ASEAN Sumit: US reasserts role as Pacific power, creates "vicious circle of tension" ; Indon military warns!

Tweet 

Leaders and representatives of the ASEAN countries link hands during the opening of the 19th ASEAN Summit on the Indonesian resort island of Bali Thursday. Photo: AFP

US President Barack Obama Thursday reiterated his country's determination to consolidate its role in the Asia-Pacific, a day after Beijing questioned Washington's decision to expand its military presence in Australia.

"The US is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay," Obama said when addressing the Australian Parliament in Canberra, repeating the exact phrases he used at the APEC summit in Honolulu over the weekend.

"I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia-Pacific a top priority. As a result, reductions in US defense spending will not come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific," the US president said.

Obama acknowledged China's concerns over the growing US presence, saying, "We'll seek more opportunities for cooperation with Beijing, including greater communication between our militaries to promote understanding and avoid miscalculation."

The AP commented that this is an "unmistakable message" from the White House chief to Beijing on Washington's determination to counter a rising China.



In response, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Liu Weimin said Thursday, "We hold no objection to the development of regular relations between countries. But we hope they can consider others' interests, regional peace and stability before making any move."

 "Firmly upholding the development of Sino-US ties based on mutual respect and reciprocal cooperation will benefit the two sides, as well as the whole world," Liu said.

However, a commentary by the Xinhua News Agency said Thursday, "It wouldn't come as a surprise if the US is trying to seek hegemony in the region, which would be in line with its aspirations as a global superpower."

"It is hard to envision what kind of 'leadership' the US aspires to have in the region. What the region really needs is a strong and reliable partner that can help the region stave off the current financial crisis and seek balanced and sustained growth," it added.

Obama arrived in Bali Thursday for the Sixth East Asia Summit starting tomorrow, making him the first US president to take part in the event.

Yuan Peng, director of the Institute of US Studies of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times that by joining the summit, the US now formally becomes a force in the region.

"It highlights the complete shift of Washington's strategic focus to the East. The strategic gravity of the US will remain in the Asia-Pacific region in the coming decade," Yuan said.

The US has signaled it will raise the South China Sea issue during the summit despite Beijing's objections.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario has also asked ASEAN to host a multilateral summit that would discuss the issue, but a number of the bloc's members, including Malaysia and Cambodia, rejected Manila's initiative.

Liu reiterated China's stance Thursday, warning that interference from other countries would only complicate the issue, and Beijing would not accept any attempts to harm its sovereignty and interests.

Wu Xinbo, a deputy director of the Center for US Studies at the Fudan University, told the Global Times that the South China Sea issue has become more complicated with the greater US presence.

"At some point, the issue will involve several countries in the region, so assembling countries involved in the negotiations could be a supplement to one-on-one talks. However, it should be noted that the multilateral negotiations can only be held among related parties, and any external forces should be excluded," Wu said.

Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and his ASEAN counterparts are expected to issue a joint declaration on boosting cooperation on maritime security and safety in the region during the Japan-ASEAN meeting on the sidelines of the Bali summit.

Japan's Kyodo News commented that although Japan seems to be an outsider in the South China Sea issue, its behavior mirrors Tokyo's own run-ins with Beijing in connection to the East China Sea.

Separately, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao also arrived in Bali Thursday to attend the East Asia Summit, the 14th between China and ASEAN, as well as the 14th between ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea and an event that marks the 20th anniversary of the China-ASEAN dialogue.

Wen is expected to reiterate China's policies on deepening cooperation with ASEAN in political, economic and cultural fields. ASEAN and China leaders will also review the development of bilateral ties and map out strategic planning for the future.

"In such a complicated and serious international political and economic situation, the upcoming summits should highlight the theme of unity, development and cooperation," Wen said during talks with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono Thursday.

"China said it plans to set up a fund for maritime cooperation with ASEAN and is preparing about 3 billion yuan ($472 million) to develop cooperation in maritime industries," Indonesian presidential spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said after the leaders' talks.

Zhu Shanshan and agencies contributed to the story

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Indon military warns about Aust-US plan

Karlis Salna, AAP South-East Asia Correspondent

A top Indonesian military chief has warned plans for the United States to boost its military presence in Australia could fuel tensions regarding an ongoing maritime dispute over the South China Sea.

The plan, which was unveiled by US President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Canberra on Wednesday, has already caused friction at the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Bali.

Indonesian military commander Admiral Agus Suhartono has now added his voice to concerns the plan could add to an increasingly tense dispute over the resource-rich South China Sea.

China and four ASEAN countries - Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam - have staked claims over the crucial sea lane, which handles more than one-third of the world's seaborne trade and half its traffic in oil and gas.

Admiral Suhartono, who has formerly served as the Indonesian Navy's chief of staff, has warned the increased US military presence, which is seen also seen as a hedge against the growing influence of China in the Asia-Pacific region, could draw Indonesia into the dispute.

Under the plan, announced in Canberra on Wednesday, up to 250 US Marines will train for six months at a time in the Northern Territory, just 800km from Indonesia, rising to a full 2500-strong Marine Air Ground Task Force by 2016.

The US forces will bring ships, aircraft and vehicles.

"Their military fleets would very likely go back and forth through our waters, given the analysis that the planned base will have to conduct due to rising tensions in the South China Sea," Admiral Suhartono told the Jakarta Post newspaper.

Admiral Suhartono said the US military presence in Australia would impact Indonesia in terms of political and security stability in South-East Asia.

"We haven't learned clearly what this deal is but we have been studying the plan and analysing any potential impacts on Indonesia as well as on the South-East Asian region," he said.

"We have begun consulting all sources concerned with this issue."

China has been relatively restrained in its response to the US-Australia military pact.

"As for relations among China, the United States and Australia, I think that further deepening and strengthening Chinese co-operation with the US and with Australia suits the interests of all these countries as well as the other countries in the region and the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said.

But a spokesman for Philippines President Gloria Arroyo, speaking on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit on Thursday evening, said there was no doubt the increased US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region would strengthen the Philippines' hand against Beijing in terms of the South China Sea issue.

"I think it bolsters our ability to assert our sovereignty over certain areas," spokesman Ricky Carandang said.

© 2011 AAP Newscribe : get free news in real time  

Indonesia fears US forces could create "vicious circle of tension"

Tom Allard

Indonesia has expressed concerns that the increased US military presence in northern Australia could provoke a ''vicious circle of tension and mistrust'' in the region.

''What I would hate to see is if such a development were to provoke a reaction and counter-reaction,'' said Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa, speaking before the ASEAN and East Asia leaders' summits, which begin in Bali today.

Without stringent efforts to consult with other countries in the region, he added, it could lead to misunderstanding and provoke a ''vicious circle of tension and mistrust''.

Mr Natalegawa said he was briefed on the new arrangement, under which US marines and air force personnel will next year begin six-month training deployments to Australia, by Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd.

He suggested that countries in the Asia Pacific would need to be consulted in more depth in Bali.

US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Julia Gillard arrive in Bali tonight and tomorrow for the summits, which are being hosted by Indonesia and will focus on security and political issues.

The closer defence co-operation between Australia and the US is widely seen as a measure to counter any military threat from a rapidly emerging China.

Equally, though, the increased number of US troops training in the Northern Territory is occurring right on Indonesia's doorstep.

Newscribe : get free news in real time  

Malaysia's left-wing political parties hoping to soar

Tweet

Left-wing parties hoping to soar

Analysis By Baradan Kuppusamy

Left-wing parties are making a comeback in a political environment dominated by both race-based and multi-racial parties all pushing the same democratic centralism political ideology.

PARTI Rakyat Malaysia, a small but tradition-rich party, is causing some consternation among top PKR leaders with its announcement this week that it will contest in three parliamentary constituencies held by PKR.

Its newly elected president Dr Rohana Ariffin said that the party, founded in 1955 by Ahmad Boestaman upon his release from ISA, would contest in the Balik Pulau, Selayang and Petaling Jaya Selatan constituencies in the forthcoming general election.

In an interview, she said PRM was against three-cornered fights but hoped to hold discussions with Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and find an amicable solution.

“We are keen to contest in the three seats,” she told The Star, adding that Balik Pulau in Penang was a traditional PRM seat while Selayang was also a former seat with hardcore members and Petaling Jaya was where the party's headquarters was located.

“We have many supporters in the three constituencies,” she said. “We are only asking for three seats out of 222 in the country.”

Dr Rohana said if an Opposition government were to be elected in the next general election, their participation would be crucial because they would offer alternative views from within.

“Diversity should be promoted and encouraged and many contrasting views make up a good government unlike with Barisan Nasional where Umno's views dominate,” said the academician.



All well and good but PKR is in no mood to concede three of the best constituencies now held by party veterans just because PRM is asking for it, tradition-rich party or not.

The Selayang constituency is held by PKR treasurer William Leong, who did well in 2008 defeating his opponents in a three-cornered fight, including a PRM candidate Koh Su Yong, who polled about 2% of the votes.

Koh had stood in 2004 under a PKR banner and polled over 17,000 votes, losing nevertheless. His 2008 performance was lacklustre under PRM, a measure of what the right party can do for a candidate.

Although PRM has traditionally contested in Balik Pulau and never won, it believes it has a better chance now.

Currently, it is held by PKR newcomer Yusmadi Yusuf, who is very active in Balik Pulau as well as in Penang and in Parliament.

Petaling Jaya Selatan, on the other hand is held by Hee Loy Sian, who keeps a low profile.

PRM is hallowed in the left-wing history of the country, having been founded by Ahmad Boestaman and brought together all the Malay left in various organisations like KMM, API and other small groups.

The party was a member of the Socialist Front and contested in various municipal councils and in general election in the 1960s but the winning results were mixed.

It had to watch out for the Special Branch on one hand and convince the people to win elections on the other, making for difficult choices.

PRM survived the 1970s under Kassim Ahmad and after him, Datuk Kampu Radjoo, and finally came under the control of Dr Syed Husin Ali in the 1980s.

In 2003, he dissolved PRM and led its members into PKR but a small faction opposed the move and carried on under the PRM banner, which had a cow's head as the party symbol.

The breakaway faction was recognised by the Registrar of Societies and in the election for PRM office bearers held in Petaling Jaya last week, Dr Rohana, the acting president since 2010, was elected PRM president.

Another small, left-wing party, the Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), is also having trouble with Pakatan Rakyat, especially DAP, over seat allocation.Image via Wikipedia

In 2008, it contested under the PKR banner in three seats and won one with its president Dr Nasir Hashim in Kota Damansara and Dr D. Jeyakumar in Sungei Siput Parliamentary seat but secretary-general S. Arutchelvam lost in the Semenyih state seat in Selangor.

The tussle with the DAP in 2008 was for the Jalong seat in Perak which the PSM wanted to contest because of years of grassroots work there.

In the end, they contested as an independent after negotiation with the DAP broke down. In the three-cornered fight that followed, PSM lost to DAP's Hew Yit Fong who, a year later, defected to Barisan Nasional together with two PKR assemblymen, giving away the state.

In retrospect, left-wing parties are making a comeback in a political environment dominated by both race-based and multi-racial parties all pushing the same democratic centralism political ideology.

They have no socialist trappings to speak off and only want to run a better government with the same foreign investment and development strategies.

The left parties are making a comeback in a big way overseas but without the violent themes of the past.
Their ideologies and policies would provide a fresh alternative to the dominant political parties on both sides of the divide here.

Both Barisan Nasional, that is trying to win hearts and minds with its many 1Malaysia reforms, and Pakatan Rakyat - with its “me-rakyatkan” economy initiatives in Selangor - could well use another party with a socialist bend to speak for and champion the people.

The left-wing parties have important things to contribute to the debate on national issues like privatisation of healthcare, food security and even on the government service tax.

Their re-emergence on the political scene should be welcomed and encouraged as these left parties have dedicated leadership who will go the extra mile for the people.

Related posts:

PRM, the Seladang's Resurgence in Malaysian politics?  
Winning over the majority of the Malay Muslim psyches and votes! 

New thinking on human rights & cooperation

Tweet

New thinking on human rights

REFLECTING ON THE LAW By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Compliance with human rights by a country must be examined both as to domestic conduct as well as international conduct, and theory must always be read in the light of practice. 

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY is approaching and many organisations worldwide are putting forth their views on this noble, transcendental quest.

A few weeks ago, the Fourth Bei­­­-jing Forum on Human Rights enunciated a bold Third World perspective.

Last week, a Malaysian NGO co-sponsored The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Scholars at the Beijing Forum pointed out that human rights were not born in the crucible of any particular culture or civilisation.

All cultures, religions and regions have a concept of the sacredness of human life and of some common aspirations and needs.

There is universal acceptance that humans are entitled by birth to certain inalienable rights.

These rights do not depend on the charity or generosity of the state but are inherent in the human condition.

In the human rights discourse around the world, there are many commonalities, shared beliefs, core ideas and basic elements. These must be highlighted and honoured.

However, though the idea of human rights is universal, the substantive content of human rights may vary from society to society and from time to time.

As we move from the core of the doctrine to the fringes, cultural, religious, economic, political and historical differences become relevant.

Priorities begin to vary. Value pluralism manifests itself. Context begins to determine the content.

The ideal equality of nations and people requires that these diversities and differences be recognised and allowed to find expression.

The richness of the human rights discourse has manifested itself in the analysis of human rights into many conflicting or overlapping categories.

Among them are:

• > The first generation civil and political liberties. These are referred to as the “negative liberties” which thrive best if there is non-intervention by the state.

• > The second generation socio-economic rights or the “positive liberties” which require vigorous, affirmative action by the state to create the socio-economic conditions in which civil and political liberties may flower.

• > The third generation development rights.

• > Individual rights versus collective and communitarian rights.

There is universal agreement that the eradication of absolute poverty is necessary for the realisation of human dignity.

However, there is no universal agreement on the path to the goal of social amelioration.

To most Western observers, electoral democracy is the surest catalyst for the evolution of a regime of human rights.

Along with political democracy is the instrumentality of a free market economy.

Others feel political democracy and a free market economy do not always result in economic democracy and socio-economic justice. Various models of “social democracy” and “welfare state” are put forward as alternatives.

There are differences of opinion about whether the government alone should be responsible for supplying the welfare net or whether the family and the community must play a role to help their kith and kin.

Traditions and religion can be harnessed to involve the community in kinship welfare.

It is also agreed that without enforcement, human rights have no practical value. Rights without remedies are like lights that do not shine and fires that do not glow.

Traditional reliance on judicial remedies is inadequate because of the weaknesses of the judicial method and the unbearable expense for the development of Western style judicial institutions, hierarchies and methods.

Attention must therefore turn to development of remedies that are informal, inexpensive and expeditious.

There are many threats to human rights.

Among them are poverty and lack of human rights education. Along with state institutions, there are many private, religious and social centres of power that violate human rights.

Multi-national corporations often act like a state within a state.

The pervasiveness of Western global dominance in the economic, political, cultural, communication and educational fields is not always acknowledged.

Rating institutions like Moody’s exercise vast extra-territorial influence over a government’s economic policies.

Global institutions like the World Bank, the Security Council, the International Monetary Fund and the International Criminal Court consistently act to preserve the unfair advantages for the West.



Some aspects of globalisation, notably the patents regime and the selective way in which the war against terrorism is being waged, are deeply destructive of the rights of the peoples of Asia and Africa.

Realisation is growing that human rights are an evolutionary process.

New claims, demands and expectations are emerging.

The human rights theory must remain abreast of the felt necessities of the times.

We must be cognisant of the problems from environmental degradation, pollution of the rivers,de-forestration of traditional lands for “development” and the inequitable way in which the benefits and burdens of development are shared.

The problems of an ageing population and the right to privacy in an age of electronics call for attention.

In evaluating human rights, we must realise that human rights are not a destination but a continuing journey.

Nations must be judged by their direction and by their progress.

Theory must always be read in the light of practice.

Compliance with human rights by a country must be examined both as to domestic conduct as well as international conduct.

The Third World must not shy away from articulating its own concept or concepts of human rights.

The institutions, methods and procedures for the realisation of human rights in Asia, Africa and Latin America must reflect the priorities, peculiarities and existing resources of each country.

Third World countries must seek to banish the idea that human rights are incompatible with Eastern traditions.

They must articulate their problems, challenges and accomplishments. They must combat distortions and lies.

They must, if need be, reciprocate the “ranking exercises” of some Western nations that selectively evaluate the human rights record of Third World nations.

Throwing stones is a game two can play.

The significant link and occasional conflict between human rights and human dignity must be studied.

Human rights must go hand in hand with duties to the family, to the community, state and all humanity.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM

New thinking on human rights cooperation

By Wang Qinghong, China.org.cn, March 16, 2011 

Western mainstream media and think tanks applauded the Chinese government's determination and efficiency in evacuating its citizens from Libya when civil strife recently broke out. This can be interpreted as an indirect and unintentional recognition of Chinese government's achievement in protecting the human rights of Chinese people by the West. This is significant, not only because it shows what kind of new efforts China has made for its people, but also because it triggers an inquiry into what kind of new thinking the West and China can adopt in their human rights dialogue.

Obviously, the first point for the West and China in their discussion of human rights should be both sides recognizing each other's progress rather than pointing out each other's problems. But if they only focus on each other's flaws, they then risk neglecting the successes and goodwill efforts of each other in protecting and improving human rights, which will hinder the buildup of mutual trust and cooperation. However, if both sides broaden their vision regarding each other's human rights achievements, they can deepen mutual understanding of relevant issues and find common ground for bilateral cooperation.

As for recognition, the West should pay more attention to the human rights implications of China's cancellation of the death penalty for 13 crimes and the regulation of "Demolition with Administrative Coercion" earlier this year. Correspondently, more China should offer more recognition of President Obama's recent efforts in improving American human rights in the areas of health care and education. This could substantially balance the negative atmosphere of human rights dialogues and eventually lead to more positive and constructive cooperation.

Secondly, both sides must not only eliminate Cold War mentalities, impatient and arrogant attitudes, biased and oversimplified judgments, and radical rhetoric, but also re-identify shared values and different preferences in the realm of human rights. To this end, they should understand each other's concepts of human rights within historical and cultural context, and should communicate with each other patiently and respectively.

The two international human rights treaties and other human rights agreements of the United Nations could serve as a good starting point for renewed dialogue. However, all human rights values and principles are built upon and evolve with the social, political, and economic development of societies. They have to be in turn codified as laws in accordance with cultural and historical specificities. For example, Western liberal traditions emphasize the equality and integrity of the rights of the individual, while Chinese Confucian traditions prioritize social stability and justice. Accordingly, although the notorious shooting incident by a political extremist in Arizona earlier this year was unanimously condemned by the American public, it is still difficult and extremely controversial to change the individual's right to possess firearms in the United States, which is protected by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. On the contrary, it has been debated in recent years in China whether policemen should be equipped with guns routinely, due to the conflict between protecting the safety of individual policemen and the potential danger to public security. The strict gun control regulation in China reflects Chinese traditions of prioritizing collective human rights over individual human rights.

Thirdly, both sides should not only strengthen the dialogue about the connotations of human rights but also enhance cooperation and innovation in social management that aims to improve the real status of human rights.

Western societies mainly pursue protecting and enlarging human rights through checks and balances as well as by laws, while Chinese traditions emphasize enhancing social harmony and prosperity through promoting social fairness, responsibility, morality, and education.

Both sides can learn from each other if they maintain an open mind. In a recent speech, Chinese President Hu Jintao called for safeguarding the rights and interests of Chinese people and for improving their livelihood through strengthening China's social management mechanisms. And Premier Wen Jiabao's regular chats with the public via the Internet, which resembles US town hall meetings, shows the determination of Chinese leaders to improve human rights through social and political innovations and their ability to learn from Western experiences in social management.

Perhaps President Obama and American politicians could study the Chinese government's recent regulations in controlling real estate prices and inflation, increasing social welfare, and narrowing various socioeconomic gaps and could be inspired to enact reforms for financial, social security, and Medicare in the United States.

In addition, both sides should also upgrade previous exchanges and cooperation in governance and self-governance to a more detailed and pragmatic level. Both American and Chinese people deeply understand that their human rights have to be protected and improved through law and order and that a Cultural Revolution style "great democracy" will only jeopardize human rights and bring anarchy and chaos.

Furthermore, China and the United States should expand the range of participants in the human rights dialogue by promoting people-to-people exchanges and by following a new perspective of building up a "community of common interests" initiated by Chinese and American leaders and senior strategists. Although individuals have their own views on human rights that might contrast from what government officials, distinguished scholars, media, think tanks, and nongovernmental organizations have advocated, the more people-to-people exchanges, the deeper human rights communication at the grassroots level.

People-to-people exchanges could enhance the perspective of a "community of common interests" that could in turn strengthen the foundation for human rights cooperation. The international disaster relief for China's Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, the Chinese government's humanitarian withdrawal from Libya of more than 21,000 citizens from 12 countries, and the Chinese rescue efforts for the victims of the recent earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan have shown the strength and potential in protecting and improving human rights under the perspective of a "community of common interests."

The author is an Adjunct Fellow of the Pacific Forum of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

India's increasing troop may go nowhere

Tweet 

By He Zude, Fang Wei (China Youth Daily)

India plans to recruit 100,000 soldiers over the next five years and send them to the China-India border areas to cement its military strength there, according to a report by the Times of India on Nov. 2. India's defense ministry has already approved a 13 billion-U.S. dollar military modernization plan.

The average growth rate of India's military spending has stood at 7 percent to 8 percent for more than a decade, and its military spending ranks ninth in the world. India is also the world's largest arms imports country. The spread of the "China threat" theory, the increase of troops to the disputed areas near the China-India border, and the display of a tough attitude toward China all aim to make a breakthrough in further increasing military spending.

Despite India’s huge military spending, its economic growth has recently been slow, with last year’s economic growth rate hitting a six-year low. It is very difficult to considerably increase military spending for military buildup amid the economic downturn, so India needs to first create a tense atmosphere and transfer domestic problems in hopes of securing more military spending.

India plans to recruit 100,000 soldiers over the next five years and send them to the China-India border areas to cement its military strength there, according to a report by the Times of India on Nov. 2. India's defense ministry has already approved a 13 billion-U.S. dollar military modernization plan.

India has continued to hold joint military drills with China's neighboring countries over a recent period, showing it evidently intends to contain China. Furthermore, India's move to send an additional 100,000 soldiers to the China-India border areas is consistent with its earlier actions aimed at containing China.

In addition, the United States needs to rely on India to restrict China. India needs to show its value to the United States by flexing its muscle toward China so that it could gain U.S. military support and help raise its international status. India's troop increase on the border between China and India is aimed at meeting the requirements of the United States and then getting support from the United States. However, will India realize its goal?



First, the action will tense the situation of the region and harm India's own interests. Increasing troops on the border area is always a sensitive move and it is especially sensitive to increase troops on a disputed border area.

Second, the action is completely not worthwhile. Currently, India has 40,000 troops in the disputed area, and if the further 100,000 is deployed, the total number of the troops will reach 140,000. In an era when precision-guided weapons are developing rapidly, everyone with common sense knows that concentrated troops could be eliminated easily. Meanwhile, 13 billion U.S. dollars is really a lot of money for India, and it is still unpredictable whether the future cost of maintenance will be guaranteed.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related post:

India sees China as 'de facto competitor'  

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.