global problem cannot be solved by individual nation, it needs a coordinated and planned international effort. Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, for example, produced nothing substantial to come up with a global solution. India and China unwilling to cut emission that will hamper their economic development, they instead remind western counterpart that today’s problem was the result of the western industrial revolution, and they are the one who needs to foot the bill.

Bremmer explained that the waning of American global dominance is due to their swelling debt. With China on the rise, and the Chinese willingness to invest in U.S. debt, it is harder for the U.S. to impose anything on China. The U.S. also spending too much money on foreign war trying to keep the world “peace, democratic and stable”. Although many would disagree with Bremmer assessment, Chomsky for example once stated that the best way of ending terrorism is by stop participate in one. One can argue that U.S. wars were good or not, but no one can deny that it help dries the U.S. from the fund it needs for productive economic development.

China also benefited from the service of U.S. navy patrol of the major trade route but has no incentive to take over the lead. Russia on the other hand, since the fall of the Soviet Union has lost military clout and the ideological appeal for much of the developing world.

The book also is dense with ‘American exceptionalism’ which made it non-objective and highly political. Some of it was not based on fact but an assumption. For example, in discussing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Bremmer wrote that “Iran join the club but cheat”. No evidence cited for this accusation, instead,  in the following line he said Iran “generally assumes” to be hiding its nuclear weapons program. So, this accusation is not based on fact but an assumption.

In discussing the US-China trade relationship, Bremmer prediction turns to be not very far stretched, as China keeps Yuan devalued, the trade war looms as the U.S. and China have already slapped tariff to each other. China manufacturing strategies also seem to be working, especially in the telecommunication industries which has put the Western counterpart unease, the latest is the Huawei case.

Market forces were also discussed in the book, he connected the dots and explain how these forces impacted the price of commodities. The growing middle-class for example, given rise to the demand of meat-based diet. This, in turn, will push the grain price up as grain is needed so much more to nourish livestock rather than feeding human. The rising price of grain will hit poor countries the most as they spend a large portion of their income on food, whilst in rich countries, the food is highly processed and the price fluctuation usually lost after adding other costs such as processing, manufacturing and transportation.

Who are is the possible winner in the leaderless world?

To this question, Bremmer suggests that countries with broad cooperation and does not rely on any single superpower will thrive. As there is no single power can impose any standard global system, these emerging states can play using their own rules. Countries like Brazil, Turkey are possible winners, as does the African continent.

States which does not obey the American leadership (Bremmer called it rogues states) which have powerful friends will also have a good advantage in the leaderless world. As the U.S. is plagued by war fatigue, Europe troubled with fiscal austerity, the military threat was seen less credible whilst economic sanctions were ineffective and porous.

Who will be the losers?

To this Bremmer answered states that still hang on to the old power structure. They resist changes and stick to their own rules and institutions. Institutions that have already accomplished their mission but not yet decommissioned, such as NATO will also be on the losing end.

Closing the book, Bremmer comes out with what the future might look like. The future according to Bremmer depends on the U.S., China, and the other countries. This book was written in 2012, whilst this review was written in 2019. So, we already in the future and can look back at Bremmer proposed image of the future.

Bremmer suggested 4 possibilities, judging from the current world affairs the most suitable candidate will be the “Wold of Regions” where the emerging countries become stronger whilst the U.S. and China relationship becoming more hostile. We can see the trade war currently brewing between these two superpowers, with tariff been imposed on each other and the growing tension on Huawei expanding their technological reach. While other countries climbing the global political ladder. Even the U.S. sanction on Venezuela is not working as India continue to buy Venezuelan oil. Whilst Turkey ignored U.S. threat and continue purchasing Russian missiles system. 

Bremmer concludes the book on looking at the U.S. fate in the G-Zero world. He ends the book with his last touch of American exceptionalism saying that the U.S. always has a second act and can rise again. To do this they need to accept the world as it is and innovate to adapt.