Are Malaysia a target for regime change?

COMMENT By CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

The forces that shape Washington’s attitude towards Malaysian politics and political leaders may have a hidden agenda.

IN his widely read blog (Feb 13, 2012), the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, criticises the politics of regime change pursued by the United States of America.



He is concerned that Malaysia may also be a target for regime change. And the US candidate to head the new regime which will be in full, complete support of US policies, he says, is none other than the Leader of the Opposition, (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim.

Why should the US government seek regime change in Malaysia when the present Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, has sought to further strengthen ties with Washington?

He has even employed a Washington-based public relations firm, Apco, to boost Malaysia’s image in the US. Najib’s personal relations with US President Barack Obama are supposed to be “excellent”.

And yet it is quite conceivable that the forces that shape Washington’s attitude towards Malaysian politics and political leaders may prefer Anwar to Najib for a number of reasons.

One, while Najib may have some rapport with formal leaders and the formal state, it is Anwar who has intimate links with the “deep state” in the US system.

It is the deep state represented by powerful interests such as the Zionist lobbies, the Christian Right, the bigwigs on Wall Street, the oil barons, the arms merchants and the media Moghuls which is in effective control.

To appreciate the distinction between the two, one has to reflect on Obama’s Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, which stated explicitly that “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” but in reality the formal leader has had to yield to the Zionists and the Christian Right who are enthusiastic promoters of Zionist expansion at the expense of the Palestinians.

Anwar’s entry into the deep state was through his close friendship with Paul Wolfowitz, the former US Deputy Secretary of Defence and one of the staunchest champions of Zionist power.

It was mainly because of Wolfowitz that Anwar became the first chairman of the Foundation for the Future in 2005, an organisation established ostensibly to promote democracy in West Asia and North Africa (WANA), but whose real purpose is to perpetuate US-Israeli hegemony over the region.

Even before this, in 1998, in the midst of the Asian financial crisis, Anwar was espousing an IMF-type solution to the nation’s economic woes, thus revealing his political orientation.

This is why during his first two trials for abuse of power and sodomy between 1998 and 2004 and during his recent trial for sodomy, the mainstream Western media went out of its way to demand that the Malaysian authorities acquit Anwar.

Wolfowitz and former US Vice-President, Al Gore even penned a joint opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on Aug 4, 2010, urging the US government to persuade the Malaysian Government to “ act with wisdom” in Anwar’s trial.

A day before he was acquitted, on Jan 8, 2012, The Washington Post in an editorial warned that “If the verdict fails that test (Malaysia’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law), there should be consequences for Mr Najib’s relations with Washington.”

This was an undisguised, unabashed attempt by one of the media pillars of the deep state to pressurise a sovereign nation to submit to its will.

Two, if Anwar is the darling of the deep state in the US, it is partly because of his stand on Israel. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Jan 26, 2012, he reiterated his support for “all efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel”.

It should be emphasised here that support for Israeli security – contrary to what he is saying now – was not contingent on “Israel respecting the aspirations of the Palestinians”.

In the interview, Israel’s security stands by itself. It is diplomatic recognition of Israel that Anwar links to Palestinian aspirations.

Placing Israel’s security on a pedestal is the sort of gesture that the deep state and Zionists the world over laud, especially if the advocate is a Muslim leader. For Israel’s security has become the justification for all its policies of occupation, annexation and aggression in the last 63 years.

Israel’s security is the albatross around the neck of the dispossessed Palestinians and other Arabs who have lost their land and dignity to the occupying power.

It is obvious that by acknowledging the primacy of Israeli security, Anwar was sending a clear message to the deep state and to Tel Aviv and Washington – that he is someone that they could trust.
In contrast, the Najib government, in spite of its attempts to get closer to Washington, remains critical of Israeli aggression and intransigence.

Najib has described the Israeli government as a “serial killer” and a “gangster”. This has incensed the deep state.

Anwar, on the other hand, told Zionist friends in Washington two years ago that he regretted using terms such as “Zionist aggression” (Jackson Diehl “Flirting with zealotry in Malaysia” The Washington Post, June 28, 2010).

Three, Anwar is the choice of the deep state for another reason which in its own reckoning is becoming almost as important as Israel. This is the rise of China and what it means for US global hegemony.

Elements within the deep state appear to have convinced Obama that China is a threat to its neighbours and to the US’s dominant role in the Asia-Pacific.

Establishing a military base in Darwin, resurrecting the US’ military alliance with the Philippines, coaxing Japan to play a more overt military role in the region, instigating Vietnam to confront China over the Spratly islands, and encouraging India to counterbalance Chinese power, are all part and parcel of the larger US agenda of encircling and containing China.

In pursuing this agenda, the US wants reliable allies – not just friends – in Asia.

In this regard, Malaysia is important because of its position as a littoral state with sovereign rights over the Straits of Malacca, which is one of China’s most critical supply routes that transports much of the oil and other materials vital for its economic development.

Will the containment of China lead to a situation where the hegemon determined to perpetuate its dominant power seek to exercise control over the Straits in order to curb China’s ascendancy?

Would a trusted ally in Kuala Lumpur facilitate such control?

The current Malaysian leadership does not fit the bill. It has sustained and deepened the bond of friendship between Malaysia and China through increased bilateral trade and investments.

China is Malaysia’s biggest trading partner globally and Malaysia is China’s biggest trading partner within Asean.

China is most appreciative of the fact that Malaysia under the late Tun Razak was the first non-communist country in South-East Asia to establish diplomatic relations with China in 1974.

When his son Najib became Prime Minister in April 2009, China was the first country outside Asean that he visited.

In a number of regional and international forums, Malaysia has maintained that China is not a threat to its neighbours and does not seek global dominance.

These are views that do not accord with the deep state’s bellicose stance towards China. It explains why the deep state may be inclined towards regime change in Kuala Lumpur.

> Dr Chandra Muzaffar is president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Related post:
Washington seeks to extend hegemony to trade

Anwar acquittal surprises both sides, spices up Malaysian politics!

Tweet

Anwar verdict surprises both sides

Analysis By Joceline Tan

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s court acquittal stunned both sides of the political divide and it has got the political players scrambling to reassess the impact of the verdict. 

Malaysian Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is mobbed by supporters and the media after his surprise acquittal yesterday on sodomy charges. >

DATUK Seri Anwar Ibrahim arrived at the Jalan Duta High Court yesterday morning convinced he was going to be found guilty of committing sodomy.

Two hours later, he left the court cleared of the charge of sodomising his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

The judgment left both sides of the political divide stunned – the two opposing sides had been equally convinced that Anwar would be pronounced guilty.

The Pakatan Rakyat side could hardly believe their ears after years of slamming the sodomy charge as a political trial and the proceedings as a kangaroo court.

You could see from the tweets flying out after the court verdict that they were stumped.

Even the man in the dock admitted he was surprised. None of them had seen it coming.

The Pakatan leaders were probably more shocked than their Barisan Nasional counterparts.

They expressed relief, proclaimed victory and congratulated themselves but stopped short of crediting the judiciary.

The Barisan supporters, on the other hand, had never doubted Saiful’s accusations against Anwar and the decision is unlikely to convince them otherwise.

Their reaction fluctuated between disbelief and anger as they tried to absorb the implications of the outcome.

“The outcome was not what we expected but we accept it. We believe in the rule of law, we will uphold the law and respect the decision,” said Sepang MP and Selangor Umno secretary Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed.

Love or hate him, it was Anwar’s moment in the sun. He was lionised by the media when he emerged from the air-conditioned courthouse into the humid mid-morning heat.

The speech he had prepared in his head about condemning the judiciary, the Govern­ment and the Prime Minister was no longer valid and he had to make an impromptu speech through a loud hailer held aloft by PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution.

The court verdict was the top news in many international news networks and newspapers, which saw it as a positive move that was in line with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s reform image.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it best when he said that Anwar would remain an issue whether inside or outside of jail. The ruling coalition would have been blamed had Anwar been found guilty.

But now that he has been acquitted, Barisan will have to rethink its plans and strategies in taking on Pakatan.

What was immediately clear, said UCSI academic and political analyst Dr Ong Kian Ming, was that Anwar would no longer be bogged down and Pakatan would not be distracted by the question of who will be the Opposition Leader.

“On the other hand, the sympathy factor is gone for Pakatan. If he had been convicted, Barisan would be under pressure because he would have gone on a nationwide tour to campaign and paint his opponents as cruel and unfair.

“Pakatan has lost some steam in that respect. On a more personal level, it is good for him and his family regardless of the allegations about his sexual orientation,” Dr Ong said.

It is unclear at this point whether the prosecution will appeal against the decision.

Those critical of the outcome will certainly want to see that but some of Umno’s younger leaders are fed-up with the way national politics has been distracted by Anwar and his private life.

“I don’t think the prosecution should appeal for the simple reason that we need closure. This thing has been going on for far too long,” said Kota Belud MP Datuk Rahman Dahlan.

Rahman said it was time for Malaysians to “press the reset button” for the country.

“I know the other side is claiming that the verdict vindicates Anwar. Actually, it has also vindicated the judiciary, the police and the Prime Minister and his government.

“The middle ground will see that. This is the opportunity to press the reset button and shift our focus to nation building,” he said.

The actual impact of the verdict will become clearer in the weeks and months ahead.

“The silver lining here is that we can now put aside the dramatics.

“The two coalitions can now move on to fight on policy and delivery and this is where the Barisan has the upper hand,” said social historian Dr Neil Khor.

Anwar arrived at his Segambut house – where more supporters were waiting for him – at around noon.
The PKR leader’s shirt was crumpled and drenched with sweat.

His usual bouffant hair looked flat, the grey roots were showing and the bald spot on the back of his head was more evident than usual.

The lines on his face ran deep and he appeared tired despite the morning’s euphoria.

It looks like Anwar is getting his second wind in the politics of post-2008.

It will be tough because he will be fighting a leaner and more realistic opponent.

The next general election will not be fought based on a court case over one man but over economic policies, political and civil reforms and the strength of Najib ’s initiatives.

The last four years have seen Anwar’s reputation and credibility severely tested.

Doubts have been planted in the minds of ordinary people about his private life.

There are some who think that what happens behind closed doors is none of our business.

But there are also those who think it has everything to do with political leadership.

That will be one of his many challenges ahead.

Anwar spent the afternoon huddled with his top party officials in discussion.

By nightfall, his limousine was speeding towards KLIA from where he jetted off on another of his overseas trips, this time to India.

Anwar acquittal spices up M’sian politics

Ceritalah By Karim Raslan

What we are beginning to see is the slow reassertion of Malaysia’s public institutions, in tandem with a realisation that some form of political liberalisation is unavoidable.

MOST Malaysians have been dreading the Jan 9 Anwar Ibrahim ‘Sodomy 2’ trial decision.

The prospect of the Opposition Leader being returned to prison was deeply depressing, if not offensive, even to those such as myself who remain sceptical of the man.

Still, his surprise acquittal has major implications for the country.

Let’s start with the most important point. Over the past decade, faith in national institutions has been on a downward tailspin. As a consequence, the judiciary and the police have become increasingly distrusted.

The many instances of corruption, abuse of power as well as perceived selective persecution have eroded Malaysians’ faith in their country and in each other.

The attendant cynicism and suspicion have made moving the nation forward, be it socially or economically, all the more difficult.

Indeed, why would anyone want to sacrifice for a place where justice and fair play are fatally wounded?

What we are beginning to see, however, is the slow, piecemeal reassertion and revival of Malaysia’s public institutions, in tandem with a realisation that some form of political liberalisation is unavoidable.

This stems not only from the acquittal of Anwar but also the continued fearlessness of the Auditor-General’s Reports and the tentative reforms that the Government has embarked upon in terms of civil liberties (like the controversial Peaceful Assembly Bill) and elections.

It would seem that the people manning these institutions have crossed a Rubicon of sorts.

They have come to realise that they have a larger duty to the people and that this surpasses any political pressure that may be brought upon them.

Such sentiments are crucial if the country is to progress and survive in the future.

The courage, fair-mindedness and independence of men such as Auditor-General Ambrin Buang and Suhakam chairman Hasmy Agam ought to be lauded by all.

Of course, there will always be questions over the handling of any legal case and these will continue for the foreseeable future. But we cannot dismiss the psychological impact of the trial: it is incontrovertible proof that Malaysia’s judiciary is more independent than commonly thought and that both the ordinary and powerful can truly seek justice at our courts.

At the same time, Umno strategists must begin to acknowledge the extent to which their dominant position is actually undermining their capacity on the ground.

Ordinary Malaysians have become tired of being lectured to. They want people who’ll really work for them.

But what will Anwar’s acquittal do to Malaysia’s current political equation?

I think the most obvious answer is that Anwar and Pakatan are now a fact of life that Barisan Nasional (BN) will have to deal with.

Anwar has made his political career operating outside the establishment. He has the wiliness to function and succeed without the benefits of government privilege.

The various personal attacks on him have only made him stronger and increased public disdain for his critics and their “dirty tricks”.

BN, and indeed its Umno lynchpin, must now learn to engage Anwar and Pakatan on equal terms.

To my mind, the ruling coalition does have a strong record of achievement in Government as well as a breathtaking flexibility in terms of policy-making and implementation.

The challenge is to rise to the debate and not “close” it off. Malaysians want greater openness and fairness in public discourse

We need to dispense with the prurience and small-mindedness that have been a hallmark of the last few years.

Race and religion also need to be dealt with in a manner that is more mature and confident. We need to turn our so-called “weaknesses” (namely our diverse multi-cultural society) into strengths.

For that to succeed we need to open the doors of our public life in a determined manner.

There should be no further distractions and the rakyat will want to know what Pakatan can do for the country if the opposition still wants their votes.

Anwar, for all his flaws, has proven that he has the patience and perseverance to go the distance politically — the task for him now is to finally convert the rhetoric into substance.

His continued freedom will make Malaysian politics all the more interesting. Still, this goes far beyond politics.
Justice has been served and broadened. The people are the ultimate winners.

Related posts:
Malaysia's Anwar acquitted could shake ruling Umno party's grip on power?
Malaysia's Anwar's Sodomy Verdict D-Day 901; So near, yet so far?

Malaysia's Anwar acquitted could shake ruling Umno party's grip on power?

Tweet

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy charge dismissed by Malaysian judge

Second acquittal of opposition leader on sex charges is a shock ahead of poll that could shake ruling Umno party's grip on power

Kate Hodal in Bangkokguardian.co.uk

Anwar Ibrahim, flanked by his wife, Wan Azizah Ismail, makes a speech to supporters after his acquittal on sodomy charges. Photograph: Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters



A Malaysian court has acquitted the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy charges in a shock ruling that could fast-forward the former deputy prime minister's political comeback ahead of an expected election this year.

Anwar, 64, was charged in 2008 with having sex with a male former aide. He faced whipping and up to 20 years in jail if found guilty.

The case grabbed headlines with its lurid details in this mainly Muslim country of 28 million, where sex between males is a punishable offence, even if consensual.



In his ruling on Monday morning the judge, Zabidin Mohamad Diah, expressed doubts over the validity of the DNA samples provided as evidence and told the packed Kuala Lumpur courtroom: "Because it was a sexual offence the court is reluctant to convict on uncorroborated evidence. Therefore the accused is acquitted and discharged."

Anwar and his supporters long contested the allegations as a government plot to weaken his three-party coalition, which made unprecedented gains in the 2008 elections. Anwar is considered the glue binding together the allianceof Islamists and an ethnic Chinese party.

"Thank God justice has prevailed," Anwar told reporters after the verdict. "I have been vindicated. To be honest I am a little surprised."\

Some 5,000 supporters awaited the ruling outside the capital courtroom, chanting "reformasi" (reform) and waving "People are the judge" placards as police in riot gear watched and a helicopter flew overhead.

The court decision follows a week-long nationwide tour during which Anwar rallied for support while confirming that his alliance would continue with or without him. "Anwar in jail, Anwar out of jail… it doesn't matter. The more important [thing] is people should overthrow Umno," he told followers, referring to the United Malays National Organisation, which has ruled Malaysia for 50 years.

"I'm not guilty. I'm a victim of slander … there is no case if they follow the facts or the law," he said.
It is the second time in 14 years that Anwar has faced the courts. The former deputy prime minister and finance minister was jailed in 1998 for six years on sodomy and corruption charges after disagreements with the then premier, Mahathir Mohamad, in what was widely seen as a politically motivated prosecution. The sodomy charge was overturned in 2004.

The current government led by Najib Razak as prime minister said the ruling proved Malaysia's legal system was free and impartial, despite claims to the contrary by opposition activists.

"Malaysia has an independent judiciary and this verdict proves that the government does not hold sway over judges' decisions," the government said in a statement released after the verdict.
Online news: Asia

Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted Monday in a surprise end to a politically-charged sodomy trial he has called a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming polls.

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, seen here before entering the court building in Kuala Lumpur on January 9. Anwar was acquitted on Monday in a surprise end to a politically-charged sodomy trial he has called a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming polls.

The ruling by Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah set off pandemonium in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, with Anwar mobbed by his wife, daughters and opposition politicians in joyous scenes.

Thousands of Anwar supporters who gathered outside under heavy security erupted into cheers and raised their fists in the air as news of the verdict filtered out.

In his brief verdict announcement, Zabidin said he could not rely on controversial DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution.

"The court is always reluctant to convict on sexual offences without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the accused is acquitted and discharged," he said.

The verdict in the more than two-year trial defied the expectations of many political observers and even Anwar himself, who said the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak was intent on eliminating him as a political threat.

It was the second sodomy verdict in a dozen years for Anwar, a former deputy premier in the 1990s who was next in line to head the country's long-ruling government until a spectacular downfall.

The charismatic Anwar had been groomed to succeed former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad until a bitter row between them saw Anwar ousted in 1998, beaten and jailed on sodomy and graft charges widely seen as politically motivated.

Once the sodomy charge was overturned in 2004 and he was released, the affair threw Anwar into the opposition, which he led to unprecedented gains against his former ruling party in 2008 general elections.

But the new sodomy charges emerged shortly after those polls -- Anwar was accused of sodomising a former male aide -- sparking accusations they were concocted by the ruling United Malays National Organisation to stall the opposition revival.

Sodomy is illegal in Muslim-majority Malaysia and punishable by 20 years in jail.

901 Malaysian Anwar’s life D-day? Rally allowed – only at car park!

Tweet

Another twist in Anwar’s life

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

The Sodomy II verdict is around the corner and the PKR leader is pushing for a show of support with his party’s call for a mass rally on Monday.

YET another confrontation is brewing between PKR and its leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the authorities as his long-drawn Sodomy II trial climaxes with a verdict by Justice Mohamad Abidin Diah on Monday.

Anwar, who is charged with committing sodomy against his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 26, 2008, is mobilising 100,000 people outside the courthouse on the day in an effort to presumably influence the verdict.

In the spotlight: Anwar and his wife Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail leaving the Kuala Lumpur courthouse in this file picture.>>

 

That number of people in a small court compound is also a sign of desperation on Anwar’s part, irrespective of whether that actual number of people turn up or not.

It is also an attempt to shake the political establishment, grip the nation’s attention, revive the flagging fortunes of his PKR and try to avert the inevitable.

Anwar has had a long and unrelenting political career that saw him rise to become the second most powerful man as Deputy Prime Minister but then fall from grace ending up as a prisoner only to rise again on his release in 2004, as leader of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

He came within touch of the country’s highest post, his lifelong dream, winning 82 seats in parliament in the 2008 general election.

The problem is that the political establishment saw Anwar as an outsider who first used the Islamic reform movement Abim to pressure for change and then when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad opened the doors, Anwar abandoned friends and principles and entered Umno.



He made short shrift of his opponents as he climbed up the Umno ladder and was helped along by Mahathir until 1999 when he was to have challenged his own benefactor for the Umno presidency and take the Prime Minister’s post that goes with it.

But he fell foul of powerful political interest groups and was expelled and jailed on corruption and sodomy charges in 1998.

He served his corruption sentence and was acquitted of sodomy and released in 2004 only to put together a loose knit grouping of three parties, including his own PKR, PAS and DAP, to win handsomely against then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in the 2008 general election.

He managed to combine his grievances, especially the black eye incident, with the grouses of the people and romp home against an ineffective prime minister, winning big but not big enough with just 49% of the popular votes.

After that an eager and impatient Anwar, instead of accepting the people’s verdict and playing his role as Opposition Leader, styled himself as the Prime Minister-in-waiting and launched his Sept 16 gambit that failed miserably when Barisan MPs refused to defect.

His credibility plunged with nearly everyone – the international media, his own supporters and the Malaysian public at large.

In the meantime, Umno saw fit to change horses, urgently retiring Abdullah and putting Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the captain’s seat. Anwar fought very hard to prevent Najib taking over but he failed.

Najib began his political and economic transformation of the nation and three years on is poised to call a general election on the strength of the changes he has introduced principally the repeal of the ISA and other outdated laws, a Peaceful Assembly Bill that allows demonstrations and repeal of Sec 29 of the Police Act that requires police permits.

He is also reforming the election laws and procedures, and has been criss-crossing the country meeting all kinds of people and offering aid and promising that the government is for all the people, not just a few.

Najib is now preparing to introduce a Race Relation law in the March sitting of Parliament that would further undercut the opposition chances at the polls by promising a fair and egalitarian society without discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity.

Anwar on the other hand has been, as his one-time ally Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) claims, a frequent traveller overseas giving speeches at numerous conferences while his sodomy trial here dragged on with numerous postponements.

Surprisingly, at the trial, Anwar preferred not to testify under oath but gave a speech from the dock decrying government oppression and persecution likening himself to Nelson Mandela.

He also gave up his chance to rebut Saiful thoroughly.

Further sensitive parts of Saiful’s testimony were held in camera, at Anwar’s request. Anwar also promised to call a long list of alibi witnesses but did not do so, weakening his case.

As many, including RPK, have said, Anwar received a fair trial this time compared with 1999.

Whatever the verdict, for Anwar it is just another day and event in a tumultuous career that could have easily floored a lesser man but not this incorrigible optimist.

Rally allowed – only at car park

By RASHITHA A. HAMID rashitha@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Police have allowed the much talked-about Free Anwar 901 gathering to go on as long as it is held at the car park of the Jalan Duta Court Complex here.

The court complex has parking bays for 1,000 vehicles.

City police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohmad Salleh said the decision was made after a discussion with PKR deputy president Azmin Ali yesterday.

“After the discussion, they (the organisers) promised to have a peaceful gathering at the car park,” he said during a press conference.

Approved site: The car park outside the Duta Court Complex where the rally is allowed take place.

 

The meeting between DCP Mohmad and Azmin lasted for one and half hours at the city police headquarters.

Meanwhile, Sentul OCPD Asst Comm Zakaria Pagan said they had imposed 10 conditions on the organisers and supporters.

They have banned the use of “Free Anwar 901” tagline and the organisers were allowed to use only two loud hailers for crowd control purposes.

“The use of Free Anwar 901 tagline and amplifiers is strictly forbidden,” he said.

Stressing that no speeches were allowed, Zakaria said the organisers must ensure that participants did not cause any nuisance.

He said they were only allowed to assemble at the public car park on the left side of the main road.

“Participants should not step outside the boundary,” he said, adding that “excess” crowds would not be allowed.

He also said the participants must not carry any form of weapons, cooperate during spot checks and that the crowd should disperse within an hour after the verdict was delivered.

The rally is planned to coincide with the court decision in the high-profile sodomy case of Opposition Leader and PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar, 64, is charged with sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a condominium in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

On Thursday, Inspector-Gene-ral of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said the organisers had been asked to meet the city police chief to discuss whether the gathering should be held at another location instead of in front of the court complex.

Anwar told a ceramah last night that the court's decision was secondary and the most important thing was for Pakatan Rakyat to win the general election.

In PUTRAJAYA, the Alliance of Non-governmental Organisations Malaysia and several individuals have lodged police reports against the rally.

Its secretary Mohd Jurit Ramli urged the authorities to take action against the organisers on grounds that the gathering would be an insult to the country's judiciary.

The group, comprising some 50 NGO leaders, lodged 45 reports against the gathering.

Related posts:

Malaysia's Anwar's Sodomy Verdict D-Day 901; So near, yet so far?

Politician, hero or zero? RPK hits back at critics!

 Malaysia's Anwar walking a tightrope! He should resign ...

Politician, hero or zero? RPK hits back at critics!

Tweet

Anwar no more Raja Petra’s hero

Analysis By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Raja Petra Kamaruddin, in an interview with the media, gives his take on Pakatan Rakyat and its leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, a man he once admired and supported wholeheartedly.

BLOGGER-in-exile Raja Petra Kamaruddin has emerged to give an interview to several media representatives, during which he spoke on a wide range of topics covering the future of Pakatan Rakyat, its leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the prospects of the coalition in the next general election.

The interview appeared yesterday in The New Sunday Times, Berita Minggu, Mingguan Malaysia and online news website Malaysia Today.



His emergence at this crucial juncture is a boon to Barisan Nasional as it prepares for the hustings.

In a nutshell, what he spoke about can be summarised in his own words: “I can support the Opposition, without supporting Anwar.

“It is not a sin or crime if I don't support Anwar,” says the political pundit who is more popularly referred to as RPK.

That statement summed up his current position vis-a-vis politics and the big battle for power ahead.

He has lost confidence in Anwar as Pakatan leader.

He believes Pakatan cannot capture Putrajaya and he says the Opposition must look beyond to a time when it can exist and keep going without Anwar.

The key to politics today is to create a two-party system, to lay the foundation for it and not to capture power now.

On a personal note, he believes the Sodomy II trial was fair compared with the first sodomy trial in the late 90s and that Anwar is a victim of a honey trap in the latest tribulations.

Raja Petra is certainly no ordinary blogger.

He was the first man in the country to combine digital technology with a flair for writing and place it at the disposal of the man he admired and supported wholeheartedly Anwar.

He kept the Anwarites' flame alive through the dark years of Anwar's sacking by then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the reformasi struggle and Anwar's imprisonment, with his Free Anwar website.



After Anwar's 2004 release, Raja Petra set up the Malaysia Today website which, with his talent for story-telling, turned into the foremost political news blog.

He “escaped” from the country and ended up as an exile in Britain following several warrants for his arrest.

In addition, several people have also obtained bankruptcy petitions against him.

In Britain, he set up the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) with lawyer Haris Ibrahim and they proffered several independent candidates, i.e. lawyer Malik Imtiaz but their scheme did not take off because of criticisms from Pakatan leaders and supporters.

The Opposition saw the third force, as MCLM wanted to be, as a trojan horse of Barisan.

His Malaysia Today website is not as widely read as it was before but Raja Petra, as an activist and commentator on political development, remains influential as this wide-ranging interview suggests.

His take on Anwar remains his most important contribution to contemporary politics, as he was such an ardent supporter previously.

He says if Pakatan does not capture Putrajaya, and he gives reasons why it can't do it, Anwar would slide into irrelevance and eventually into oblivion.

The struggle has always been to bring change and not to free Anwar as in Nelson Mandela's case, to fight and bring down apartheid and not to seek his release.

While Raja Petra is by no means a supporter of Barisan, he reserves his harshest criticism to Anwar's failure to lead Pakatan.

He faults Anwar's leadership shortcomings.

He says Anwar is a great speaker at ceramah but he is not an administrator and points to the many times Anwar has gone overseas since he was appointed economic adviser to the Selangor government three years ago.

“Shouldn't you be staying home, running the state? Running the party? Running the coalition?” he said.

He also urges Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to take the “bull by the horns” in introducing reforms and not just scratch the surface or indulge in cosmetic changes.

“Najib must be prepared not only to take a knife but a chainsaw and cut whatever he needs to cut.”

Being who he is, supporters of Pakatan would be unhappy with Raja Petra's criticisms of the coalition.

The three parties of the coalition seem to be fighting each other for the spoils of victory in the next general election, he says.

It is a coup for the Government to get no less than Raja Petra himself to line up against Pakatan and its leader Anwar.

His influence on Pakatan supporters was seen in the 2008 general election.

He was out campaigning, asking voters to vote for change.

This time, he is asking voters to not to vote blindly for any “donkey or monkey” but to pick candidates, from either side who would truly serve the rakyat.

In justifying his criticism of Pakatan, he says he is not supporting Barisan and he is not saying Barisan is the best government.

RPK hits back at critics

PETALING JAYA: Controversial blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin has hit back at critics who accused him of selling out to Barisan Nasional.

In his latest post on his website, he said he had expected the barrage of criticisms after he slammed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in an interview to selected mainstream media and an online portal.

Raja Petra spoke on a variety of issues including Anwar's possible irrelevance, his sodomy trial and the Selangor government.

Raja Petra dismissed criticisms by commentators in various online portals, saying that what they said did not matter to him.

“The more important issue is: Which category are you in? Are you amongst the less than four million Malaysians who voted the Opposition in the last general election? Or are you amongst the more than 11 million eligible voters who did not vote Opposition, did not vote at all, or did not even register to vote?

“Yes, I value your comments, but only if you fall in the first category. If not, then your comments are of no significance,” he added.

Raja Petra stunned many when he questioned whether Anwar was the best candidate to lead the country, saying he “wasn't impressed” with the latter's performance in Selangor.

Meanwhile, PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution accused Raja Petra of being a “hired Umno blogger” and part of a larger plot to smear Anwar's name ahead of the latter's sodomy trial verdict on Jan 9.

He told an online news portal that Umno and Barisan were determined to see Anwar jailed, adding that the attacks against Anwar were meant to deflect attention from the Government's alleged financial scandals.

Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim's political secretary Faekah Husin said the state was willing to pay Raja Petra's transportation costs from overseas to return to Malaysia and shed light on his bribery claims.

She claimed many were of the view that Raja Petra was desperate to return home, hence the attacks on Anwar.

PKR vice-president N. Surendran said Raja Petra's comments were “unfair, untrue, unsupported by any believable evidence and plainly libellous”.

How Malaysia's politics stay true while reinventing?

Tweet

Much ado about everything

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

MALAYSIA has braved slogans as milestones with chequered results.

Spanning two decades were the Mahathir-era “Vision 2020” and its “Bangsa Malaysia” component, and the Najib administration’s “1Malaysia” and “high-income nation”. As national goals, they have been positive, inclusive and aspirational.

In 1997 then deputy premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim proposed masyarakat madani, translated as but supposedly transcending “civil society”. Much of its potential was however obscured by interpretation issues even in the original Bahasa Malaysia.

Malaysians are generally wary of attempts to tinker with the existing secular (non-theocratic) system. So in the 1999 general election, much of the DAP’s support evaporated over its links with PAS in the Barisan Alternatif opposition pact.

In 2001, then prime minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysia was an “Islamic state”. This infamous statement panicked some political circles, notably the DAP.

Typical of Dr Mahathir’s rhetorical flourishes, it was meant to counter and challenge, and needed to be read in context. It had come after a wearying tussle between PAS, which had sought to install an Islamic state and amend the Federal Constitution, and its adversaries.



Dr Mahathir later said since (as he had defined it) Malaysia was already an Islamic state, there was no need to amend the Constitution. He had sought to end the debate and preserve the secular status quo rather than to change it.

That was fine as long as Dr Mahathir still headed the Federal Government and dominated the terms of the national debate. Nine months later he went further and declared Malaysia a “fundamentalist Islamic state”, according to his (textually correct) definition of fundamentalism.

But after he retired in 2003, the terms of the debate changed and his past statements encouraged PAS in further Islamisation instead. His successor Datuk Seri (now Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi could not direct or dominate the discourse that followed.

Aware of popular opposition to its theocratic aims, PAS this year unveiled the idea of a “welfare state”, a vague concept that did not impress many. Kelantan Mentri Besar and PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat then announced plans to implement hudud in his state.

Some legal quarters insisted that no state may implement hudud (punishments for “serious crimes”) without amending the Federal Constitution, but that view has been challenged. PAS then said hudud would not apply to non-Muslims, but that has also been questioned.

Hudud is part of syariah law along with qiya (punitive recompense), diyya (compensatory settlement) and tazir (corporal punishment). Hudud covers apostasy, alcohol consumption, theft (or robbery) and illicit sex, with punishments that include amputation and execution.

These offences can involve other people, including those serving or selling the alcohol or those accused of trying to convert Muslims. Thus saying that hudud would apply only to Muslims is unconvincing.

Further, hudud is considered divinely inspired so its punishments are not open to reform, substitution or reduction. PAS has also told non-Muslims that since hudud would not involve them, they have no right to object.

But in July 2002 after the PAS Terengganu government passed the Hudud and Qisas Bill, Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Hadi Awang said hudud would be “extended to all non-Muslims” when they were ready for it. Presumably the party would decide when non-Muslims are “ready”.

Parti Keadilan Nasional at the time had joined protests against the Bill’s impending passage. But this year, PKR adviser Anwar supported Kelantan’s plan to implement hudud.

Beyond DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s personal objections, the party does not oppose Kelantan’s plans for hudud. DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said hudud was not mentioned in Pakatan Rakyat’s Common Policy Framework (Buku Jingga), placing any opposition to it only at Federal level.

But once Kelantan introduces hudud, Kedah as another Pakatan state may follow. Then, acquiescing at state level may be taken as tacit approval for compliance at Federal level.

These and related issues would be explored at today’s Insap (Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research) forum at Wisma MCA in Kuala Lumpur from 9.30am to 2.30pm. Admission is free.

Bush and Blair found guilty of 'crimes against peace' !

Image via WikipediaTweet

Bush and Blair found guilty

By EUNICE AU KUALA LUMPUR euniceau@nst.com.my

Committed international crime by invading Iraq

Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (centre) presiding over the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair yesterday. Pic by Sharul Hafiz Zam

  THE Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCC) returned a guilty verdict against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair on a charge of crimes against peace on its final day of hearing yesterday.

  Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, in announcing the verdict, said both the accused had acted with deceit, selectively manipulated international law and committed an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime by invading Iraq in 2003.



  The tribunal found that both the accused had contemplated to invade Iraq as far back as September 2001 and had defied the United Nations Resolution 1441, which clearly did not authorise the use of military action to compel Iraq's compliance.

  Kadir added that the two accused had admitted since the Iraq war that they knew or believed the intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to be unreliable and yet both proceeded to wage war against Iraq based on this false and contrite basis.

  Memoirs of both the accused that had been tendered as evidence during the proceedings were also found to implicate both Bush and Blair, both having admitted their own intention to invade Iraq, regardless of international law.

  It was suggested by the tribunal that the KLWCC file a report with the International Court of Crime against both the accused under the Nuremberg principles and include reports of genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Bush and Blair.

  The tribunal also recommended that the names of both accused be entered into the Register of War Criminals and publicised.

  The KLWCC was tasked to publicise the tribunal's findings to all nations who were signatories of the Rome Statue, so that the two criminals can be prosecuted if they enter the jurisdiction of these nations.

  The KLWCC should also suggest to the UN General Assembly to pass resolution to end Iraq's occupation and request that the UN Security Council pass a resolution to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqis.

  Earlier, chief defence Jason Kay Kit Leon had argued that Bush had exhausted all means of diplomacy before launching an attack after receiving intelligence briefings on Iraq for two years, suggesting that then president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Iraq posed an imminent threat.

  He quoted Bush as having said that  he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernable after the war.

  Kay also mention that  Blair, in his memoir, had said he understood the need for the second UN resolution but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members.

  The prosecution had made out a compelling case over the four days.

  Chief prosecutor Professor Gurdial S. Nijar, in his summation, reiterated key documents of several intelligence reports that indicated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Neither was there an attempt by Saddam Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger by former United States diplomat Joseph Wilson and weapons inspector David Kay found that Saddam's nuclear facility had deteriorated to such a point that it was totally useless, all discovered well before the UN Resolution 1441.

  The tribunal reached a unanimous guilty verdict after four hours of deliberation.

KL tribunal convicts two former leaders with ‘crimes against peace’

PETALING JAYA: The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal unanimously found former United States president George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of “crimes against peace”.

The tribunal found that the two had planned, prepared and invaded the state of Iraq on March 19, 2003, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

“The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are found guilty,” read an official media statement from Perdana Global Peace Foundation, organisers of the tribunal.

“War criminals have to be dealt with, convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice,” the statement read.

The tribunal noted that the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise any use of force against Iraq but the US proceeded to invade Iraq under the pretext of the Sept 11 attacks and weapons of mass destruction.

“Weapons investigators had established that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was also not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.”

With the findings, the tribunal has ordered that Bush and Blair’s names be included in the war register of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

It also ordered the findings of the tribunal to be publicised to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statute.

The tribunal, held for four days here, was initiated by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is also the Perdana Global Peace Foundation president.

The tribunal members were Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Prof Salleh Buang, Alfred Lambremont Webre and Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi.

Prof Niloufer Bhagwat and Datuk Zakaria Yatim were recused as tribunal members.

Related post:

War Crimes Tribunal Tries Bush, Blair for War Crimes against humanity! 

The right to disagree

Tweet

Ceritalah by KARIM RASLAN

Societies need to be constantly reminded of the need to take stock of where they are headed and whether theirs is indeed the right path – thus the need for alternative views.

MARINA Mahathir and I are old friends.Image by MkML// via Flickr

Nonetheless, there have been times when I’ve totally disagreed with her, like all friends do.

However, even when we’ve held opposing views, I’ve always respected her straight-forwardness, courage and willingness to take a stand on matters of principle.

Whatever you think of her father (and I’m definitely not a fan) or indeed her own views on social and cultural matters, she remains unwavering in a country where the “lalang bending in the wind” is the best symbol to describe our political elite.

Marina’s confidence and determination are all the more important right now.

Why? Well, Malaysian Muslims are entering into what I’d term a series of “Cultural Wars” over matters once thought too “sensitive” for open discussion, including race, religion and even sexuality.



Conservatives insist that all Malays and Muslims ought to subscribe to a single set of views on these issues.

This goes against contemporary realities.

Social media and widespread prosperity have made all Malaysians more self-aware.

There are now many competing Malay identities floating through our nation and Marina is the voice and public face of the most plural of these amorphous groups.

They play an important role via their advocacy for Malaysians who are too poor, disadvantaged and marginalised to defend themselves.

Indeed, unlike so many children of our elite, Marina has chosen to dedicate her life to public service.
Her work with the Malaysian AIDS Council and advocacy for women’s rights both in and outside the Muslim world speak for themselves.

What differentiates her from many Malay public figures is the fact that Marina has never shied away from the causes she believes in, even those that may be neither popular nor profitable in the country.

Her stubborn steadfastness represents the best tradition of public service and advocacy – a Malay who realises that “ketuanan Melayu” also carries responsibilities that transcends ethnicity or faith.

She deserves credit for taking on these challenges and remaining unflinching when under attack.

Indeed, she is truly her father’s daughter in this respect.

Still, she knows that the future will not be any easier for those on the “edges” of polite society (especially the GLBT – gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender – community) and her stance here is especially important.

Moreover, in an increasingly open Malaysia, anyone who wants a slice of public space has to fight for a hearing because there are many competing identities.

What’s disheartening is when people in power or shapers of public opinion choose to vilify or attempt to silence dissenting voices like Marina.

As I’ve said earlier, it’s impossible for any society to be completely united on anything, be it politics or religion.

Read history and you’ll understand that such societies have never lasted for very long.

Uniformity breeds mediocrity, stagnancy and failure.

Dissent is not disloyalty and anyone who says so is merely trying to shore up their power.

We need alternative views because societies need to be constantly reminded of the need to take stock of where they are headed and whether this is indeed the right path.

Democracy isn’t the tyranny of the majority but the protection of the rights and interests of all groups, no matter how distasteful they may seem to the other.

Indeed, all labels, whether “liberal”, “moderate”, “conservative”, “religious” and “secular” are legitimate and deserve protection as well as respect as long as they likewise respect the rights of others.

All our platitudes about moderation or national transformation will be pointless if we cannot extend this very basic courtesy to each other.

This is what voices like Marina are advocating, not the overthrow of our social norms or faith.

They’re also reminding us that the world is changing politically, socially and economically.

Malaysia will be left behind if we keep insisting on remaining in a time warp in any of these categories.

It’s very sad that this simple fact has escaped many people, but one must be hopeful that good sense will prevail in the end.

In 1997, Marina published a compilation of her writings, entitled In Liberal Doses.

Besides her lively and engaging prose, what I found striking was the foreword that her father, then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad wrote for it.

Let me end by offering a quote from this piece, for what it’s worth:

“One is tempted to ask from where she acquired this sense of independence, this urge not to conform, to be critical and not just to cheer on those in power … I do not always agree with her views and vice-versa.
“But it would be a dull world if we always agreed with each other.”

So, Marina, I may well disagree with you but I’ll certainly be there to defend you despite, and indeed because of, our disagreements.

The Third Force Politics in Malaysia; Ku Li on survival mode!

     Image via WikipediaTweet

Cometh the ‘third force’

ANALYSIS By JOCELINE TAN
joceline@thestar.com.my

The third force in Malaysian politics is getting more crowded as they vie to be the kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament but some, like Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, may be eyeing the Prime Minister’s post.

TENGKU Razaleigh Hamzah was all dressed up for what seemed like a normal press conference. For someone who once admitted that he is colour blind, he was a picture of immaculate grooming.
Actually, he could have been mistaken for a prosperous banker or, dare we say, a Prime Minister-in-waiting?

The Kelantan royal politician had called the press conference to announce that Angkatan Amanah Merdeka, the NGO headed by him, was now open for business as it has been officially registered.

Amanah has joined a crowded field of what has become known as the “third force” in Malaysian politics, except that Tengku Razaleigh has still got one foot in Umno.

The third force groups range from small political parties like Parti Cinta Malaysia and kita, headed by millionaire lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, to civil society groups like the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) headed by Haris Ibrahim. Even Perkasa is a third force group in its own right.

At one level, these groups are signalling there is a niche out there for those who have rejected the old politics of Barisan Nasional but have not completely bought into the so-called new politics of Pakatan Rakyat.

At another level, they are essentially politicians aspiring to be the “king-maker” in the event of a hung Parliament in the next general election.

“Each group comes to the table with a slightly different political message to sell,” said political analyst and UCSI academic Dr Ong Kian Ming.

MCLM, said Dr Ong, comprises pro-Pakatan activists and intellectuals who aim to address the issue of poor quality of candidates in Pakatan, especially from PKR.

KITA, on its part, has emerged as the only Malay-led party that has stood up for equal rights among all Malaysians and is not afraid to say it openly. It has even spoken up for religious conversions.

As Dr Ong noted, some of these groups are looking for a platform and voice, some comprise indivi­duals who are looking for political survival while a few are hoping to cash out at the right time.

“On their own, they cannot knock out the established parties but they can cause a stomachache or headache,” said publisher Datuk A. Kadir Jasin.

Some of the third force groups are having headaches of their own.

For instance, kita, which was launched with a big bang earlier this year is embroiled in an internal feud even before it can really take off.

MCLM caused a stir when it was launched from London with the support of blogger-in-exile Raja Petra Kamarudin.

It has since nominated the well-known human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and the less-known dentist Dr Nedunchelian Vengu to run in the general election.

The next general election is go­­ing to be fierce and there will be a wild scramble to be candidates.

Pakatan is going to have as big and as ugly a headache as the Barisan in ma­­n­­­­aging people fighting to be candidates.

Amanah, insisted its vice-president Wan Saiful Wan Jan, is strictly a civil society body.

“It is not like MCLM or kita nor is it about election candidates or where they should run. It’s about a group of people who want to make a difference,” he said.

Nevertheless, Tengku Razaleigh’s claim that he needs a new platform to speak because Umno restricts him does not really add up.

It is indeed a selective pro­cess to be ­picked to speak at the Umno general assembly but over and above th­at annual event, no one has been able to stop Tengku Razaleigh from speaking his mind and he has caused ripples with many of his comments.



He has a blog and journalists rush to his Langgak Golf “White House” each time he schedules a press conference.

In fact, he makes news because he is such a famous Umno face, he says things other Umno leaders would not say.

Speaking as the head of yet another NGO would not have the same impact. In the meantime, the perception that he is positioning himself for the Prime Minister post will persist.

Actually, he is more experienced and accomplished than the other aspiring candidates, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Hadi Awang put together.

According to a Pakatan Rakyat insider, he could have been the catalyst had he come on board Anwar’s Sept 16 scheme in 2008.

He and Anwar met several times in the days leading up to Sept 16 but nothing happened because they simply did not have the numbers and even if they did, they would have ended up fighting each other for the top post.

Tengku Razaleigh has missed the boat one time too many and he is now banking on his final boat.

Ku Li goes on survival mode

COMMENT By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Critics say Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is clutching at straws to remain relevant at a time when national politics has narrowed to a divisive tussle between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. There is no place for a third force like his newly-formed Angkatan Amanah Merdeka.

FORMER Umno vice-president Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has been vociferous in his criticism of the party and its policies, yet he says there is no room in it for dissent.

As president of the newly-formed Angkatan Amanah Merdeka, a non-governmental organisation that seeks to return to the comforting policies of first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, he hopes to remain relevant.

Ku Li – as he is popularly known – is trying for the political main chance at a time when his role in Umno and the country is fast dwindling.

Amanah is just another platform for him, in a career of many ups and downs for the political main chance that has missed him or, rather, the chances that he has missed.

An aristocrat, he wanted to be premier ever since he challenged Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the 1987 battle for the Umno presidency. He lost by a handful of votes, the nearest he would ever come.

His ally in that battle, former deputy president Tun Musa Hitam, made his peace and bred that power ambition out of him. But Ku Li is different. He keeps at it.

With Amanah, Ku Li is trying to keep his hopes for the top post alive.

Critics say he is clutching at straws to remain relevant at a time when national politics has narrowed to a divisive tussle between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

There is no place for a third force like Amanah, an NGO in a field of many NGOs bidding for a political role.

The Gua Musang MP has taken a critical view of Umno ever since the original party was dissolved in 1988 and he went on to form Parti Semangat 46 that contested against the Barisan in the 1990 general election.

His new party joined forces with PAS, the DAP and the Indian Progressive Front to form the Gagasan Rakyat grouping which failed in its bid to oust the ruling party.

After failing to unseat Dr Mahathir in 1990, Semangat 46 closed shop and by 1995 Ku Li had returned to Umno.

When Dr Mahathir sacked Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1998, Ku Li had an opportunity to join forces with the axed deputy prime minister and take over the reformasi movement. But he failed to rise to the occasion, preferring to watch from the sidelines.

Unfortunately for Ku Li, he again missed the main chance when the top job moved to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi after Dr Mahathir stepped down in 2003.

Ku Li tried to challenge Abdullah for the job but failed to get enough nominations because Umno coalesced around Abdullah and made short work of Ku Li’s attempt.

Throughout the six years of the Abdullah era, Ku Li stayed in Umno.

Anwar was released from prison in 2004 and began mobilising his supporters for the big polls battle in 2008, which netted for the Pakatan five states and 82 seats in Parliament.

In the uncertainties that followed Anwar’s undemocratic grab for power vis-a-vis the Sept 16 fiasco, Ku Li briefly came into the picture as possibly bringing to Anwar several Umno MPs to make up the necessary numbers to form a government.

But the promise never materialised and Anwar was not able to muster enough MPs to make the magic numbers although he did send emissaries in a hilarious chase that went all the way to Taiwan.

After the disaster of 2008 and with Abdullah giving way to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in April 2009, Ku Li saw his chances for the top job shrinking even further.

Najib began the transformation of the country and, by most counts, is winning the hearts and minds of many Malays and Indian voters although the Chinese voters are still holding out.

The country is firmly on a path of no return to the old ways with the repeal of the ISA, banishment laws and media freedom. Ku Li is left, still in Umno, criticising the reforms as inadequate.

On the other side, Anwar is facing a second sodomy trial and other sex related accusations even as he tries to rally his supporters as he did in 2008.

Pakatan Rakyat is, however, in a survival mode and seeking to keep as much of the 2008 win as it possibly could.

With the national political scenery changed Ku Li finds that he is being squeezed out and so he came up with his Amanah, which is a vehicle to remain in the public eye.

Who knows the political circumstances might change again and Ku Li might just land himself the top job, although the chances of that has long eclipsed.

Related articles

• Razaleigh criticises the pace of reforms (dinmerican.wordpress.com)

Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality & English standard not up to par!

Tweet

Give everyone a choice in education

ANALYSIS by BADARAN KUPPUSAMY

Our education system is heavily politicised and needs to be de-politicised to offer good, simple and advancing education for all citizens – one they can be proud of.

SCIENCE and Mathematics were taught in English until all subjects switched to Bahasa Malaysia in 1970 under the national education policy.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, worried over the decline of English and the poor employability of graduates who had been taught in Bahasa Malaysia, then decided to revert to teaching the two subjects in English, beginning in 2003.

Now, the Education Ministry, under persistent pressure from Bahasa Malaysia advocates, has decided to go back to teaching Science and Mathematics in the national language.

From English to Bahasa Malaysia, then back to English and again to Bahasa Malaysia.

We should not be playing kick-ball with the lives of young students who are subjected to enormous stress by such policy changes called by special interest groups.

Parents too are subjected to horrendous pressure as policy shifts come and go at the drop of a coin.

Parents want the best for their children; they want a good, simple and advancing education that arms the children with knowledge to compete in the world and succeed.

They want their children to be on par with other societies, like in Singapore or Hong Kong, which had inherited a colonial education system but decided to build on it, rather than pull it down.

Malaysians from Johor travel by bus in the early hours of the day to study in Singapore, while their parents take courses to keep up, communicate with and help in their children’s studies.

The world has become that competitive.

There was a referendum in Hong Kong after the former British colony was handed back to Chinese sovereignty in July 1997, whether to continue in English or switch to Mandarin.

Parents wanted to maintain English overwhelmingly.

In Hong Kong today, there is a system of dual languages, where Mandarin is taught along with English, attracting an international student clientele to Hong Kong.

Parents are important stakeholders in the field of education and know better what their children should get by way of a modern education.

Democracy offers alternatives and choices. You do not shut the door on any stakeholder.

The Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), which is fighting to retain the learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) policy, is spot on in pursuing its goal.

While the group is strongly supported by the MCA, MIC and Gerakan – all component parties of the Barisan Nasional – many in Umno also see the promise that an education in English holds for the children.

PAGE has submitted another memorandum to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, asking for special schools to teach the subjects in English. Najib will have to decide on the request because it is becoming a political hot potato.

Najib had said the era of “the Government knows best” had been long over. He has emphasised this several times to indicate that policymakers have to listen to all stakeholders and not go on a tangent of their own.

But his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also Education Minister, has said the situation would be “chaotic” if the ministry were to provide facilities for the teaching of Science and Mathematics in both Bahasa Malaysia and English.

But there are practical solutions, such as hiring Indian teachers from overseas. They have a good proficiency in English and can teach well.

Our education system is heavily politicised and needs to be de-politicised to offer a good and simple education for all citizens – one they can be proud of.

Given the chance to decide, even parents in rural areas would vote for PPSMI as it gives their children a leg up in today’s competitive world.

Our society has developed many alternatives to the Bahasa Malaysia-only policy – private education, home schooling and international schools – which the Government throws open to all.

These centres of excellence in education come at a price. They are expensive and the poor cannot afford it.

So, the rich – of all races – escape our Bahasa Malaysia-only policy, study in alternative schools and eventually move overseas to continue their education and then stay back to work and live there.

There are, ironically, Africans, South Americans and other Asians enjoying a multi-cultural education in English in Malaysia.

If we insist on teaching only in Bahasa Malaysia, we will eventually have just Bahasa Malaysia-speaking students in a society that privately offers English-language education for anyone who wants it.

An estimated one million Malaysians have left for greener pastures abroad and we are now wooing them back through Talent Corp and also offering incentives to bring them back.

Never mind if things are initially “chaotic” – it is the Government’s responsibility to provide for all its citizens.
Eventually, we should aim to democratise the cluttered and over-burdened education system that is pulling various ethnic groups asunder. We need to provide choices for all – rich and poor.

English standard of undergrads still not up to par

M. Saraswathi

 Pix courtesy of sxc.hu

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 6, 2011): Malaysia is on par or ahead of some of the regional countries in terms of investment in education. However, the quality of its undergraduates' command of English still remains an issue.

Dr Marie Aimee Tourres, a senior research fellow at the Department of Development Studies, Universiti Malaya, said it was crucial for graduates to have a good command of English to ensure they would be able to compete effectively, in the global job market.

Nevertheless, “in terms of education spending, Malaysia is comparable to some countries in the region based on the percentage spent over its gross domestic product (GDP) growth,” she told Bernama in an interview here.

She said Malaysia was actually spending more vis-a-vis other countries.

In Budget 2012, RM13.6 billion was allocated to the social sector, including education and training, health, welfare, housing and community development.

Dr Tourres said there was also a lot of focus given for training and re-training for graduates, which was important to continuously upgrade skilled and knowledge workers in the country.

However, the quality of undergraduates remains an issue in Malaysia, since the students find it difficult to grasp the English language.

"Language is definitely an issue,” she said, citing a recent publication by the World Bank entitled The Road to Academic Excellence, which was a study on what contributes to a world-class research university.

The study compared Universiti Malaya (UM) and National University of Singapore (NUS) in a chapter entitled The National University of Singapore and the University of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths.

In the report, it was stated that as NUS kept pace with the demands of a growing economy that sought to become competitive internationally, with English continuing as the language of instruction and research, UM began to focus inward as proficiency in English declined in favour of the national language.

The publication, which is based on a study conducted by two scholars, Philip Altbach and Jamil Salmi, also stated that because UM taught courses predominantly in the national language, it had much more limited internationalisation of programme, academic staff and student body.

"This generation will have to face international standard and competition in terms of job market, as part of globalisation," said Dr Tourres.

She cited Pakistan as an example, where she gives lectures.

"In Pakistan, although the people speak different dialects, next to the Urdu language, their English is better than our graduates,” she pointed out.

It made them more marketable in the competitive global environment, she noted.

"The immediate result of their English capacity is that you can find many Pakistanis who work for international organisations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund,” noted Dr Tourres.

She believed that even if Malaysia gave more focus in English, the national language and culture could still prosper, provided that teaching was made interesting.

"More English in school will not deter Malay, Indian and Chinese culture per se. We should not mix the issue of a command of good language and the preservation of national heritage," she said.

As for the distribution of the book voucher worth RM200 to all Malaysian students in public and private local institutions of higher learning, matriculation as well as Form 6 students nationwide, she believed that it should be monitored to ensure that it served the purpose.

This assistance is expected to benefit 1.3 million students with an allocation of RM260 million.

“That is a lot of money. Probably, it could have been done based on meritocracy to ensure that it is properly utilised,” said Dr Tourres, pointing out that there were risks of students re-selling the voucher, especially when the new targeted generation lacked the reading habit and prefered to go online to search for their study materials. -- Bernama

Importance of being earnest

ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI

The DPM has said it would not be possible to use English in teaching Science and Mathematics. Let’s look at other options to improve proficiency in English.

WE all know and acknowledge that our standard of English has taken a beating. We all know that many of our teachers cannot even construct a sentence in English without grammatical errors, and many of them are teaching our kids the language.

We all know that many of our university lecturers are in the same boat too, as well as some of our politicians and senior government servants. For them, it is a struggle to speak in English.

A letter, presumably written by an examiner or a parent, that appeared in this newspaper’s education section last Sunday startled me. The writer made a comparison between our 2011 Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) English paper and the 2011 International Competitions and Assessments for Schools (ICAS) English Reading Paper.

The latter is used to test students’ English proficiency in private and international schools, which have increasingly become the choice of urban Malaysian parents who can afford to send their children there.

Giving detailed comparisons, the writer claimed that the PMR English paper taken by our 15-year-olds is much easier than those taken by Year Four Malaysian students in private and international schools and Year Three Singaporean pupils in similar schools.

“How can we expect our local students to compete with students from other countries if the standard of English in our PMR exam is even lower than the standard of English required for Year Four pupils in private and international schools?” he asked.

In short, the PMR English paper is too easy. We have long cast doubts on the quality of our students who earn a string of distinctions. We hear grumbles that in some papers such as Physics, the grading is so ridiculously low you just need to answer a few questions to get the A, but that’s another story.

Older Malaysians – those who sat for Senior Cambridge (Form 5), Lower Certificate of Education (LCE) for Form Three, Malaysian Certificate of Education (MCE) for Fifth Formers and the Higher School Certificate (HSC) for Form Six – will vouch that the standard of English was much higher then.

The Prime Minister and his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin are products of the early education system which has enabled them to speak and write well in English. It is such a joy, for example, to listen to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak delivering a speech in crisp English.

We know that much of the Cabinet deliberations are conducted in English. So are the Cabinet committee meetings, where most ministers find it more comfortable to express themselves in English.

When they attend international conferences, one or two ministers whose command of English is described as atrocious still have to use the language, but they would just read from a prepared text.

In a tweet last week, prominent human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz lamented the poor English in the written judgment of a Judicial Commissioner. The legal reasoning was equally bad. This is sad because the Malaysian legal system is primarily based on English common law and most students have to use English textbooks.

I have just returned from India where I attended an international conference on the advertising industry. It was a joy to listen to people there – from the emcee, former Miss World Diana Hayden, to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan to leaders of the industry – speak in English with confidence, eloquence and wit and without referring to a prepared text.

These people are able to speak so well because India has not allowed its nationalists to tear down the legacy of the British education system in the name of nationalism and race. Yes, there are millions in India who can only speak Hindi or other dialects but English remains in a dominant position.

In Singapore, the medium of instruction in schools is English and to ensure that the young get the best education, teachers are among the best paid in the island republic’s civil service.

Certainly, those given the responsibility to nurture, teach and inspire young minds deserve the best, but let the best join the profession and keep out the mediocre.

The DPM has said it would not be possible to use English in teaching Science and Mathematics (PPSMI), citing possible chaotic situations if parents were given the option to decide if they wished to use English or Bahasa Malaysia.

He said some teachers were not efficient in teaching English and that it would also be hard for the Education Ministry to plan.

I think these are sound and valid reasons but we must also look for other options. It is not a zero sum game. We should not see the controversy from a “them and us” situation. Neither do we want politicians and groups to cloud the issue further by using race to silence proponents of the PPSMI.

We can introduce English Literature in schools and also increase the teaching hours in English as the next step. Even Physical Education, Art and Moral Studies classes can be taught in English.

We will go nowhere if we continue to cite lack of English teachers as the reason why we cannot move forward. The situation we are in is a reflection of the failure of our education system as far as English is concerned. It is a statement of our lack of commitment.

Let’s hire teachers and trainers from India and other Commonwealth countries, compile a data bank of retired teachers who still want to contribute, and even graduates who are keen to teach English in schools.

For urban parents, the option should not be the private and international schools. Haven’t our children been divided by the different schools they go to already? The last thing we want to do is to create a class system where the better-off go to private schools while the less privileged have to settle for national schools.

Chua: Make pass in SPM English compulsory; Malaysians should be multi-lingual by being well-versed in Bahasa, English and Mandarin

By KAREN CHAPMAN, TAN EE LOO, FLORENCE A. SAMY, CHRISTINA CHIN, HAMDAN RAJA ABDULLAH, DESIREE TRESA GASPER and REGINA LEE

PETALING JAYA: While the MCA welcomes the decision made on the Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) policy, it is now calling for the language to be made a compulsory pass subject for SPM.

“We should work towards making English a compulsory pass subject in the SPM examination and also make English Literature a compulsory subject,” said party president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

On the policy, he said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had paved the way for clear guidelines on the matter and put an end to any confusion.

In a statement yesterday, Dr Chua said the Government had listened to the voices of the rakyat in coming up with a win-win situation for all.

It was also the party’s fervent hope for the Education Ministry to emphasise the usage of English to equip Malaysians with the universal language to keep up with the rest of the world, he added.

“The MCA would like to re-affirm its stand that all Malaysians should be multi-lingual by being well-versed in Bahasa Malaysia, English and Mandarin to ensure we are more competitive in the globalised world,” said Dr Chua.

In Friday’s announcement, Muh­yiddin – also Education Minister – said the current batch of Year Two to Form Four students would continue under the policy until they complete their secondary education.

Year One pupils this year are already learning the two subjects in Bahasa Malaysia.

Speaking to reporters after attending the SJK (C) Mun Yee fundraising dinner here last night, Dr Chua hit out at the Opposition, saying it should make up their mind on the PPSMI policy and not make “flip-flop” statements.

Responding to a suggestion by PKR’s Selayang MP William Leong that there should be English- medium schools in the country, Dr Chua said DAP and PKR had previously expressed their support towards using Bahasa Malaysia to teach the two subjects.

“In Pakatan Rakyat, they have different stands. Now that the Govern­ment has allowed English to be continued to be used until 2020, they again switch.

“The rakyat has the right to know what is PKR’s policy and stand,” he said, adding that DAP’s stand was also inconsistent.

MIC president Datuk G. Palanivel said the PPSMI decision was a step in the right direction for the future of affected students.  

Taking a page from history

by Dr Kua Kia Soong www.thesundaily.com.my

IN THE raging controversy over the continuance of the PPSMI option, there seem to be at least two main arguments put forward for not allowing it – that it is too troublesome to have two options in the same school, and that English is not the mother tongue of Malaysians.

I believe that choice and flexibility must be a fundamental principle in education policy and that we should take a historical perspective of the development of our present situation.

Mother tongue as a right and facility

First, we should be thankful that the right to mother tongue education and the fact that every child learns best in the mother tongue is a principle that has been established in Unesco and is now widely accepted in our country.

Mother tongue education in Malay, Chinese and Tamil in Malaysia has seen staggered progress. Chinese-language schools have existed in this country for more than 200 years, the first set up in 1819!

Tamil schools have also had a long history and developed mainly through community support during the colonial period. Thus, at Independence there were already 1,350 Chinese primary schools and 78 Chinese secondary schools, while Tamil primary schools numbered more than 800 in 1957.

Malay vernacular schools were built under colonial rule, but they were certainly insufficient. Then, Lim Lian Geok, the “Soul of the Malaysian Chinese”, never failed to encourage the Malay community to call for development of Malay mother-tongue education, including to secondary level. That was why Utusan Melayu would ask Lim to write a column in the newspaper during Hari Raya Aidilfitri.

English-language schools were of course the preferred system of the colonial power and the elite and middle class were enrolled in them, although theoretically they were open to all. Certainly there were also children from poorer classes in the English-medium government schools I studied at in the 50s and 60s.

As a result of this history, English language can now be considered the mother tongue of these middle-class Malaysians, where English is the “family language” with which children communicate with their parents. We should appreciate that colonial societies like ours (including India, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya and other British colonies) have this peculiarity, acknowledge and respect this reality, and move on.

Right up to the establishment of the 1961 Education Act, the school leaving certificate for Chinese-language secondary schools was a government administered examination. Our education system managed well and you did not hear grumbles about how “troublesome” it was to have that provision. We inherited that system from our specific history and it served the purpose of providing mother-tongue education.

The 1961 Act did away with Chinese-language secondary schools, and they were then forced to become “independent”, which meant they had to be supported by the community. After that, the government provided only teachers and some financial support for Chinese-language primary schools.

Is it “troublesome” to ask for the reinstatement of Chinese-language secondary schools in the national system? Ever since 1975, the Chinese community has administered the Unified Examination Certificate of the 60 independent Chinese secondary schools which have a total enrolment of some 60,000 students. Tuition fees are a burden to the many parents who choose this educational route for their children and the Chinese have subsidised these schools since 1961. It is like paying double taxation!

National language policy

The former “Government English Schools” had to convert to teaching in Bahasa Malaysia (BM) when the national language policy was implemented after 1969. Any protests were muted in the aftermath of “May 13” and under the assertive Malay-centric ideology of the new ruling class.

And so this system of BM as the medium of instruction has been implemented with no leeway for dissent for at least three decades. Then nine years ago, Dr Mahathir decided to implement the PPSMI, or the teaching of Maths and Science in English.

PPSMI has provided the precedent for this breach in the national language policy. The justification was that it was the only way to master the international language, English. If we bear in mind all the arguments used by the Mahathir administration to justify PPSMI, we really cannot fault the parents organisation PAGE for asking for the choice of keeping PPSMI, using the same arguments. Sorry, the government cannot have its cake and eat it!

Choice of PPSMI “troublesome”?

Some opponents of PAGE’s demand have said that having two media for teaching Maths and Science in the same school is too “troublesome” and unreasonable to impose on the government. I beg to differ.

Education is about having a choice. I remember when my eldest brother was in secondary school in the 60s and was focused about choosing Arts subjects even though he was in the top class made up of mainly Science students. He stood his ground against the school administration. My parents did not even come into the picture. Then, my second brother refused to study Additional Maths even though he was in the top Science class because he was focused on doing Medicine later. Again, he was adamant about his choice and the school had to give in. I made the same choice and did not choose Add. Maths even though the school wanted uniformity.

The principle we were fighting for was choice and flexibility. At the time, we simply could not see why it should be “troublesome” to have that choice.

If it is troublesome to have the choice of Maths and Science in English, what about the choice of having “Pupils’ own Language” in Chinese or Tamil or Kadazan or Bidayuh, etc?

Although I do not agree with the pedagogical wisdom of this, some students of Independent Chinese Secondary Schools even have the choice of doing the SPM in Malay during their fifth year, the UEC in Chinese and A levels in English in their final year! It is not considered “troublesome” for these schools.

It is not as if Malaysians are asking for something so difficult to implement. Our national education system has had a long history of English-language teaching and we have just had nine fresh years of PPSMI; so teachers and resources are not a problem.

Our education system should be looking at broadening the choices to cope with mother-tongue instruction for our indigenous people; and special education to cope with slow learners, autistic and disabled children. I remember when my wife had to write the answers for a child with muscular problems who was sitting for his O Levels at the British Council. Another sightless friend of ours told us about how computer programmes were being developed to enable people in her situation to follow lectures online.

“Troublesome” seems to be the hardest word in the education vocabulary.

Dr Kua Kia Soong is a director of human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram).