In A Time Of War and Recession, Ukraine’s Independence Is more Important than Ever

Katya Soldak

Forbes

8/23/2014

Today Ukraine commemorates its 23rd year of independence from the Soviet Union as the military conflict in the East continues and NATO has confirmed that Russian artillery units are firing on Ukrainian forces inside Ukraine.

This Independence Day sees the country in pretty rough shape—fighting off Russian aggression while watching its economy contract 4.7% in the first quarter of this year. But despite all negatives, the country celebrates its Independence with a newly discovered sense of self and readiness to fight for its freedom fiercely.

This Sunday Kyiv will hold a military parade in Khreshchatyk, in the center of Ukraine’s capital’s and the cradle of winter’s revolution known to the world as Maidan.

The parade itself evokes mixed feelings in the Ukrainian public as the country mobilizes all its resources for what the government calls an “anti-terrorist operation” in Donbass and what to many citizens looks like a real war, with casualties and wounded, with the separatists armed with Russian weapons and Russian artillery operating inside Ukraine. The idea of holding a parade in such a time was criticized as unnecessary pomposity. But the president Petro Poroshenko, as well as his army commanders, decided to hold the parade anyway to demonstrate military capability and to lift the army’s spirit.

The support of Ukraine’s sovereignty increased to 90%, says Valeriy Khmelko, the president of research center KIIS in Kyiv. That’s almost the same as in August 1991, when 92% of Ukrainians voted for the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in a 84.2 % turnout vote. Soon after, the first president Leonid Kravchuk, was elected. The country got the freedom to rediscover its national identity and embarked on a brave but clumsy journey towards free market democracy.

The Soviet Union collapsed more than two decades ago but Moscow’s agony over the fall hasn’t ended. Moscow has attempted to keep a tight grip on neighboring countries like Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Armenia. The Kremlin’s land-grabbing and Imperial ambition has resulted in military conflicts in Georgia, Chechnya and Transnistria. Russia’s war against Ukraine – which has turned into complex conflict between the West and Russia – exceeded any analyst and political expert’s pessimistic forecasts and seems to have brought back a cold war mindset.

As it turned out, the KGB’s tactics and strategies are still alive and flourishing; newly rediscovered Soviet propaganda came in handy in manipulating public opinion through the mainstream media in Russia; Russian president Vladimir Putin enjoys the high approval ratings in his country.

If, indeed, the iron curtain comes back, Ukraine wants to be on the Western side and has no interest in joining Russia, increasingly isolated by western sanctions. The Ukrainian people may not all be on the same page over their liking of the government in Kyiv or feel strongly about Ukrainian language, but they want to enjoy the liberties and business opportunities of the western world.

To Moscow the idea that countries like Ukraine have the right to choose their own path and move towards closer integration with Europe – escaping the Kremlin’s influence – is a source of instability and panic. They accuse the West, especially the American government, of manipulating Ukraine during its anti-government protests in Kyiv this past winter and deny the idea that the Ukrainian people may have been thinking for themselves.

But Moscow failed to understand Ukraine’s story, or they underestimate the power of the grassroots movement within Ukraine that has bid farewell to its Soviet past.

From the first days of its independence, it wasn’t easy for Ukraine. To break the Soviet economic ties and conduct necessary economic and political reforms was incredibly difficult. The country had to create it’s own currency and banking system.

For those who were closer to administrative resources and better-connected, with starting capital and an entrepreneurial spirit, it was a time of opportunities—the oligarchs who emerged are still very influential – Rinat Akhmetov, Ihor Kolomoyskyy, Victor Pinchuk among others.

At the same time, besides the economy and politics, Ukraine has quickly drifted apart from Russia on the cultural front.  Even during Soviet times, Russian and Ukrainians were never the same, but the Soviet ideology and propaganda unified them a great deal. “Homo Soveticus” was the general nationality that sort of united Russians, Ukrainians and people from other republics under its umbrella.

In the early 1990s, Soviet history books in Ukrainian schools had been replaced with books telling Ukrainian and Soviet history free of the Soviet ideological propaganda, with historical facts that were omitted before. Students learned about the struggle of living under the Soviet oppression, about the deliberate famine in Ukraine under Stalin that wiped out more than 10,000 million—now regarded by a number of countries in the world, including the United States, as genocide. Also taught are  stories about many figures of intelligentsia arrested by the Soviet government, shot or sent to Siberia.

Books by pro-Ukrainian authors, deemed too avant-garde or authentic for the Soviet rule, were finally published and offered in Ukrainian literature classes. Poetry, prose and history, which the Communist Part didn’t allow for many generations, became part of the education system. A new culture quickly developed in the 1990s—Ukrainian rock, Ukrainian pop, Ukrainian experimental art, theater, youth festivals, you name it.

When Ukrainian media, including radio and television, started offering a variety of Ukraine-focused news and talk shows, the division between Russian and Ukrainian gradually increased, while the memories of the Soviet times, especially for the younger generations – those born after 1980 – began to fade. The East and the West of Ukraine peacefully coexisted, despite differences and the more pronounced Soviet stamp towards the border, but the idea of the territorial integrity and Ukraine’s sovereignty has never been challenged, until Russia’s actions this year.

The victims of Maidan and the victims of the war in Donbass paid the highest price any former Soviet country has had to pay for its independence. At this, yet another tragic moment of Ukrainian history, patriotism seems as high as ever. The Ukrainian anthem became a sort of prayer for many citizens, and traditional Ukrainian wear is in style.

Social activists paint everything in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine’s national flag – from the statues of Lenin (still present in many towns) to fences and murals. Blue and yellow keeps popping up everywhere throughout the country and beyond, even in Moscow, outside the Kremlin.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has said he hopes the new Parliament will have mostly pro-European and pro-Ukrainian members. So the country could continue on its path to becoming a truly independent and economically prosperous state. But for that, Russia would need to get its hands off Ukraine as soon as possible.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 August 2014, 1:02 pm and is filed under
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


United in grief, but still a nation divided

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

24 August 2014

Yes, Malaysians are united in grief over the twin tragedies of Flight MH370 and Flight MH17. How could anyone not be moved to tears and feel a sense of hollowness by the numbing loss of both these incidents?

But let us not demean this period of mourning and introspection by milking the shooting down of the aircraft for cheap political gain or gimmicky headlines. There has been no shortage of attempts by Barisan Nasional politicians and the mainstream media to turn the Flight MH17 tragedy into the coming out party for the Najib administration; supposedly a showcase of the Prime Minister’s empathy, diplomatic skills and great skill at uniting this nation.

Lost in all the mulch has been the fact that Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been prime minister of Malaysia for more than five years, and not three months.

Mingguan Malaysia, the weekend edition of the Umno mouthpiece, trumpeted Najib’s handling of the Flight MH17 tragedy as an example of the government’s upward trajectory. The PM himself today said that the government’s policy of neutrality helped it to broker a deal with the separatists in Ukraine – the same separatists who may have blown Flight MH17 out of the sky.

This praise fest is now reaching a crescendo and we are on the cusp of something really dangerous – allowing this propaganda blitz to convince Malaysians that we are now a united bunch.

One nation. One vision.

Stop. Just stop, please.

The posturing following Flight MH17 and naked attempt to ride on the wave of sadness is nauseating enough. But to try and use tragedy and sketch a warped picture of a nation united is disgusting.

Yes, Malaysians feel for the crew and passengers of flight MH370 and flight MH17, but this is not a kumbaya moment. Our sense of solidarity with those who suffered loss cannot paper over deep fissures in our society.

We are far from a united nation and the blame for that lies squarely with those who occupy Putrajaya.

Just think back to the last 24 months and only one picture of Malaysia comes to mind – of government-sponsored fringe groups pushing a right-wing agenda; of unprecedented religious and racial tension; of sedition charges being brought against Opposition politicians; of discredited stories of the Christianization of Malaysia; of a yawning income gap between the rich and the rest of Malaysia; of the demonisation of non-Malays. The list is non-exhaustive.

Coinciding with this period of uncertainty, threats have been indecision, apathy, inertia of the government. There has also been some degree of complicity of the Najib administration because it has refused to shut down Perkasa, Isma and other strident right-wing voices. Heck, we don’t even know how to shut down extremists like the militant Islamic State (oh, sorry. I guess that’s our much vaunted neutral diplomacy at play).

Against this backdrop of a country torn asunder came the twin heartaches of Flight MH370 and Flight MH17. The case of the missing aircraft was handled abysmally by the government while the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines aircraft over Ukraine was handled well.

The people in Putrajaya and the mainstream media would like Malaysians to buy the narrative that  the tragedies have brought us together and the government of the day should take some credit for this new found unity.

We may be united in grief but the racial, religious and class fault lines in Malaysia are open, festering wounds. – August 24, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 August 2014, 5:19 pm and is filed under
MH 17
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In the battle for Umno’s soul, money talks louder, not Dr M

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

25 August 2014

One day soon, it will be remembered that the great Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad – the slayer of deputy prime ministers and a prime minister – was finally defeated not by an individual but by RM.

Ringgit Malaysia.

The former prime minister’s biggest miscalculation in withdrawing his support for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was in believing that Umno members are followers of men or ideals. Or that they are even concerned about the downward spiral of Malaysia.

They are not. And have not been for decades.

They owe their allegiance only to money and wealth. More so these days when every problem or disillusionment can be fixed with either a contract, project, concession or cash handout.

Or where good publicity and support in blogosphere can be obtained by a handsome monthly stipend paid out to bloggers by businessmen close to Putrajaya.

To be fair, Dr Mahathir cannot claim ignorance of this cancer that has all but devoured the soul of Umno.

He acknowledged the onset of this disease during his years as PM and his privatisation policies even enabled the rise of the culture of easy money.

But the Dr Mahathir who withdrew the support for Najib last week does not understand that the money-grabbing dynamics at play is hundred fold more today than in mid-2006, when he last launched a pre-emptive strike against a sitting PM.

Today, there is a sense within Umno that every passing day brings them nearer to losing power. And, therefore, for many of the party’s leaders what is most important is securing economic security for themselves, siblings, children and other nominees.

Just a few days ago, government officials were given instructions to commence direct negotiations with a company where a key director is the son of an Umno power broker.

Why would this Umno leader want to join the Dr Mahathir camp and criticise Najib? How does upsetting the status quo become an advantage?

It is noticeable that even usually vociferous Malay leaders of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been indifferent to Dr Mahathir’s claim that Najib’s policies are leading Malaysia down a path of economic ruin and the unravelling of social cohesion.

These NGOs are recipients of the level of funding from either the government or government-friendly businessmen not seen before.

So for them, concerns about race relations or the emptying of national coffers or of Putrajaya becoming allegedly slavish to foreign governments is about as important as climate change in the North Pole.

Also working against Dr Mahathir this time around is the belief that his withdrawal of support for Najib was prompted after he was rebuffed by the PM on three issues, namely resuming the building of the crooked bridge to Singapore,  payment of RM1.7 billion to Proton and stopping further 1Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M) payments.

Not helping also is the reality that Dr Mahathir has precious few heavy hitters in his corner this time.

Even the mercurial former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin is not in the best of health.

Against this backdrop and the culture of easy money gushing through the veins of Umno politicians, it is not surprising that Putrajaya is not really perturbed about Dr Mahathir’s withdrawal of support for Najib.

The Najib camp just believes that it understands the psyche of today’s Umno much better than Dr Mahathir. – August 25, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 August 2014, 9:40 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who is ‘likely to command the confidence of the majority’?

 — Gurdial Singh Nijar

The Malay Mail Online

August 25, 2014

AUGUST 25 — The Selangor Constitution obliges the Sultan to appoint as the MB “a member of the State Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”: Article 53(2)(a).

30 of the 56 members of the Assembly have already sworn on oath a declaration that they support Dato Seri Dr Wan Azizah. This constitutes 53.5% of the members of the Assembly – a clear majority; and in any event a majority that is higher than that which led the Sultan of Perak to appoint an MB on the basis that he commanded the majority. This exercise of discretion was accepted by the Federal Court in the Perak case (Nizar v Zambry).

Secondly, PAS has also expressed its support for Dato Seri Dr Wan Azizah, although the Party also proposed an additional name. This means that Dato Seri Dr Wan has the cumulative support of 43 out of the 56 members of the Assembly — an overwhelming 77% of the majority of the members of the State Assembly.

Significantly, BN has not indicated its support for any candidate. That is, it has abstained in this exercise.

This means that Dato Seri Dr Wan Azizah has the support of a very clear majority of the members of the Assembly; with no one opposing her appointment as MB.

Where it appears abundantly patent who is likely to command the majority, the Sultan’s discretion must be exercised in favour of that person – based on the facts, the Constitution, constitutional convention (practice) and the Perak case. — Reuters pic

* Gurdial Singh Nijar is a Professor at the Law Faculty of University of Malaya.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 August 2014, 8:31 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Raising a family of true Malaysians

 – Prof Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi

The Malaysian Insider

27 August 2014

In many senses, it seems funny that Malaysians, particularly the Malays, find great difficulty in the idea of a united, harmonious and happy Malaysia. I am a Malay. All my Malay friends at UTM and other universities and all my relatives and that of my wife are… racist. If I were to invite all of them to a marriage ceremony, the number would easily reach 3,000. Based on a simple sampling of 5% of this population that I engage in socialising, I have established that they know nothing about the idea of “Malaysia”. All they know is the condition of “we just have to tolerate those immigrants and make sure they don’t make us like Singapore” mind set. I have always thought that some of my friends and relatives whom I respect as very pious Muslims would be different, but they too turn out to be racist when political issues are discussed. It came as a shock to me. I thought that Islam would be one of the answers to eliminate racism, but apparently, the “Malay-view” interpretation of Islam always take precedence. Islam is NOT the problem but its racist interpretation is. I know this for a fact because of my vast reading of Islam, thousands of hadiths and many versions of Qur’anic Tafsir.

In this Merdeka celebration, the “idea” of Malaysia seems only in a dream or in a Petronas or a DiGi commercial. The idea of Malaysia does not exist in our schools, in our public universities, at our housing and our cities. But I still remain optimistic. Why? Because my family is NOT racist. My wife who is a retired teacher is not racist. My 28-year-old lecturer daughter educated at IIUM is not racist. My 26-year-old journalist daughter educated at TAR College and Taylors University is not racist. My 23-year-old son in his third year at UCSI University is not racist. My 20-year-old SEGi University daughter is not racist. And my 18-year-old Inti University son is also not racist. How did I manage to form my own small country of “Malaysia”? There are a few simple strategies that I had developed. I will save the most important one for last.

One of the simple strategies I used was the choice of schools for my children. All of my children had gone through SOME years at a public school. When we could afford it, I sent my eldest daughter and second child for two years to an all-Malay private religious school so that they could immerse themselves in some Islamic culture. However, I was most careful to take them out after two years and put them back in the public school because I did not want them to grow up without having any Chinese or Indian friends. All my daughters’ friends who had gone through 11 years of “Islamic” education are racists. When my daughters were put in a “special Arabic” class in a public school which was a poor excuse to put all the best Malay students in one or two classes and given the best attention, I wrote to the school, much to the dismay of my wife, to take them out and put them back into a multi-racial class. I did not want my children to grow up knowing Islam as being synonymous with racism and bigotry.

For my three other children, I was able to send all of them for two or three years at private international schools, but following the national curriculum. If I had more money, I would have insisted on an international curriculum. But sending them to private schools was already a strain on our two salaries. We were both extremely happy to see the three of them playing, gossiping, going to McDonald’s and  movies with Chinese and Indian friends without any shred of racist thoughts. My two sons are not as intellectually-developed as my three daughters and the private schools did not have the best teaching staff. I even had to take my sons out for 2 months to coach them personally before their SPM. But we were both happy that our children were free from the racist and bullying issues of public school life. My children would sometimes spend the night at their non-Muslim friends’ and we always welcome their friends at ours. I made sure that our children grew up in a well-balanced society and not stuck in a Malay or Malay-Muslim centred social prison.

When the time came for my eldest to choose a college or university, I had already decided as a grand strategy for creating a new Malaysian citizenry that none of them would ever step foot in a public university like UTM, UKM, UM UPM, USM and worst of all… UiTM. Let me explain why. Firstly, I would like to go on record as saying that our public universities have the best trained academic staff to turn our children into architects, engineers and doctors, regardless of race. That Chinese students dominate the honour lists is testament to the non-racist policies of public universities in terms of academic teaching and instruction. But the racist attitudes of the Malay lecturers, professors and administrators are a different story altogether. I have 28 years of seminars, administrative meetings and socialising with academics and administrators as well as private conversations with graduating non-Malay students to testify to this fact. The university culture of students choosing group work members of the same ethnic background still persists and this was one of the things that I had wished to avoid.

However, at the public universities, I was not as concerned about racism as I was about the freedom of my children to be exposed to political consciousness. What I mean by political consciousness is not about joining DAP or PAS or Umno, but a keen awareness of the social and political issues of the day and the freedom to contribute towards solving these issues through organising clubs, societies, meets and even dialogues with political leaders of all parties. At the time my daughter was 18, I had already had 20 years of experience in the university and I knew for a fact that my children would never have the opportunities to grow politically like I had at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA. In my assessment, our public university students from undergraduates to PhD graduates are politically “dumb”. Not because they are stupid or slow thinking, but because of the academic culture that thrives on praising the “political masters”. I, in my classrooms always remind the students that Umno and BN are NOT the “political masters” of this country and that PAS or DAP are NOT “political masters” in their respective states. They are all our “political representatives”. The real political masters are you graduates in the classrooms that are over 21 years of age. I always tell the students to “take back” their country from those who seek to milk its wealth selfishly. In private conversations, it seems mine is the only class that seeks to inspire the students to be true democratic Malaysians at our faculty in UTM. You do not ever get that kind of talk from the vice chancellor, dean or head of department.

It was then to my wife’s dismay and surprise that I suggested my eldest daughter go to TAR College. My plan was to send my children to private universities and colleges away from public universities. But my eldest wanted to go to the International Islamic University. Why? Well… her boyfriend was there. If it were before 1997, I would have said okay, but the Anwar-saga left me dangling in the shredded faith of a true Malaysia by a political party that I had voted for twice before that and from a prime minister that I had once had the privilege of meeting with other student leaders in his hotel room in Chicago. But I reasoned that IIUM still had a strong Islamic spirit from its international staff that would be void of a racist flavour. And so I said yes, and so she went through an education that still had a pure spirit of non-racist Islam for 5 years. However, her political consciousness suffered because IIUM was becoming a political prison. Fortunately, I was able to light this fire of consciousness through my many discussions with her about the social and political events after 1997.

My second child had no problems accepting my idea of TAR College. Although she had enough subject distinctions to attend public universities, she did not like the Malay dress code imposed there and I supported her simply because of my political strategy. Between the two of us, we outvoted my wife. After her diploma, she spent a year at SEGi University but changed to Taylors University with a MARA partial loan. In all this time, I monitored closely all her assignments and smiled inwardly as they took on a more critical discourse of local social and political events that would have been a taboo subject matter at any local university. I noted also that Taylors University had invited Nurul Izzah Anwar for a talk a month after inviting Mahathir for a special speech. In a public university, the likes of Lim Kit Siang, Anwar Ibrahim and Mohamad Sabu would never grace the podium of a lecture hall but at Taylors perhaps they still could. If I were a rich man, I would spend every cent on educating my children overseas so that they could bloom into a whole human being conscious of social, spiritual and political issues and with the inspiration to change the world. You can’t do that at local universities, and I suspect eventually at the private universities also.

It was thus that my wife finally accepted my grand strategy of developing our children at the private universities. As a Muslim mother, my wife was very concerned that our children would grow up “wrong” Islamically because her definition of Islam was restricted to tudungs or head covers and prayers. However, after listening to religious scholars and leaders spouting racist statements and tudung-ed individuals with vileness in their hearts against other religions and races, she began to accept that though our children were not too ritualistically Islamic with the tudung and prayers, they were good-hearted individuals without a shred of racism in their hearts. This proved beyond a doubt that the religious curriculum of our country, not through the fault of Islam per se, is the most important contributor to the sustaining of racism in this country. Thus, if our children had had a “proper” religious education, they would eventually turn up racist also. I had the fortune of being transferred to a national-type Chinese school in Taiping where I chose to stop learning Islam from Form 2 onwards even though the Chinese head teacher wanted to hire a single ustaz to teach me alone. I was, therefore never indoctrinated, and being in USA for graduate and post-graduate schools, I was further away from a Malay-centric Islamic university education.

Amidst all these strategies of choosing schools and universities, I would constantly engage my children in private conversations on the simple values of human survival and what they mean for being a Malaysian. Firstly, the Prophet Muhmmad taught a non-racist Islam and that all other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism are God’s guidance to mankind to rise above petty ethno-centric concerns to rise higher than the angels in human kindness that is a key to a peaceful existence. When you stand in front of God on judgement day, you stand alone with your deeds and values, not your race or social status. Secondly, motivation gurus and western spiritualists teach us that our differences in race and religions are our strengths and not a cause for conflict. No man can live alone and so likewise no race or society can exist. A simple example would be a husband and wife. Two completely different individuals with completely two different physiological and psychological make-up have to live together to raise five to ten other individuals with different ideas and emotions. If we can accept our spouse and children’s different views and concerns, why can’t we accept other races and religious concerns? Thirdly, although man can determine many things in life, there are four things that he cannot: his time of death, a natural disaster and his fate in heaven or hell. Do not judge poorly or look down on others, for it may be the grace of God that they may be favoured more. Finally, in a democracy, you control the destiny of your children and never let any politician tell you otherwise.

In closing, I have written this anecdotal piece to politely tell Malaysians that we have serious problems in our school values and in the way our universities produce the next generation of professional Malaysians. If things do not change politically, I told my children that I will leave them with one house each, one car each and a RM20,000 start-up capital so that they can start saving to be able to educate their children in private schools with international curriculum and finally send all of them off overseas. This is the only way that they will be free from a Malay-centric Islam and a university system that thrives on producing a professional slave labour force dancing to every racist beat choreographed by irresponsible political leaders that have defiled our Parliament.

Only then can our sons and daughters return to rebuild and reignite the dreams of Datuk Seri Onn bin Jaafar and our politician forefathers of a united, harmonious and intelligent society deep in spiritual consciousness. Happy Merdeka! – August 27, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 August 2014, 3:49 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Education
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Which side are we on?

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

27 August 2014

Are Malaysians willing to stand together as Malaysians, or do we adopt a ‘tidak apa’ attitude as long as we are not affected by circumstances around us? – Reuters pic, August 27, 2014.Are Malaysians willing to stand together as Malaysians, or do we adopt a ‘tidak apa’ attitude as long as we are not affected by circumstances around us? – Reuters pic, August 27, 2014.Every morning, Malaysians awaken to a call: which side am I on?

Do we speak up for the poor, the marginalised, the bullied, the oppressed, the homeless? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and count our blessings that we are not with the disadvantaged?

Are we troubled when the law and the Constitution is treated as an inconvenience, something to be trampled on by the powerful? Or do we happily pretend that as long as we are not directly impacted, a cavalier approach to the law and principles set out by the Constitution is not on our list of concerns?

Do we discard our sloth and apathy when we hear or read about individuals or groups being punished for what is right and for standing up for a better Malaysia?

Or do we offer empty commiserations and pass off their hardship and punishment as hazards of their vocation, then continue wolfing down the nasi lemak?

Are we able to see beyond race, religion and politics and just call an injustice what it is – an injustice?

Or do we allow fellow Malaysians to suffer, to be treated poorly, to be threatened with jail-time, to have families deprived of their sole breadwinners just because they don’t share the same colour, religion or political affiliation as we do?

These are difficult days for Malaysia and Malaysians. Beneath the veneer of normalcy lies a host of problems. We are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but are full of dead men’s bones inside.

Things can only change if Malaysians move out of comfort zones and react to the question each of us is asked every morning when we wake up: which side am I on? – August 27, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 August 2014, 12:11 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Australia: MH370 may have turned south earlier than previously thought

By Jethro Mullen, CNN

August 28, 2014

(CNN) — It’s another small sliver of information in the expanse of mystery surrounding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

A failed satellite phone call suggests the missing passenger jet may have turned south slightly earlier than previously thought during its enigmatic journey, Australian authorities said Thursday.

After Flight 370 dropped off radar on March 8, Malaysia Airlines ground staff tried to make contact with the plane using a satellite phone, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said at a news conference in the Australian capital, Canberra.

The attempt was unsuccessful, he said, but subsequent analysis of the failed call has given experts a better idea of the aircraft’s position and where it was traveling.

The latest analysis of the available data has put a focus on southern parts of the search area in the Indian Ocean, Truss told reporters.

MH370 vanished with 239 people on board during a flight that was meant to go from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing. The search operation, described by Australian officials as the largest in history, has so far turned up no debris from the plane.

International aviation experts have relied on information from radar and satellites to try to plot the Boeing 777’s course, concluding that it went down in a remote part of the southern Indian Ocean, far off Australia’s west coast.

The experts are sticking to the same vast search zone announced in June, Truss said at the news conference Thursday.

But some of the information that the analysts now have suggests that areas of the zone farther to the south may be of “particular interest,” he said, noting that the focus of the search continues to be refined as experts keep reviewing the available data.

Uncertainty over location of turn

Flight 370 was last detected by radar flying northwest over the sea between Peninsular Malaysia and the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

A series of subsequent communications between satellite systems and the errant plane — known as “handshakes” — determined that at some point, MH370 turned south toward the southern Indian Ocean.

It was initially assumed that the southern turn took place at the northwestern tip of Sumatra. But the team of experts has since said there’s no conclusive evidence about where the turn to the south took place.

To calculate the current search area, they said they took two approaches to the uncertainty surrounding the turn. They analyzed the satellite data using a range of assumed locations for the turn, and also without any assumption of where the turn took place.

The final radar detection of MH370, by the Malaysian military, occurred nearly an hour after the plane had veered off its planned course. Three minutes later, a satellite handshake indicated that the plane was still traveling northwest.

The unanswered phone call took place 14 minutes after the handshake, according to information previously released by Australian authorities. Just over an hour later, a second handshake suggested that the plane had turned and was heading south or southeast.

It’s unclear from Truss’ comments Thursday how much more clarity the analysts now have on the timing and location of the turn.

The crucial question of why the aircraft flew wildly off course also remains unanswered. Without the aircraft’s wreckage and flight recorders, investigators are struggling to piece together what happened.

Undersea volcanoes

The search for the remains of the plane and the people on board remains primarily focused on a 60,000-square-kilometer area, roughly the size of West Virginia, in the southern Indian Ocean.

An underwater search that will involve three ships is expected to start in the area next month, using a range of sophisticated sonar equipment. The process is expected to take about 12 months, Truss said.

Officials hope as much searching as possible can be done in the next few months before weather conditions are likely to deteriorate, he said.

Ships have already been mapping the undersea terrain in the isolated swath of ocean to help the searchers. Much of the geography of the area was previously unknown before MH370’s disappearance drew attention there.

The mapping process has revealed dramatic new challenges for the search teams.

The “remarkable geographic features” discovered by the surveying include at least two volcanoes and an area where the seafloor drops away from a depth of 600 meters (1,970 feet) to 6,600 meters (21,650 feet) over a short distance, Truss said.

“It would not be safe to put the towed sonar equipment into the water if we didn’t have this kind of information about the seabed,” he said.

Cost of search to be shared

Truss spoke after meeting with Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai and Chinese Vice Transport Minister He Jianzhong.

Liow said at the news conference that Malaysia’s financial contributions to the search will match Australia’s commitment.

Australia has estimated a yearlong underwater search will cost $48 million.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is overseeing the underwater search at Malaysia’s request.

The majority of the people on board MH370 were Chinese.

All countries involved remain “cautiously optimistic” that the wreckage of the missing plane will be found, Truss said.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 August 2014, 11:32 pm and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


IMF chief Christine Lagarde placed under investigation in €400m fraud and corruption case

By Henry Samuel, Paris, and AFP

Telegraph

27 Aug 2014

Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund chief, has announced that she is under formal investigation in France for negligence in a multimillion-euro fraud and corruption case, but has ruled out stepping down from IMF post.

The shock announcement came after the world’s 5th most powerful woman according to Forbes was quizzed over her handling of a €405 million (£322m) state payout made to Bernard Tapie, a disgraced tycoon, in 2008 when she was France’s finance minister.

Judges at France’s Court of Justice of the Republic, a special court that probes cases of ministerial misconduct, suspect that Mr Tapie received favourable treatment in return for supporting Nicolas Sarkozy in the 2007 presidential election that he ended up winning.

Until now they had given Miss Lagarde a more neutral “special witness” status, which obliged her to return for questioning when asked by the court.

After questioning Miss Lagarde this week for a fourth time, they opted to place her under official investigation – one step short of being charged – suggesting they believe there could be sufficient evidence to send her to trial.

Charges of negligence carry a maximum sentence of a year in prison and a 15,000-euro fine.

Reacting to the shock development, Miss Lagarde, said: “I have instructed my lawyer to appeal this decision which I consider totally without merit.

“I return back to Washington where I will indeed brief my board,” she told AFP.

The scandal has threatened to expose an alleged system of cronyism at the highest level of the French state during the Sarkozy presidency.

Investigators are examining whether the decision to pay the astronomical sum was deliberately rigged in Mr Tapie’s favour. For decades, he had fought the French state through the courts, alleging that the formerly state-owned bank Crédit Lyonnais had swindled him while handling his company’s sale of the sports brand, Adidas. But Mr Sarkozy’s government decided to end the court battle and opt instead for private arbitration in 2008.

After tax and costs, Mr Tapie is thought to have personally pocketed around 200 million euros of the payout, all at the taxpayer’s expense.

The judges are seeking to gauge the extent of Miss Lagarde’s involvement in the decision of the special, three-member arbitration panel to give Mr Tapie the money. They also want to know why she failed to appeal the panel’s ruling.

Asked whether she intended to resign from the IMF, she responded: “No.”

“After three years of procedure the only surviving allegation is that through inattention I may have failed to block the arbitration that put an end to the long standing Tapie litigation,” she told AFP.

The case is politically embarrassing for France, as Miss Lagarde’s French predecessor at the helm of the IMF also got into legal hot water. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, another former French finance minister, was forced to resign in May 2011 following charges – later dropped – of attempting to rape a New York hotel maid.

Wary of further embarrassment, the Fund wrote tougher ethical guidelines into Miss Lagarde’s contract.

The IMF chief denies any wrongdoing, recently saying that she “always acted in the interest of the country and in accordance with the law”.

Five people have been charged in the case, including Stéphane Richard, then Lagarde’s chief of staff, now boss of telecoms giant Orange.

Mr Richard has consistently maintained that Miss Lagarde was fully aware of all decisions made in the case.

“She is the political authority who took all the decisions,” he reportedly told detectives. “She had all the necessary elements at her disposal to make her mind up.”

Mr Tapie, who faces charges of “organised fraud”, claims that he and Mr Sarkozy are the victims of a “plot” to destroy the former French president’s comeback.

“They tried to pin it on him. He’s the one targeted in these moves,” has said Mr Tapie – a controversial self-made businessman who once owned Olympique de Marseille football club but then served time in jail for match fixing.

Reacting to his claims, Élisabeth Guigou, the former Socialist justice minister, said: “We must get to the end of this affair to see whether French taxpayers have been despoiled. Whether or not it was orchestrated by the Elysée and by Mr Sarkozy is a legitimate question,” she added.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 August 2014, 9:04 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Our medical colleges – for better or for worse?

By Dr. Ng Swee Choon

Malaysiakini

Aug 27, 2014

COMMENT
 Medical colleges in the country have been hogging the headlines of late. Certain medical colleges have shamed us publicly and internationally for allegedly not paying staff salaries and not settling their contractual dues.

If the medical colleges involved do not feel ashamed, we Malaysians and Malaysian doctors feel the shame. It is certainly not our Malaysian culture to be known across the world for this.

Recently, there was also the irresponsible statement by Deputy Education Minister P Kamalanathan to cut down on places in public medical colleges when the problem is with private medical colleges. Private medical education is now big business.

I am writing to highlight this very important issue that medical education has now become a business, important only for the bottom line of the company owning the licence.

One of the persons interviewed, unashamedly said that it was important for his company to have a medical college, because it is good for their branding. In other words, to give their business a better name.

There seems to be no concern about helping Malaysia produce better doctors for the rakyat.

There are now 33 medical colleges of various sizes and track records. The majority are privately owned. I understand that there are licences, already issued for another seven to eight more medical colleges.

Part of this mushrooming of medical colleges is because of the often quoted statistic that we should have a doctor to patient ratio of 1:400, which is better than a first world country. This data is used to justify having more medical colleges. Let us not forget that the doctor-patient ratio is never a standalone statistic to measure healthcare standards.

We must understand the healthcare needs of the country. Just simply aping the healthcare needs of another high income economy is too simplistic. The specific healthcare needs of each country will be different.

In high-income countries, this doctor-patient ratio is relevant to different disease patterns and a healthcare expenditure nearer or in excess of 10 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). We in Malaysia, with a doctor-patient ratio of 1:800, spend only about 4.6 percent of our GDP on healthcare, but yet have similar healthcare outcomes.

Basically, we have a good healthcare system and do not need a 1:400 doctor-patient ratio. Healthcare outcomes are more important statistics than just a simple doctor-patient ratio. You get to see a doctor, but he is so poorly trained that he cannot help you. You may not be worse off than not seeing the doctor.

There is certainly no need for 33 medical colleges, many of doubtful quality, producing more than 3,500 medical graduates, many of whom are also of doubtful quality. This falling standard of the medical students is currently also affecting the standards of our public medical colleges.

What we need is four to five well-funded, well-staffed good medical colleges (preferably public institutions), together producing about 1,000 medical graduates annually, forming an annual increase of 5,000 new medical graduates (together with those returning from overseas).

The state of affairs in some medical colleges

Do any of you know the state of affairs in many of the private medical colleges in the country?

Many have few permanent, full time staff. They hire contract doctors to teach.

Some medical colleges time the arrival of these contract medical teachers to coincide with the arrival of the regular checks by the Ministry of Education/Malaysian Medical Council committee. This gives a false picture to the inspecting team. Once the inspection is over, many contract teachers are also sent back.

The students that we admit into medical colleges are also of much lower standard. Many of them do not have the linguistic and technical skills needed to be a doctor. Many are products of “spoon fed” teaching methods.

In established medical colleges around the world, medical students are not  spoon-fed. They must be able to think and work out a problem. This method is important as medical students (future doctors) must be able to work out the complexities of a patient’s sickness based on varied symptoms and signs.

The problem is that these students are unable to switch overnight from one system to another. Not to mention that many of the contract teachers themselves are from countries where “think for yourselves” is also not a strong point.

So now we have a requirement not to spoon feed and students and teachers who know nothing except the spoon-feeding method. That compounds the problem. Our secondary educational system is to blame.

So, how do medical colleges short of teaching staff fill up their time-tables? Take a look at the time-tables of many medical colleges. They have the headings “self-directed learning” and “ward work” without any guidance and any supervisor.

Some medical colleges’ time-tables for their final year of study do not even cover 50 percent of the core curriculum. When queried, the answer is, “we prefer not to spoon-feed them, we want to  let them study on their own”.

Guess where these students are? Many are anywhere except in the ward and the library. Then they might as well just mark everyday “self-directed learning” and the students just buy a thick medical textbook and study on their own. Just turn up for the exams. It will save the parents plenty of money. Is this the kind of medical colleges we want? Is this the way we want our future doctors to be taught?

Now, when medical students reach Year 3, they have to begin to learn to begin their junior clerkship. Meaning they must learn to clerk (interview ) patients to try and work out what disease the patient is suffering from.

No private college has its own hospital

None of the private medical colleges have their own hospitals! So they borrow the use of public hospitals.

Today, there are some public hospitals in Kuala Lumpur that have medical students from two or three medical colleges walking the corridors. The patients are utterly fed-up and many refuse to cooperate with the medical students.

So the medical students do not have enough patients to practise their interviewing techniques and medical examinations. The medical students also do not get enough opportunities to observe procedures and new treatment methods.

Without their own hospitals, private medical colleges cannot attract good medical specialists to teach, because medical specialists want to continue to practise their skills. So the medical specialists who teach in private medical colleges are part-timers.

A specialist who is no longer in practice, clinically, is a theory-only medical teacher, devoid of clinical relevance. All the while, medicine is progressing by leaps and bounds. My colleague in in an article in Malaysiakini called them “de-skilled”. There are many specialist teachers in private medical colleges who are de-skilled.

So now, you have poor quality students, studying under a “no spoon-feeding system” that is alien to the students. The students have to adapt overnight, by hook or by crook. The students are taught by mainly “de-skilled” medical teachers (except for a few). What do you think will be the end result?

It is important that by law, all private medical colleges must have their own privately-funded teaching hospitals to provide for service and teaching. This will allow for better clinical materials, better supervision of students and better clinical teachers.

Implications of poorly trained medical graduates?

If the medical graduates are too many and poorly trained, it will be very difficult to redress this in the housemanship years. Here, too, we see the problem of too many housemen and not enough supervisors and clinical materials. That will mean that when they are become full-fledged medical officers, they will not be prepared for independent clinical work.

So when they go to district hospitals and rural hospitals, they cannot cope and so the “play safe doctors” will refer everything (short of cough and cold) to the district hospitals and general hospitals, further clogging up the system.

The daring gung-ho ones will try on their own, giving rise to complications and in some cases, death. Currently there is a rising number of patient complaints in public hospitals. What then is the solution?

To begin with, there should be no more licences for medical schools. Those private medical colleges that are small and without adequate teaching staff should be told to merge. Either merge or close and have your students transferred to another medical college. The cost of all this will have to be borne by the colleges themselves. This is an important first step.

Laws must be passed to allow the setting up of private hospitals to be used for medical education. Of course, such laws must be properly drafted so that private hospital patients are protected. We need better trained medical students, but not at the expense of compromising private medical care. Some “carrots” may have to be given to these private medical teaching hospitals.

The relevant monitoring and enforcement agency in the Ministry of Education must keep a close watch on staffing in private medical colleges, especially their teaching staff numbers and quality.

All graduates from all medical colleges must sit for a common qualifying exam. Medical colleges whose graduates do poorly must be closely monitored and their licences reviewed.

The ministry should also hold regular meetings with student bodies and teaching staff of private medical colleges to get feedback. Parents of medical students should be advised to take a more active interest in their children’s medical education. Do not just pay the fees (which is a lot) and do not care what happens. Help the country. Help your child to be a better trained doctor.

It should be the policy of government not to allow the commercial interests of private medical colleges to override public interest. The objective of medical colleges must be to train doctors to take good care of our citizens, particularly our workforce, so that we have a healthy, good workforce to drive our economy.

To close an eye to the commercialisation of medical education will be a unmitigated disaster for the future healthcare system of Malaysia.

DR NG SWEE CHOON is a senior doctor in Selangor and he penned this out of great concern for the state of healthcare in the country.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 August 2014, 8:48 am and is filed under
Education
,
Health
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The advent of Najib’s New Despotism

The flurry of arbitrary arrests and selective prosecution of Pakatan Rakyat leaders, including  Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen, in the run-up to the 57th Merdeka celebrations on August 31, mark the advent of a new despotism in the Malaysian political landscape.

Today alone, PKR vice president and MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli and PKR MP for Padang Serai N. Surendran were in court to face criminal charges, the former for the new-fangled accusation of “defamatory and provocative” statements against Umno members under Section 504 of the Penal Code and the latter a second charge of sedition within 10 days in connection with the  Court of Appeal’s ruling that reversed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal in his second sodomy trial.

The last ten days have seen another PR MP and two State Assemblymen hauled to court with PAS MP for Shah Alam Khalid Samad and DAP Penang State Assemblyman for Seri Delima R.S.N. Rayer charged for sedition and the PAS Perak State Assemblyman for Changkat Jering Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin charged with criminal defamation of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Other PR MPs who are facing trial for sedition include DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok and PKR MP for Batu Tian Chua.

If the Barisan Nasional government gets it ways to secure not only conviction but also a disqualifying sentence of either fine of over RM2,000 or one year’s jail, it would mean five parliamentary by-elections, namely Seputeh, Batu, Pandan, Padang Serai and Shah Alam and two State Assembly by-elections, viz Seri Delima in Penang and Changkat Jering in Perak.

If we include the possibility of a by-election in Permatang Pauh if Anwar fails in his appeal at the Federal Court on October 28 and 29, then we are looking at the likelihood of six parliamentary and two state assembly by-elections as a result of the recent spate of arrests and prosecution of PR leaders.

It is the height of irony that Najib had announced in July 2012 that the Sedition Act would  be abolished as part of his National Transformation Plan to make Malaysia the “best democracy in the world” but in actual fact, Najib is setting a record in invoking the Sedition Act against  MPs and SAs, putting to shame Tun Dr. Mahathir’s 22-year “Dark Age”  as Prime Minister.

Five MPs (including Karpal Singh) and one State Assemblyman had been charged with sedition in the six-year Najib premiership while the 22-year Mahathir premiership had seen only one MP charged, jailed and disqualified as a parliamentarian – Lim Guan Eng.

Of course, Mahathir had recourse to the notorious detention-without-trial Internal Security Act but this is no excuse for the advent under the Najib premiership of a  New Despotism against democratic liberties through resort to Sedition Act and a panoply of undemocratic and repressive laws.

It is not just the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail  and Najib who must be held responsible for the New Despotism in Malaysia, but all the Cabinet Ministers and all the Barisan Nasional component parties and leaders who must either dissociate themselves from the democratic regressions or  must be held whether as principals or as having aided and abetted in the New Despotism in Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 August 2014, 4:45 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time To Sell or Liquidate Malaysia Airlines

M. Bakri Musa

28.8.2014

When I think of the many needed functions of government, owning or running an airline is not one of them. Instead, taking care of the health, welfare and security of its citizens should rank way up there.

            Once you have done an excellent job in those essential areas and still have extra time, talent or resources, then you could consider running an airline. A humble and conscientious leader would never be satisfied when it comes to serving the public, for no matter how excellent a job he may be doing there will always be room for improvement. The Finns have the finest schools yet their leaders are consumed with improving the system. That is what progress means.

            Malaysia once again contemplates pouring billions to rescue Malaysia Airlines (MAS). Apart from consuming a never-ending amount of scarce and expensive government resources, the company receives an inordinate degree of attention at the highest level of the Najib Administration. I would have preferred that those leaders be concerned with our deteriorating schools and universities, or the awful delivery of our public services. On the day of the news of the proposed MAS bailout, there was another headline on a fire at the waste dump in Klang Valley.

            Not being a vendor, customer, employee, or shareholder of MAS (that’s 95 percent of Malaysians and 99 percent of Malays), I could not care less if the formerly blue-chip company is sold or liquidated. I am however saddened that the University of Malaya is now third-rate, and falling fast. I am even more dismayed that there is no comparable bailout plan to rescue it or the education system generally.

            The future of Malaysia or Malaysians (especially Malays) does not depend on Malaysia Airlines. Nor does the fate of the company reflect adversely on the caliber or future of Malays, Malaysians, or Malaysia. Our schools and universities on the other hand do determine the future of our people and society.

            Malaysia does not need MAS to project the nation’s image abroad. Besides, the image MAS now projects is of the worse kind. Malaysia also does not need MAS to bring in tourists. The other airlines including Air Asia do a fine job at that, and at no cost to the government. Malaysians do not need MAS for their international travels. You can choose from a dozen airlines to fly from Kuala Lumpur to San Francisco. In fact MAS no longer flies to the west coast of America.

            There can only be one prudent decision on what to do with MAS now after all the repeated expensive and unsuccessful bailouts and reorganization exercises. Sell it or declare bankruptcy, with a view of total liquidation.

MAS Now But A Shell Company

            After its “successful” WAU (Widespread Asset Unbundling) manouver a decade ago, MAS today is but a shell company, burdened with tons of liabilities. Even its brand is now tarnished. That leaves only its traffic rights as assets. I reckon there would be few takers for its slots in Buenos Aires and Mexico City.

            We should not be squeamish about or be ashamed of bankruptcy; it is an integral part of business. No enterprise is guaranteed to be a success.

            Swiss Air, once dubbed the “Flying Bank” because of is solid finances, went bankrupt in 2002. Nobody would conclude negatively from that the business acumen or executive talent of Swiss managers. The more relevant lesson for Malaysia from the Swiss bankruptcy is this. The company’s entire top management was prosecuted for alleged criminal misconduct. They were found not guilty; nonetheless they were made to go through the wringer. A thought should MAS file for bankruptcy.

            Japan Airlines, another government-linked company, also filed for bankruptcy. Today it is flying high after its reorganization. The venerable Pan Am, the very icon of a once glamorous industry, too was done in; likewise all the major legacy US airlines (Delta, United, American). Neither Japanese nor American pride was dented. Life (and business) goes on.

            Malaysians need an airline, a safe and reliable one without regard as to who owns or runs it. If MAS is liquidated, other airlines would fill in the void. That is the law of the marketplace. Government intervention would only distort this reality, and then only for so long. Despite Air India, also a GLC, Emirate Airlines is the de facto official airline of India.

            Instead of spending the one and a half billion ringgit buying the rest of MAS shares, and many billions more to “rehabilitate” the airline, Khazanah should sell the company and use the resources to enter a new line of business, such as private education and healthcare. There is certainly a great need for both not only in Malaysia but also the region.

            If I were running Khazanah, I would direct MAS management to settle quickly with its insurers over the loss of its two planes, and distribute the proceeds as dividends and then promptly declare the airline bankrupt. That way it would have recouped part of its bad investment.

            American Airlines posted its biggest quarterly “profits” from the insurance settlement of its DC 10 that crashed on take-off from O’Hare in 1979. However with MAS today, thanks to that “brilliant” WAU scheme, both planes were probably owned by another company with MAS leasing both back. So the insurance payments would go to that company instead of MAS!

            In a statement referring to the proposed MAS reorganization Najib said, “Only through a complete overhaul of the company can we deliver a genuinely strong and sustainable national carrier.” He went on to say that renewal involves painful steps and sacrifices from all parties.

            What Malaysia needs desperately is for Najib to overhaul his administration. Getting rid of MAS would be a great first step in that direction. Unfortunately Najib is incapable of undertaking that. He just does not have what it takes to lead the nation.

            Najib’s leadership, like MAS shares, is penny stock quality. MAS is an apt metaphor for Najib, except that Najib was never blue chip to begin with.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 August 2014, 8:33 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

Alastair Crooke

Huffington Post

08/27/2014

BEIRUT — The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed — and horrified — by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia’s ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, “Don’t the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?”

It appears — even now — that Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite “fire” with Sunni “fire”; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da’ish’s strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan — please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da’ish (ISIS) — and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia’s direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia’s internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised “the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.”

In Abd al-Wahhab’s view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their “superstition” (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida — forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad’s stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the “best of times”), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi’ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that “any doubt or hesitation” on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should “deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life.”

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

“Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. ”

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s doctrine of “One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque” — these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of “the word” (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift — the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests — makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

“Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. ”

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman’s behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud — in this 20th century renaissance — were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi “Ikhwan” in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab’s and Ibn Saud’s earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist “moralists” who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary “Jacobinism” exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted — leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da’wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King’s absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life — and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

“On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.”

But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system — hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a “post-Medina” movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis’ claim of authority to rule.

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal’s modernization campaign). The “Ikhwan approach” enjoyed — and still enjoys — the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS’ undermining of the legitimacy of the King’s legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba’athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised — knowing a little about Wahhabism — that “moderate” insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 August 2014, 10:23 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


AG should resign or be replaced if he cannot discharge his  duty of public accountability to explain  whether he has been guilty of selective and malicious prosecution in recent slew of charges against PR MPs and Assemblymen

Although the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail is vested with the  sole discretion under Article 145 of the Malaysian Constitution “to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence” , he owes the Malaysian people a duty of public accountability to explain  whether he has been guilty of selective and malicious prosecution in the recent slew of arrests and charges against Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen.

The new-fangled charge against the PKR Vice President Rafizi Ramli yesterday, for example, was just incredulous and most extraordinary.

Rafizi is charged under Section 504 of the Penal Code on “Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace” which states: “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both”.

Rafizi was accused of issuing “defamatory and provocative statements” against Umno members through a statement he made in February, linking Umno with an incident where a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a church.

There have been legion cases of DAP, PKR and PAS members being “defamed” and “provoked” by UMNO/BN leaders and spokespersons, particularly since the 12th General Elections in 2008,  but have anyone been arrested and prosecuted in the past six years under Section 504 of the Penal Code, which could lead to the disqualification of a sitting Member of Parliament or State Assemblyperson, resulting in by-elections?

Absolutely none. Why then has this new-fangled charge been trotted out against Rafizi which could lead to his disqualification as MP for Pandan followed by a parliamentary by-election?

Why  is the Attorney-General sliding down this slippery slope of malicious and selective prosecution which can only undermine public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice in Malaysia?

Going by Rafizi’s prosecution, there would have been umpteenth persons in various echelons of the Umno/BN leadership who should be hauled to court under Section 504 of the Penal Code for “intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace”, criminal defamation and even sedition!

One of them would be former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir who  made the highly provocative and defamatory allegation in the last general elections that

(i)  I contested in Gelang Patah parliamentary constituency to cause a confrontation between the Malays and Chinese in Johore as I wanted the Chinese in Johore “to dislike and hate the Malays”; and

(ii)  DAP rejected the concept of Malay/Chinese/Indian power-sharing as the Chinese want to oust the political power of the Malays.

What about the highly provocative and defamatory allegations by UMNO leaders, publications (especially Utusan Malaysia) and cybertroopers spreading lies, falsehoods and character-assassination against DAP and DAP leaders,  including the dastardly lies that the DAP wants to form a Christian state, abolish the system of constitutional Monarchy and that the DAP is anti-Malay and anti-Islam?

The latest example of a clear violation of Section 504 of the Penal Code will be the provocative and defamatory speech by the Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamad Hassan at the Rembau Umno division meeting on Sunday making the utterly baseless allegation that Pakatan Rakyat intends to invite Singapore to rejoin Malaysia if it wins control of the Federal Government, giving the “guarantee” that “three days after the opposition forms the Federal Government, it will have its first cabinet meeting, where the main agenda will be the reunion of Singapore with Malaysia”.

It does not speak much for the intelligence,  general knowledge or respect for truth of the Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar when he could go on to state, as reported by the news portal Free Malaysia Today on August 26:

“This won’t need any amendment to the Federal Constitution. It needs only the approval of the Federal Cabinet, the way Tunku Abdul Rahman threw Singapore out.”

He said one of the consequences of the reunion would be the addition of 89 seats to the Malaysian Parliament.

“All those 89 seats would be non-Malay seats,” he added.

“So before this happens, let’s work hard and ensure that Umno remains in power so that the dignity of the Malays is protected.”

I just cannot believe that the Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar could talk be so irresponsible as to spout such garbage and indulge in callous race-baiting, lies and falsehoods  betraying his abysmal  ignorance about the nation’s constitution and the laws, for any change to the territory of the country needs a constitutional amendment.

Will the Attorney-General prosecute Mohamad Hassan under Section 504 of the Penal Code for the offence of “Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace” because of his defamatory and provocative statements likely to cause the ire of Pakatan Rakyat members from DAP, PKR and PAS?

I am not suggesting that the Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar should be prosecuted but want the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to discharge his duty of public accountability to explain whether he has been guilty of selective and malicious prosecution in the recent slew of charges against PR MPs and Assemblymen.

The Home Minister,  Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was being completely evasive when he said that the responsibility for the  recent slew of sedition charges against the opposition lies solely with the Attorney-General’s Chambers and not with  the police and the Home Ministry, which only investigate all cases and passed them to the prosecutors.

How can the Home Minister or any Cabinet  Minister for that matter or any Barisan Nasional component party disclaim responsibility for the New Despotism which has descended under the Najib premiership marked by selective and malicious prosecution of Pakatan Rakyat MPs and State Assemblymen, where the Sedition Act and a whole panoply of laws are being abused to give new-fangled interpretations to stifle dissent and suppress democratic freedoms?

Let Najib, all Cabinet Ministers and Barisan Nasional component parties and leaders stand up and be counted, whether they are prepared to speak out to denounce the New Despotism in the country, which a great setback for democratization in Malaysia, and to demand a full and satisfactory response by the Attorney-General to the charge of selective and malicious prosecution of Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

If Gani Patail cannot discharge his  duty of public accountability to explain  whether he has been guilty of selective and malicious prosecution in the  recent slew of charges against PR MPs and Assemblymen, he should resign or be replaced.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 August 2014, 1:51 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
Crime
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Can Saudi Arabia help combat the Islamic State?

David Ignatius

Washington Post

August 28 2014

With Iraq and Syria ablaze, the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia seems almost an afterthought. But Riyadh will be a crucial, if quixotic, ally as the United States seeks to mobilize Sunni Muslims against the terrorist Islamic State.

The kingdom’s many critics argue that Saudi Arabia itself helped spread the toxic virus by bankrolling Islamist rebels and their extremist Salafist Muslim ideology. As if to insulate itself from such criticism, the kingdom recently donated $100 million to a new U.N. counterterrorism center, and its senior religious leader, the grand mufti, declared the Islamic State and its al-Qaeda forebear “enemy No. 1 of Islam.”

Complicating Saudi Arabia’s pivotal role in containing regional instability is the fact that generational change is slowly coming in the kingdom. The stakes for the United States in this leadership transition are large, and the outcome is hard to predict.

King Abdullah remains in power, a generally popular and respected monarch. But at 90, his energy and attention span are limited. Tensions have surfaced at several Saudi ministries over the last year, suggesting a jockeying for power.

For a generation, Americans and Saudis have worried that the kingdom was a potential tinderbox, with Muslim and secular extremists vying to undermine the conservative monarchy. If anything, the kingdom seems slightly more stable now than a decade ago — but Sunni and Shiite extremists, otherwise deadly adversaries, share a common dream of toppling the House of Saud.

The inner workings of the royal family remain all but impenetrable to outsiders. The senior princes are slow-moving, self-protective and resistant to foreign counsel — traits that invite speculation about what’s happening behind the palace walls. But whatever their internal disagreements, the sons and grandsons of King Abdul Aziz, the kingdom’s modern founder, have been able to maintain the family consensus necessary to preserve their rule.

U.S. and Arab experts describe a kingdom that is worried about three dangers: the rise of Iran and its Shiite Muslim allies; the resurgence of Sunni extremism embodied by the Islamic State; and the reliability of the United States, the kingdom’s protector, which is seen by many Saudis as a superpower in retreat.

The unsettled situation is illustrated by the mercurial Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He was ousted as intelligence chief last April, then rehabilitated this summer with the honorific title of chairman of the national security council. The outcome is probably a net gain for Saudi stability: Khaled bin Bandar bin Abdul Aziz, the new chief of the spy service, is seen as a more reliable and professional operator; he works well with Prince Mohammed bin Naif, the interior minister who is trusted by the United States.

The new spy chief and the interior minister, accompanied by Bandar and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, traveled to Qatar this week, presenting a common front to a regional rival that has often bedeviled Saudi and U.S. policy.

One question mark has been Crown Prince Salman, 78, the defense minister, who is reportedly in poor health. Speculation about succession was fueled by the appointment of Prince Muqrin as deputy crown prince last March. Meanwhile, Salman has struggled to run the defense ministry. Since assuming that post in November 2011, he has had four deputies, including two sons of his predecessor, Prince Sultan.

The wild card in the Saudi deck is Bandar, the flamboyant former ambassador to Washington. When he was head of Saudi intelligence and paymaster to Saudi allies in Syria and Lebanon, he was an unpredictable — and in Washington’s eyes, sometimes untrustworthy — operator.

Some Americans feared Bandar’s covert efforts in the Syrian civil war were unintentionally spawning al-Qaeda terrorists. U.S. officials were relieved when Bandar was removed as steward of the Syrian opposition.

It has been Saudi Arabia’s recurring nightmare to fight external enemies by encouraging Sunni movements that turn extremist and threaten the kingdom itself. This happened in the 1980s, when the Saudis joined the CIA in sponsoring the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The devout Muslim fighters drove out Soviet troops but evolved into the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The Saudis must worry that a similar process has happened again. Some of the Sunni fighters they backed against Iran have drifted toward the Islamic State. The Saudis didn’t intend the ensuing disaster, but they must now deal with it.

Western analysts credit Mohammed bin Naif and Khaled bin Bandar for seeking to build more competent, professional security services at Interior and Intelligence. They’ll need that skill, and luck, too. For Saudi Arabia, big challenges lie just over the horizon.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 August 2014, 8:51 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP lawmaker accuses A-G of selective prosecution in sedition charge

BY V. ANBALAGAN, ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

The Malaysian Insider

29 August 2014

Seputeh MP Teresa Kok wants to transfer her sedition charge from the Sessions Court to the High Court in a bid to expose what she says is selective prosecution by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

The DAP national vice-chairman said in an application to transfer her case that Gani refused to frame charges against racists and extremists who threatened public order, ridiculed other races and those from minority religions to create disharmony and riots.

She said the High Court was the appropriate forum to investigate that the charge against her amounted to selective prosecution.

She also said the matter could only be brought to the Federal Court if her trial started in the High Court.

“There are many delicate legal questions that will be raised because the A-G’s discretionary powers superseded a citizen’s right to equal protection under the law,” said Kok in the affidavit sighted by The Malaysian Insider.

Sessions judge Norsharidah Awang will hear the application to transfer the case on September 18.

In her affidavit filed on August 22, Kok listed out examples where Gani had abused his discretionary powers as provided under the Federal Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code.

* A group slaughtered a chicken and offered a reward to those who could slap her when they protested against her video, “Onederful Malaysia” but Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had said there was no necessity to investigate the protest.

* Umno mouthpiece Utusan Malaysia asked “What more do the Chinese want?” (Apa lagi Cina mau?) after Barisan Nasional’s poor showing in the 13th general election last year. BN claimed the Chinese and urban voters supported the opposition when it increased its parliamentary seats from 82 to 89.

* A website had reported early last year that Malay right-wing group Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali had called for the Alkitab to be burnt.

* Sinar Harian carried an article (Kesbaran umat Islam ada had) by Ridhuan Tee Abdullah early last year that insulted Indians.

* Kok also raised the video clip of Datuk Zulkifli Nordin (where he had asked why Hindu gods did not stop flood) reported by The Malaysian Insider in March last year.

* The movie “Tanda Putera”, where its director, Suhaimi Baba, had insinuated that the Chinese were responsible for the May 13 (1969) racial riots in Kuala Lumpur.

* Kok also pointed to the racial criticism by Nasir Safar against the Chinese and Indians at a 1Malaysia course, which was reported by The Malaysian Insider, on June 28, 2010. Nasir was Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s former aide.

Kok said no one was charged with sedition in the above incidents but in recent days, there were a slew of sedition charges against opposition leaders.

On Monday, former Perak menteri besar and Changkat Jering assemblyman Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin was charged with criminal defamation and this was followed by Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad being charged with sedition in Kuala Lumpur.

Seri Delima assemblyman R.S.N. Rayer was slapped with two sedition charges over his “Umno celaka” remark in Penang, while PKR vice-presidents N. Surendran and Rafizi Ramli were yesterday charged with their second sedition charges.

Another PKR vice-president and Batu MP Tian Chua is facing two sedition charges while Seri Setia assemblyman and PKR Youth chief Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is facing a fresh charge for organising the 505 Black Rally under the Peaceful Assembly Act.

All risk being disqualified from public office if conviction and sentence is confirmed.

Kok said all these happened despite a promise by Najib on July 11, 2012 to repeal the archaic law and his deputy, Tan Sri Muhyhiddin Yassin, said the following day that it was not an empty promise by the prime minister.

She said Najib reiterated his earlier stand during an interview with the BBC’s World News on July 2 last year to abolish the law.

“As a result of statements made by the two leaders, the public had the legitimate expectation that the sedition law will be removed from the statute book,” she added.

“As such, logically and legitimately, Gani should have placed a moratorium on any further charges under the Sedition Act.”

On May 6, Kok pleaded not guilty to the offence for her controversial Chinese New Year video (“Onederful Malaysia”) in which she allegedly insulted Muslims and the nation’s leaders earlier this year.

Although she had clarified that her video was a satire of Malaysian political life, Kok received a barrage of insults and more than 300 police reports were lodged against her. –  August 29, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 August 2014, 10:51 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
Law & Order
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.