What do Arabs Want?

Mansoor Moaddel

www.project-syndicate.org

2012-01-04

CAIRO – The self-immolation a year ago of Tunisian street vendor Mohammed Bouazizi triggered a wave of popular protests that spread across the Arab world, forcing out dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Now, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, too, seems near the end of his rule.

Together, these movements for change have come to be known as the Arab Spring. But what values are driving these movements, and what kind of change do their adherents want? A series of surveys in the Arab world last summer highlights some significant shifts in public opinion.

In surveys, 84% of Egyptians and 66% of Lebanese regarded democracy and economic prosperity as the Arab Spring’s goal. In both countries, only about 9% believed that these movements aimed to establish an Islamic government.

For Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, where trend data are available, the Arab Spring reflected a significant shift in people’s values concerning national identity. In 2001, only 8% of Egyptians defined themselves as Egyptians above all, while 81% defined themselves as Muslims. In 2007, the results were roughly the same.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, however, these numbers changed dramatically: those defining themselves as Egyptians rose to 50%, 2% more than those who defined themselves as Muslims.  Among Iraqis, primary self-identification in national terms jumped from 23% of respondents in 2004 to 57% in 2011. Among Saudis, the figure jumped from 17% in 2003 to 46% in 2011, while the share of those claiming a primary Muslim identity dropped from 75% to 44%.

There has also been a shift toward secular politics and weakening support for sharia (Islamic religious law).
 Among Iraqis, the percentage of those who agreed that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated increased from 50% in 2004 to almost 70% in 2011. Similar data are not available for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but both countries show a decline in support for sharia. In Egypt, those considering it “very important” for government to implement sharia declined from 48% in 2001 to 28% in 2011. For Saudis, the figure fell from 69% in 2003 to 31% in 2011.

Finally, an analysis of a nationally representative sample of 3,500 Egyptian adults, who rated their participation in the anti-Mubarak movement, showed that participants were more likely to be younger single males with higher socioeconomic status, users of the Internet, newspaper readers, urban residents, and believers in modern values and free will. They did not mind having Americans, British, or French as neighbors. Religiosity did not predict participation, while religious intolerance reduced participation.

These figures seem at odds with the results of Egypt’s recent parliamentary election, in which the Muslim Brothers and the Salafi fundamentalists together gained about 65% of the popular vote. It remains true that religion is an important factor for Egyptian voters, as 66% of those surveyed “strongly agree” or “agree” that it would be better if people with strong religious belief held public office; and 57% consider a government’s implementation of sharia “very important” or “important.” Nonetheless, nationalism trumps religion. Fully 78% agreed with the statement that it would be better if more people with a strong commitment to national interests rather than with strong religious views held public office.

How, then, to explain the inconsistency between the survey data and Egypt’s election results? First, the fundamentalists benefited from years of political organizing and activism, and thus were better able to mobilize their supporters, whereas the liberals, who led the uprising against the former regime, lacked nationwide organization and had little time to translate their newly acquired political capital into votes.

Second, the liberals’ priorities were misplaced. Instead of pushing their agenda forward among Egyptians, they focused on the wrong enemy, spending invaluable time organizing rallies against the army.

Finally, the election outcome is not as bad as it appears. Liberalism has been under continuous attack for decades from religious extremists and religious institutions, and liberal organizations were stifled by oppressive rules. If the Mubarak regime had fallen under the banner of political Islam, Muslim fundamentalists would have been in a much better position to advance more exclusivist claims over the revolution and the country.

But it was the liberals who delivered Egypt from authoritarianism. This, in turn, brought legitimacy to liberalism and generated the powerful feeling of nationalist awareness among Egyptians. As a result, support for sharia declined and national identity soared. Insofar as political discourse is focused on national rebuilding and freedom, Islamic fundamentalists, in Egypt and elsewhere, will face an uphill battle.

Mansour Moaddel is Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, and has been the principle investigator of several cross-national values surveys carried out in the Middle East between 2001 and 2011.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 January 2012, 11:08 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Wire Up, or Miss Out on Tomorrow’s Jobs

Thomas L. Friedman | January 05, 2012

The Jakarta Globe

Two things struck me about the Republican presidential candidate debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. One is how entertaining they were. The other is how disconnected they were from the biggest trends shaping the job market of the 21st century. What if the 2012 campaign were actually about the world in which we’re living and how we adapt to it? What would the candidates be talking about?

Surely at or near the top of that list would be the tightening merger between globalization and the latest information technology revolution. The IT revolution is giving individuals more and more cheap tools of innovation, collaboration and creativity — thanks to hand-held computers, social networks and “the cloud,” which stores powerful applications that anyone can download.

And the globalization side of this revolution is integrating more and more of these empowered people into ecosystems, where they can innovate and manufacture more products and services that make people’s lives more healthy, educated, entertained, productive and comfortable.

The best of these ecosystems will be cities and towns that combine a university, an educated populace, a dynamic business community and the fastest broadband connections on earth. These will be the job factories of the future. The countries that thrive will be those that build more of these towns that make possible “high-performance knowledge exchange and generation,” explains Blair Levin, who runs the Aspen Institute’s Gig.U project, a consortium of 37 university communities working to promote private investment in next-generation ecosystems.

Historians have noted that economic clusters always required access to abundant strategic inputs for success, Levin says. In the 1800s, it was access to abundant flowing water and raw materials. In the 1900s, it was access to abundant electricity and transportation. In the 2000s, he says, “it will be access to abundant bandwidth and abundant human intellectual capital” — places like Silicon Valley, Austin, Boulder, Cambridge and Ann Arbor.

But we need many more of these. As the world gets wired together through the Web and social networks, and as more and more sensors run machines that are talking to other machines across the Internet, we are witnessing the emergence of “Big Data.” These are the mountains of data coming out of all these digital interactions, which can then be collected, sifted, mined and analyzed — like raw materials of old — to provide the raw material for new inventions in health care, education, manufacturing and retailing.

“We’re all aware of the approximately two billion people now on the Internet — in every part of the planet, thanks to the explosion of mobile technology,” IBM chairman Samuel Palmisano said in a speech in September. “But there are also upward of a trillion interconnected and intelligent objects and organisms — what some call the Internet of Things. All of this is generating vast stores of information. It is estimated that there will be 44 times as much data and content coming over the next decade … reaching 35 zettabytes in 2020. A zettabyte is a 1 followed by 21 zeros. And thanks to advanced computation and analytics, we can now make sense of that data in something like real time.”

The more information and trends you are able to mine and analyze, and the more talented human capital, bandwidth and computing power you apply to that data, the more innovation you’ll get.

When eight doctors from around the world can look at the same MRI in real time, said Levin, it enables the acceleration of small breakthroughs, which is where big breakthroughs eventually come from. Big bandwidth, he added, would enable these same doctors doing high-risk surgery to practice the life-saving procedures in advance over network-enabled simulators, leading to better results, new kinds of surgical innovations and new forms of medical education. Big bandwidth, combined with 3-D printers, would also allow for the rapid prototyping of all kinds of manufactured products that can then be made anywhere.

Right now, though, notes Levin, America is focused too much on getting “average” bandwidth to the last 5 percent of the country in rural areas, rather than getting “ultra-high-speed” bandwidth to the top 5 percent, in university towns, who will invent the future. By the end of 2012, he adds, South Korea intends to connect every home to the Internet at one gigabit per second. “That would be a 10-fold increase from the already blazing national standard, and more than 200 times as fast as the average household setup in the United States,” The New York Times reported in February.

Therefore, the critical questions for America today have to be how we deploy more ultra-high-speed networks and applications in university towns to invent more high-value-added services and manufactured goods and how we educate more workers to do these jobs — the only way we can maintain a middle class.

I don’t remember any candidate being asked in those entertaining GOP debates: “How do you think smart cities can become the job engines of the future, and what is your plan to ensure that America has a strategic bandwidth advantage?”

Thomas L. Friedman is a New York Times columnist.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 January 2012, 10:42 pm and is filed under
Articles
,
IT
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A silent gathering?

— Othman Wahab

The Malaysian Insider

Jan 07, 2012

JAN 7 — Oh no, not again. In the run-up to Bersih 2.0, the Najib administration agreed to allow the demonstrators to use a stadium and then withdrew the offer after being worried that calls for free elections could lead to the overthrow of the BN government.

After Prime Minister Najib Razak realised that his handling had been an unmitigated disaster, the government gave half-hearted and lame excuses about how its offer of the Shah Alam Stadium was not accepted by Bersih 2.0 organisers.

The BN government looked weak and devoid of courage. It appeared yesterday morning that the lesson of Bersih 2.0 had been learnt when the police agreed to allow the opposition to gather near the High Court in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur on January 9 to show solidarity with Anwar Ibrahim who is facing jail time for a sodomy charge.

Fantastic, I thought, finally the government and its agents showing maturity instead of behaving fearfully in the face of legitimate democratic expression.

PKR said it was willing to guarantee that no untoward incident would happen and everything seemed okay.

And then last night, the police exhibited that they still are determined to earn the scorn of Malaysians as well as stay in the dark ages. They imposed conditions on the organisers of Monday’s gathering, saying that there can’t be any speeches, no holding of placards or banners.

And no noise. Yes, that’s right. The police ruled that the gathering must not make noise.

Don’t talk, don’t deliver speeches, don’t hold up any banners. Given the interval between the police agreeing to the gathering and the imposition of conditions, I can only guess that the KL police chief got a call from upstairs. These set of conditions also makes nonsense of the claim by the Najib administration that the passing of the Peaceful Assembly Bill removes impediments to public gatherings and is a sign of a mature democracy.

Any legislation is only as good as the intent of the government of the day and the ability of government institutions to understand that Malaysians are not stupid.

Can you imagine? A gathering without noise.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 January 2012, 1:15 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN to suffer no matter the verdict in Anwar’s trial, says Straits Times

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Jan 07, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 7 — The ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) will come under attack whether or not Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is found guilty in Monday’s verdict in the opposition leader’s two-year-long sodomy trial, according to the Singapore Straits Times.

The Singapore daily said in an analysis today that whatever the High Court’s decision, “there is likely to be some blowback for the Najib administration.”

The analysis said if the PKR de facto leader is found guilty and therefore disqualified as a candidate in the elections, “the question then would be whether the judge denies bail pending an appeal, depriving the opposition of its most charismatic campaigner in the poll run-up.”

It added if he is acquitted, “attacks against the government could be blunted” but “Anwar’s supporters, who have maintained that there should never have been a trial to begin with, could claim vindication, setting off more discontent.”

“How the trial outcome will impact public opinion will determine the election timing. We are hoping for the best from a set of not-so-pretty scenarios,” the Straits Times quoted a senior Umno official it says is close to the prime minister.

It also quoted Ibrahim Suffian, programme director of opinion pollster Merdeka Center, as saying that “the Anwar issue is just one of many poles of dissent confronting the nation.”

“So, no matter how this trial goes there will be a knock-on effect that is bound to hurt sentiment towards the government,” he said.

Anwar is charged with sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 28, 2008, an allegation he says is a conspiracy to end his political career.

The former deputy prime minister was freed from jail in 2004 after the Federal Court overturned a previous sodomy conviction, allowing him to lead a loose opposition alliance in the landmark 2008 election that denied BN its customary two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Straits Times wrote today that the conduct of the trial has raised many questions from Malaysians.

“Pro-government commentators have consistently taken issue with Anwar’s refusal to take the stand or be cross-examined.

“The prosecution has received its share of criticism too. Its introduction of conflicting testimonies from doctors, who examined Anwar’s accuser for sexual abuse, and the handling of DNA samples by investigators have been roundly ridiculed,” the analysis said.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 January 2012, 11:32 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Second Anwar sodomy case ‘flimsier’, WSJ says

by Melissa Chi

The Malaysian Insider

Jan 07, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 7 — In urging President Barack Obama to take a stand in democracy in the Muslim world, The Wall Street Journal today called Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy case “flimsier” than the first.

In its editorial piece, the US daily said Malaysian democracy could benefit from a sign that the US is not indifferent to Anwar’s legal ordeal or to the political system that has allowed it to continue. US interests could benefit as well, it said.

“The current case is even flimsier than the last one. It is based mainly on the word of one accuser who, as it so happened, had met with then-deputy prime minister, now Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak days before the alleged incident.

“Doctors at two hospitals could find no evidence of rape in the aftermath of the alleged incident. Nonetheless, political observers anticipate a guilty verdict,” WSJ said today.

The verdict of Anwar’s trial will be delivered on Monday with a potential sentence involving years of jail time on sodomy charges.

If found guilty, Anwar could spend up to 20 years behind bars but will escape the caning penalty as he is over 60. It would effectively spell the end of his political career and his chance to be prime minister.

The former deputy prime minister first went through “this charade” in the late 1990s, when he fell out with then-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad during the Asian financial crisis, was “savagely beaten” by police and ultimately sentenced to prison on sodomy and corruption charges.

Anwar spent six years in prison before the sodomy charges were overturned by the country’s highest court in 2004, a year after Dr Mahathir had left office.

He was again served with sodomy charges four years later after Umno lost its two-thirds majority in a general election and the opposition seemed close to assembling a parliamentary majority.

“This is happening in the context of growing discontent among Malaysians with Umno’s ruling order, and Mr. Najib’s ambivalent attempts at political reform. But if that’s reminiscent of the unhappiness that presaged the Arab Spring, so too is the don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of the Obama Administration,” WSJ said today.

The paper pointed out that Malaysia is supposedly a moderate Muslim country and a useful regional counterweight to China.

“Failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense,” WSJ quoted Obama as saying, in May.

“Mr. Anwar’s case gives the President a chance to show that he meant what he said,” WSJ said today.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 January 2012, 2:03 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Shah Alam Declaration

WE, the national delegates of the Democratic Action Party, assembled here at the National Conference in Shah Alam, Selangor, on 8th January 2012, hereby reaffirm the principles of the DAP and so duly commit to lead the way in effecting much-needed change in the form of democratisation and economic well being in order to achieve the Malaysian Dream of a more prosperous, democratic and dignified Malaysia.

We convey our highest salutations and heartiest congratulations to the Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah on his proclamation as the 14th Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Malaysian Federation. May his sovereign reign encourage and foster the spirit of democracy and human rights amongst his loyal subjects. Daulat Tuanku!

On the cusp of change

All around the world, change is happening with a ferocity unseen since the end of the Cold War.  People in every corner of the globe, from Tahrir Square to Wall Street, are rising in unprecedented numbers. Formerly passive societies have suddenly discovered newfound courage to stand up and reclaim their dignity.

Dignity is the new keyword that has catalysed the global movement for change. Social and economic inequality, spiralling debt and unemployment, elites enriching themselves at the expense of the ordinary citizen, these are all common pictures across the world today.

Malaysia experienced a watershed moment of her own, when on the 9th of July 2011, Malaysians from all walks of life rose in unison to demand their rights for clean, free and fair elections. Young and old, from various parts of the country, tens of thousands of Malaysians flooded the streets of Kuala Lumpur in spite of the heavy-handed tactics of the authorities.

Like their counterparts in the Middle East, North Africa, America and Europe, Malaysians stood up because they could no longer accept having their dignity robbed day in and day out by leaders that sought only to enrich themselves.

As a nation blessed with natural resources, adequate infrastructure, a relatively young population and respectable levels of literacy and education, Malaysia has so much potential. Yet we are saddened each day to hear stories of corruption, outflow of illicit funds, a stagnating economy and a general decline in quality of life.

Today, Malaysia is on the cusp of change. In partnership with our friends in Pakatan Rakyat, DAP humbly offers itself as the agent of change for all Malaysians in an agenda that will place us on the path to achieving the Malaysian Dream.

Economic Solidarity

In a global environment of rising inflation, high unemployment and spiralling indebtedness, the situation in Malaysia is not getting any better. To put matters into perspective, the bottom 60% of our population have an average household income of less than RM3,000 a month, while the bottom 40%  live on less than RM1,500 a month.

More worryingly, Bank Negara’s Annual Report 2010 revealed that Malaysia’s household debt at the end of 2010 was RM 581 billion or 76 per cent of GDP, thus giving us the dubious honour of having the second-highest level of household debt in Asia, after South Korea.

In addition, the Malaysian household debt service ratio stood at 47.8 per cent in 2010, meaning that nearly half of the average family’s income goes to repaying debts. As a rule, banks would not lend money to those whose total servicing of interest exceeded one third of their income. In other words, we are spiralling into an indebted nation.

There does not seem to be a way out as income has also stagnated in the last 10 years. This has resulted in a dire situation whereby the bottom 40 per cent of our population earns only 14.3 per cent of the total income while the top 20 per cent shares 50 per cent of the total income.

To make matters worse, federal debt has now touched RM456 billion as at the end of last year while our debt-to-GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio has nearly reached the national debt ceiling of 55%.

In this context, we must look towards a new paradigm. The Barisan Nasional Government’s attempts at addressing this economic imbalance through pump-priming economics and acronym-filled programmes such as the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), Government Transformation Programme (GTP), National Key Economic Areas (NKEA) and so on unfortunately does not make any significant difference.

It is therefore time to introduce the concept of economic solidarity. By this we mean solidarity between the rich and the poor, between the urban and the rural, between the strong and the weak. Ultimately, our aim must be to build a society that empowers its people, especially the bottom 60% that really need it.

More than anything, we need to ensure economic survival and create economic solidarity through:

Implementing minimum wage.

Indexing minimum wage to the rate of inflation.

Fostering female participation in the work force.

Reducing reliance on unskilled foreign labour.

Moving up the value chain in automation and technology.

Addressing corruption and leakages through the CAT (Competency, Accountability, Transparency) Governance model.

Observing rule of law.

Upholding the legitimate rights of workers.

We also need to address the weaknesses inherent in the current system that is characterised by corruption, crony capitalism and monopolies. As the situation stands, Malaysia is the only rice-producing country that has privatised rice production and worse, consolidated it into a monopoly under a single crony capitalist company. As a result, while Thailand and Indonesia are self-sufficient, we are dependent on imported rice for one third of our consumption. And because of the monopoly, we are paying more for imported rice than even Singapore.

Another example of crony capitalism is the lop-sided Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) signed between Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) and the politically-linked Independent Power Producers (IPP). As a result, we have amassed high levels of electricity reserve margins because TNB is forced to buy electricity it doesn’t need. This extra burden on TNB is then passed on to the people in the form of electricity tariff increases.

The consistent pattern of our crony economy is the fact that well-connected cronies are fast enriching themselves at the expense of the people. This is also evident in the highway toll concession agreements that have been made between the Government and politically-connected toll operators, which allow them to increase their toll periodically over extended concession periods, despite the fact that most of them have already recouped vast profits far surpassing their investment outlays.

It is time that we replace this crony capitalistic economy with a “People’s Economy” that will focus on increasing disposable income and improving the basic foundations of skills, technology and productivity.

Economic Prosperity

More than forty years ago, Malaysia was regarded as a wealthy country, what with all the natural resources we have been blessed with. Then, our GDP per capita was USD350 while South Korea trailed at USD130. Today, South Korea’s GDP per capita stands at around USD20,000 while we are languishing behind at around USD7,000. Forty years ago, the average Malaysian was three times richer than the average South Korean. Today, they are three times richer than us.

What happened in the last four decades? Why have we stagnated while countries that were previously inferior economically have now overtaken and far surpassed us? This has happened because human talent was not valued and maximised, freedom of opportunity was not encouraged and a system was fostered that rewards know-who rather than know-how. Merit and excellence became secondary to political connections.

Hence, we now need to rebuild our economy to achieve prosperity based on innovation and the ability to create and adapt to new and relevant ecosystems. For example, today is the age of the information superhighway. In order for us to prosper we will need to build internet-related industries and skills that are relevant to these industries.

We also need to build a new generation of entrepreneurs imbued with energy and expertise. However, entrepreneurship must necessarily be driven by the innovation, creativity and drive of the private sector. In this regard, we believe that the business of government is to get out of business. It is sufficient to plant the foundational seeds, but business must then be let to grow and thrive and do what they do best.

The Government’s role in cultivating economic prosperity is to invest in the future by concentrating on its social functions. Focus should be given to the areas of infrastructure, housing, education, transportation and healthcare, whereby a strong government role will ultimately result in improving the economic well-being of the people. For example, better public transportation will reduce the necessity to buy cars and thus immediately increase disposable income in place of car loans. The same applies with government intervention in affordable housing, education subsidies and healthcare.

In Penang, we have embarked on a series of social programmes that have lessened the burdens of the people. Besides hand-outs to target groups, we have also provided subsidies in kidney dialysis and free buses for commuters along certain routes. We have also managed to abolish hardcore poverty a year after taking over. Now, we are aiming to eliminate poverty altogether by 2015. If we can do this in Penang, we can do this for the rest of Malaysia.

Democratisation

Besides correcting economic injustices, there is also an urgent need to restore democracy. The most basic aspect of democracy is freedom, and thus we need to restore the dignity and freedom of the Rakyat through:

Institutional reform.

Clean, free and fair elections.

Fiscal and political decentralisation.

Freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

A country is only as good as its basic institutions. In Malaysia, there is a great crisis of confidence in the very institutions meant to protect us. DAP promises to make institutional reform a critical priority, starting with the Election Commission, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Police Force, the Judiciary and Parliament.

Institutional reform also encompasses the revitalisation of our once proud and respected Civil Service. We will embark on a programme to restore the professionalism and efficiency of civil servants by improving their skills, environment and productivity. We will also ensure that salaries of civil servants are adequate and competitive, especially those at the support and administrative grades and not just those at the professional and upper management levels.

The Civil Service needs to be refined and respected and not reduced.

We also recognise the many sacrifices made by both our police and armed forces who work day in and day out to ensure our peace and security. We therefore seek to ensure that they are protected from predatory rentiers that abuse the system to enrich themselves at the expense of the rank and file.

Malaysians also demand the right to clean, free and fair elections. It is for this reason that Malaysians marched on 9th July 2011. The power to vote is a sacrosanct right, and any disenfranchisement of that right needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Democratisation also necessarily entails decentralisation or devolvement of powers. This was a pivotal aspect of the democratisation processes that took place in South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. Yet in Malaysia, despite being a federation of states, power and authority has been increasingly centralised at the national level. As an example, in 1990, the combined total of all the state budgets made up 25 per cent of the federal budget. Today, it is less than 9 per cent. Clearly, there is a need for greater fiscal decentralisation in order to create greater empowerment at the local level.

The time of Federal Government knows best is over. Housing, transportation, garbage collection, sewerage, health and even education services should be devolved to the state government. How can someone sitting in Putrajaya be expected to make decisions on public transportation or garbage collection in Taiping or even Johor Bahru? How can the Federal Government meet the housing needs of the people when land is a state matter?

Malaysians yearn for their voices to be heard. A society that stifles free thought will suppress creativity and the cultivation of new ideas. Democratic space is therefore key to progress and competitiveness.

A culture of freedom must therefore be created, and what better way than to benchmark ourselves against the “Four Freedoms” as expounded by the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union address. These are:

Freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom of worship.

Freedom from want.

Freedom from fear.

Malaysia will never be able to move forward towards a high-income economy and developed-nation status until and unless we are able to provide our people with strong public institutions, restore their right to clean, free and fair elections, empower them with fiscal and political decentralisation and provide an environment that respects and encourages a culture of freedom.

The Malaysian Dream

The impetus is upon us now to forge a better future for Malaysia, one that is truly Malaysian, where no dream is impossible, where everyone can express their thoughts in peace, where justice and security is guaranteed and where prosperity and dignity is assured.

This is the Malaysian Dream. A new national landscape built upon the foundational ideals of a Malaysian Malaysia where every citizen is Malaysian First and where moderation and cooperation is celebrated through the Middle Malaysia ideal and where there is no room for extremism and bigotry.

We aspire for the Malaysian Dream, and in the pursut of this dream, we would like to reafirm our commitments as thus:

To defend our system of Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State. DAP is committed to upholding the Federal Constitution as the most supreme law of the country and to honour it in the spirit of Merdeka 1957 and the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

To preserve the special position of the Malays and Bumiputeras while protecting the rights of other races as enshrined in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

To safeguard the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation while simultaneously championing the freedom of other religions to be practised in peace and harmony, as enshrined in Articles 3 and 11 of the Federal Constitution.

To dignify Bahasa Melayu as the National Language as enshrined in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, while encouraging the use and study of other mother tongues in order to create a society that excels through language diversity.

To champion the right of the Rakyat to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association as enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Consitution.

To honour the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the rights of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

To dignify all Malaysians through the eradication of poverty and a more equitable distribution of wealth, and empowering the Rakyat through equal opportunities for all without discrimination based on gender, skin colour or religion.

To cultivate a learned and broad-minded civil society with academic and intellectual freedom without the shackles of the University and University Colleges Act.

To ensure the right of every citizen to clean, free and fair elections.

To put an end to deaths, abuses or injuries inflicted in the custody of security agencies.

To establish integrity and leadership and to fight corruption by implementing open tenders, publicising the contents of government contracts and agreements, and publicly declaring assets of all government leaders.

To review the lop-sided agreements with crony capitalist companies such as the Power Purchase Agreements with the Independent Power Producers and the highway toll concessions with the toll operators.

Conclusion

Malaysia is a rich country blessed with every resource imaginable. It is unfathomable that today, 55 years after Merdeka and 49 years since the formation of Malaysia, our social, political and economic institutions have degenerated into a quagmire of greed, cronyism and corruption.

Not only is our country now politically and economically impaired, the systematic and extremist machinations of the Barisan Nasional Government has also left our society treading on thin ice. The future of our country is at stake unless we act collectively and immediately.

Four years ago, we were entrusted with an opportunity to prove that we can institute change. In that time, we have shown that we are able to punch above our weight. We have shown that with a clear agenda of economic solidarity and democracy, we can make a difference. Now, we seek to bring this agenda to the national level.

And there is no more opportune time than now. Today, the opportunity to transform our country is real and before us. Today, the vindication of right over might is at hand. Our party has persevered for 46 years for this very moment. Let us now stand together, united in diversity and committed to our ideals.

Today, we dream the Malaysian Dream.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 January 2012, 2:47 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Economics
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Winners and losers

— The Malaysian Insider

Jan 09, 2012

JAN 9 — This was a verdict out of the left field. There was jubilation in the ranks of the opposition and the recrimination has already started in Umno and Perkasa.

In this politically polarised nation, The Malaysian Insider polls who can walk away from this case considered a winner and who will slink away as a loser.

Winners:

1) Anwar Ibrahim

The whole machinery of the government and ruling coalition was trained on this one man for three years. He and his family were vilified daily.

A less of a fighter would have crumbled in the face of these ferocious and nasty attacks (remember the snide comments by Messrs Najib and others at the Umno assembly) but Anwar fought back, giving as good as he received.

Today, he is still standing and possibly re-energised by this ordeal.

2) Karpal Singh and the team of defence lawyers

The veteran DAP lawyer is sometimes more bombast than anything else but he expertly navigated through the second sodomy trial, in the process shredding Saiful’s testimony, casting serious doubts on evidence and on the manner the case was handled and on the competency of the government’s Chemistry Department.

3) Nik Aziz, Hadi Awang and other PAS stalwarts.

Immense pressure was applied by Umno and the Malay-language dailies for PAS to disengage from Pakatan Rakyat over Anwar’s sodomy charge.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi even tried to use the sodomy charge to persuade PAS to team up with Umno after the 2008 elections. But PAS leaders, especially Nik Aziz Nik Mat, stayed loyal.

4) The Najib government

The government wasted little time in crafting a statement hailing the acquittal as a kudos for the reforms proposed by the Najib administration and as proof of the independence of the judiciary.

Definitely, the administration will score points with fencesitters and foreign governments for not “interfering” with the case.

The administration could ride on the momentum and expect Prime Minister Najib Razak to use this court decision to beat the reform drum upon his return from South Africa this afternoon.

5) High Court judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah

For sifting through the facts and fiction of the case. He sat patiently through it all, absorbing the histrionics that both sides gave and never letting it affect his judgment.

And this was the judge that Karpal tried to recuse many times.

In the end, he decided based on the facts.

Losers:

1) Umno, Perkasa

Don’t expect the likes of Ibrahim Ali or Dr Mahathir Mohamad to be celebrating this court decision. They and others from Umno/Perkasa had been hoping to see Anwar locked up.

The inquisition has already begin in Umno where much energy and its reputation have been invested in hammering Anwar. The court decision could hurt morale within Umno.

2) Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan

The complainant who spent a lot of time and energy to prove that his cause was genuine, to the extent of taking an oath on the Quran.

But this is a criminal case in a secular court, based on facts. And the facts were found wanting.

His actions before and after he lodged a police report also gave rise to speculation of a plot.

3) The Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police force

The case was flimsy from the start and should have been thrown out at the prosecution stage. Is there any other state prosecution team which has a more disastrous record in big trials?

Is there any other A-G who continues to prosper despite the dismal record of his chambers? Well, what more can be said about the police but “how did it get so bad”. DNA evidence was kept in a cupboard for much longer than was acceptable.

4) The mainstream media

Take a bow, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian, TV3, The Star, RTM, Bernama and other members of the government media. Little space was given to the trial when the prosecution’s case was being demolished.

Court reporting was dictated and manipulated by senior editors with the aim of skewing public opinion.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 January 2012, 3:56 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A grave injustice avoided

By
Ooi Kee Beng
 | January 10, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

JAN 10 — The High Court verdict on Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial must be seen as a big triumph for the three-member opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

One of the biggest challenges that it has in trying to win federal power is to convince voters that it has the leaders needed for such a change in paradigm.

And whatever the ideology of its component parties, they have to deal with the reality that a PR prime minister must come from the Malay community. Whether or not Democratic Action Party stalwart Lim Kit Siang can be accepted as deputy prime minister is one thing, but a non-Malay as top leader is still not thinkable in this time and age.

That is why so much energy had over the last few years been put by opinion makers supportive of the ruling Barisan Nasional into questioning the suitability of Anwar to become prime minister. The latest to join this choir was surprisingly blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, a one-time Anwar supporter.

Premier Najib Razak must now try more than ever to overcome the right wing within his party. He needs to project the only image of himself that can win him a substantial number of votes — that of a reformist prime minister. The speed of his reforms must go up a couple of gears if he is to turn the political arena into one that is about policy competition, and prevail at that.

Anwar’s acquittal also brings hope to all those who have been worrying for the health of the judiciary. The prosecution had managed a rather weak case against him, and the judge’s decision should have been expected. The fact that most people were nevertheless certain that Anwar would be convicted was a measure of the low esteem in which the courts are held.

Simply put, justice was respected yesterday in Malaysia. But whoever should take credit for it is not the vital thing. What is important is that a grave injustice was avoided. — Today

________

* Ooi Kee Beng is the deputy director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After Acquittal, Malaysian Political Icon Looks to Poll

By
JAMES HOOKWAY
 | JANUARY 10, 2012

WSJ

KUALA LUMPUR—His unexpected acquittal on sodomy charges Monday frees Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim finally to look past his trial and on toward the country’s coming national election.

The verdict by Judge Zabidin Diah at the High Court could also warm this key Muslim nation’s relations with the U.S. as the Obama administration tries to build stronger ties across Asia. Malaysia’s government described the verdict as proof it doesn’t try to sway court decisions, a frequent accusation of Mr. Anwar and other opposition activists. Mr. Anwar himself, speaking to a swarm of television crews outside the packed courtroom, described it as a surprise and a vindication.

Now the 64-year-old opposition leader is shifting focus to the election, which must be called by March of next year. Analysts predict it will be a closely contested battle between him and Prime Minister Najib Razak for the center ground of a country that has shown a growing desire for political and economic change over the past few months.

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal at the court Monday, Mr. Anwar said the trial will galvanize the opposition. Over the past week he traveled to several key electoral battlegrounds where he accused Mr. Najib’s government of holding back reform, an allegation it denies.

“Our focus is very clearly on the election. We are no longer a democracy at a time when there are great changes sweeping the world,” Mr. Anwar said. He said the Muslim world, which used to regard Malaysia—with its gleaming skyscrapers and monorail networks—as an icon of development, no longer looks to the country as a model for growth.

Mr. Anwar looked gray and haggard in court, where a conviction could have sent him to prison term of up to 20 years—removing one of the few politicians capable of uniting Malaysia’s fractured opposition parties to challenge the ruling National Front coalition, led by the United Malays National Organization, which has governed the country since independence from Britain in 1957.

Mr. Anwar has long portrayed himself as a political and economic reformer. His distinctive goatee and snappy spectacles have become something of a symbol for modernization across much of Southeast Asia and beyond.

Sacked as deputy prime minister after challenging Mahathir Mohamad’s leadership of UMNO in 1998, Mr. Anwar launched a series of massive street protests in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s largest city. He was soon arrested on charges of breaking the country’s sodomy laws by having sex with his speechwriter and chauffeur—his conviction would be overturned in 2004, a year after Dr. Mahathir retired—and beaten up in prison by the then-chief of police.

His second brush with the sodomy laws began in 2008. After Mr. Anwar led a revitalized opposition in elections that gave it more than a third of the seats in Malaysia’s Parliament, a former male aide, Saiful Bukhari Azlan, accused him of sodomizing him in a Kuala Lumpur condominium unit, an incendiary allegation among the country’s conservative majority Muslim population.

Mr. Anwar condemned the charges as a government-instigated stunt to destroy his political comeback, which the government denied—and the trial’s outcome may serve to provide momentum for Malaysia’s opposition, especially if Mr. Anwar can direct his followers’ energy toward the vote. Outside the High Court Monday, more than 5,000 Anwar supporters, some wearing plastic Anwar masks and many chanting “reformasi” (Malay for “reform”), gathered as helicopters circled overhead and riot police kept a cautious watch.

Now that he doesn’t have to work flat-out on staying out of prison, Mr. Anwar will be able to spend time building a political machine, said James Chin, a political science professor at the Malaysian campus of Australia’s Monash University.

“In other words it will be a real competition now,” said Mr. Chin, who puts the chances of Mr. Anwar’s opposition defeating Mr. Najib at 50-50.

Other analysts pegged the odds lower, and Mr. Najib, the 58-year-old son of a former prime minister, might actually be able to claw out an advantage from the court decision, especially internationally. Analysts said a guilty verdict would likely have led to a round of international condemnation for Malaysia’s government and for Mr. Najib, who in recent months has invested substantial political capital in reviving close ties with key trade partners such as the U.S. and Britain.

Malaysia, once know for its stinging attacks on hedge-fund managers such as George Soros, is emerging as a key player in Washington’s plans to create a Pacific-based free trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In addition to extensive trade and commercial commercial, the relationship also includes military-training links. For the U.S., which had urged a fair trial for Mr. Anwar, the acquittal enables a stepping up of the engagement.

“U.S.-Malaysia ties have improved under Mr. Najib,” said Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. “The U.S. will certainly be relieved by the result.”

The U.S. is recalibrating its foreign policy more around the fast-growing economies of east Asia and away from post-9/11 conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In recent months, relations with countries such as Vietnam have shown a sudden improvement as U.S. diplomats make their case the region needs a good relationship with Washington in order to adapt to China’s growing economic and military clout. Myanmar has joined in, releasing some political prisoners and pushing economic and political change in a bid to develop ties with America and Europe and wean itself off China’s economic support.

Monday’s verdict also gels with Mr. Najib’s recent moves to win back support from Malaysia’s center ground. He has rolled back unpopular elements of a decades-old affirmative-action program designed to benefit the country’s majority ethnic-Malay population, and has introduced greater press freedoms.

Mr. Najib makes a point of demonstrating—especially to younger Malaysians—that he understands how the country is changing, regularly using social media such as Twitter to burnish his political brand, often attending concerts and in one case making a prank call on a local radio disc jockey.

Embracing more change, though, is a “a high-risk strategy” for Mr. Najib, said Bridget Welsh, a professor at Singapore Management University and a long-time observer of Malaysian politics. “Mr. Najib is making this next election all about him,” she said, and if fears grow among conservative members of the ruling party that he’s weakening their grip on the country, they may move to oust him.

The issue for Mr. Najib now may well be whether Mr. Anwar’s acquittal heightens that fear.

________

—
Patrick Barta in Singapore and Celine Fernandez in Kuala Lumpur contributed to this article.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 12:01 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After sodomy acquittal, Malaysia’s Anwar pressing for power

By
Simon Roughneen, Correspondent
 | January 9, 2012

The Christian Science Monitor

Monday’s surprise acquittal of Malaysia’s opposition leader in a sodomy trial that many viewed as politically motivated eases the prospect of unrest in the multi-ethnic country, one of southeast Asia’s largest tourist draws.

The potential for trouble was highlighted by three small explosions near the courthouse on Monday morning, injuring several people, while a jubilant Anwar Ibrahim mingled with a raucous, fist-pumping crowd of several thousand supporters. Mr. Anwar, a former government insider who has been hounded by legal actions over alleged sodomy since he broke with Malaysia’s ruling party in the 1990s said, “I thank God for this great news, I am finally vindicated.”

The ruling benefits not only Anwar, who’s planning to run for prime minister in upcoming elections, but it may also help the current government burnish democratic credentials dimmed by trials like Anwar’s and the detention of other political opponents.

A guilty verdict would have shown-up the judicial system as unfair, says Greg Lopez, who studies Malaysia at Australian National University, and would have “made a martyr” out of Anwar.

The ruling comes four months after Prime Minister Najib Razak promised to amend anti-democratic laws, including ending the requirement that media outlets must reapply each year for a new permit, something free speech advocates say leads to self-censorship.

Pressing for power

Anwar’s political coalition made serious inroads into the current government’s long-standing domination of Malaysia at the last elections, held in 2008. He told journalists today “we must focus on the next general elections and the reform agenda, we hope for an independent judiciary and free media.” The next vote is required to take place by the middle of 2013 and will likely to be called this year, according to Mr. Lopez.

Malaysia is a middle-income country with aspirations to join the ranks of the first world economies. It aims to have citizens attain average annual incomes equal to those of OECD states by 2020. But Anwar and supporters say Malaysia is not a functioning democracy and last July he led around 20,000 people in a rare protest in the streets in Malaysia’s largest city, Kuala Lumpur.

The rally sought changes to the electoral system, which they said was rigged in favor of the incumbent government – a coalition of Malay, Chinese, and Indian political parties known as the Barisan Nasional (National Front) that has run the country since 1973.

The police response to the peaceful rally was heavy-handed; protestors were doused with tear gas and a water cannon and more than 1,500 people were arrested. The crackdown drew worldwide attention, and Anwar, who was injured while taking part, held it up as an example of government failings.

Anwar, who previously served six years in jail on a separate sodomy conviction that was overturned in 2004, accused the government of again trying to eliminate him from politics on what he and his supporters described as another fabricated charge, this one made by a former aide in 2008.

That charge came soon after Anwar’s three-party opposition group, called the Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance), an unwieldy amalgam, took just over one third of the seats in Malaysia’s parliament after a best-ever showing in 2008 elections. That result made the Alliance appear a realistic threat to eventually replace the National Front.

For hours before Monday’s verdict, some 2,500 opposition supporters chanted and prayed outside the court building, a mosque-like structure with a domed roof, to await what many Malaysians assumed would be a guilty verdict, given Anwar’s prior conviction and allegations of a rigged court.

Case dismissed

But the judge, Mohamad Zabidin Diah, dismissed the case based on concerns that the prosecution’s DNA evidence was tainted. After the acquittal, Anwar said that he was happy to be free, but nonetheless slammed the Malaysian judiciary as flawed, after edging his way through a throng of supporters who chanted “reformasi,” the name of the political reform movement started by Anwar in the late 1990s, when he broke with the government after serving as deputy prime minister to Malaysia’s long-term leader, Mahathir Mohamad, famous for lecturing the West on the merits of “Asian values” such as social stability and respect for family.

A government statement landed in journalists’ inboxes within minutes of today’s verdict: “Malaysia has an independent judiciary and this verdict proves that the government does not hold sway over judges’ decisions,” it said.

According to Pui Yee Choong, a political researcher at Singapore’s Nanyang Technical University, today’s verdict will allow the incumbent government to portray itself as magnanimous in the run-up to the election. “They can claim that it has never been the case that anyone from the ruling party wanted to end Anwar’s political career,” she says.

But though Anwar and the opposition might lose some of the sympathy and protest appeal that could have come from his imprisonment, the acquittal means he can now run as an alternative to current prime minister in the upcoming elections, which just might now be fought over what substantive policy issues, such as Malaysia’s economy, according to Ibrahim Suffian, head of the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, a Malaysian think tank.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 2:32 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar acquittal boosts Malaysia’s opposition

By
Dr Ooi Kee Beng
 | 9 January 2012

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

BBC News

To the great surprise of many of his followers, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was found not guilty of the sodomy charge brought against him by a former aide.

High Court judge Zabidin Mohamad Diah declared him innocent early on Monday morning, while huge crowds gathered outside the building in support of the former deputy prime minister. The DNA samples presented by the prosecution to prove Mr Anwar’s guilt, he decided, were compromised.

The unexpected verdict may not prove that the judiciary is free of the executive, but it does show that the executive is not all-powerful.

This is also the second time Mr Anwar has been acquitted on such a charge. After being sacked as the country’s second most powerful person by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed back in September 1998, he was jailed for misuse of power for six years. Just when a consecutive nine-year jail sentence for sodomy was to be served, the Federal Court overturned the decision in 2004.

After that Mr Anwar’s return to the thick of politics was spectacular. He managed to sew together an electoral agreement in 2008 between his Parti Keadilan Rakyat, and the Islamist Parti Agama SeMalaysia and the Democratic Action Party.

Not only did this lead to historical victories when the three parties won five of 13 states plus the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur, it also paved the way for Mr Anwar to regain his parliamentary seat.

New generation

Although Monday’s verdict is being used by the government to rebut opposition claims that the country’s judiciary is strongly compromised by state intervention, the advantage gained from this will not be significant, given many other examples of bad governance.

But the acquittal is a strong gust of wind in the sail of the opposition coalition, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR). While a guilty verdict would have provided the PR with powerful arguments about deteriorating governance, Mr Anwar being free to campaign is of much greater benefit to its chances of winning federal power.

He is a formidable speaker, as was obvious during the last general election in March 2008 when many Malays swung to support him late in the campaign. Without that shift, the opposition would not have come close to making the impressive gains that they did.

In the days before the verdict was due, Mr Anwar went on a whirlwind tour of the country to shore up support. He gave several speeches setting out the direction for his coalition, declaring that as many as 40% of the candidates that his own party would field in the coming elections would be new ones, who would be both young and educated.

This was engineered to go down well with the growing crowd of reform-seeking voters whose main complaint since 2008 had been that the calibre of PR lawmakers was less than impressive. With this, Mr Anwar signalled that his party did realise that a new generation of capable youths had to be recruited if his reform movement was to progress further.

The weeks preceding the verdict also saw increased calls by student demonstrators to be allowed to participate in politics and to join parties. This right was constitutionally denied them after race riots took place in Kuala Lumpur in May 1969.

Conservative challenge

This second sodomy case had been going on for three-and-a-half years, distracting Mr Anwar greatly at a time when the newly-formed opposition needed to concentrate its resources.

The allegation came to public attention in June 2008, when Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, an aide newly recruited into Mr Anwar’s office, lodged a police report that his boss had performed sodomy on him.

This hurt Mr Anwar’s crucial attempt at that time to convince government lawmakers to defect and join the opposition on 16 September, Malaysia Day, causing great damage to his credibility.

Making Mr Anwar appear a morally dubious person has been the weapon of choice of his enemies for a long time. In 1998, a book titled 50 reasons why Anwar cannot become Prime Minister was circulated among members of the ruling party, harming his reputation.

In March last year, there was a further attempt to smear Mr Anwar’s reputation. A video was screened at a press conference, showing someone resembling Mr Anwar having sex with a supposed prostitute. Mr Anwar and his family denied that the person captured on film was him.

Now that these smear campaigns are behind him, his coalition is expected to prepare for the coming elections with renewed vigour. Surviving the trial strengthens Mr Anwar’s standing as a comeback kid.

The latest acquittal is not as much a defeat for Prime Minister Najib Razak as it is for the right wing in his coalition.

After the 2008 election saw five states falling to the opposition, a polarisation took place within the ruling party between moderates who accepted that Malaysia was now a two-party democracy on the one hand, and a group who took it upon themselves to undermine the opposition and reverse the democratic process on the other.

The prime minister’s only chance of winning electoral ground now is to enhance his image as a reformist leader. To do that, he must rein in the conservatives in his party.

________

Ooi Kee Beng is the Deputy Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. His recent book is The Right to Differ: A Biographical Sketch of Lim Kit Siang.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 11:43 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar Ibrahim Acquitted of Sodomy Charges

By
John Berthelsen
 | 9 JANUARY 2012

asiasentinel

Now what?

As thousands of supporters cheered outside the court, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was found not guilty of sodomy charges by High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah, who said “the court cannot be 100 percent certain that DNA was not contaminated.”

Under Malaysia’s system of justice, the prosecution is allowed to appeal a not-guilty verdict. Prior to the ruling, some observers in Kuala Lumpur suggested the government would do just that, which would keep Anwar tied up in legal matters for as long as another year through an expected election. Under a scenario described to Asia Sentinel several weeks ago, the government, knowing a guilty verdict would make Anwar a martyr, would opt to have the judge rule him not guilty and appeal.

“The prosecution has a month to decide whether to appeal,” said a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer. “They have to examine the decision and attempt to discover if they have grounds for an appeal. But this is Malaysian politics. You have to look at the scenario. From a legal and jurisprudential point of view, there were too many inconsistencies to warrant a conviction. But from a political point of view, anything can happen.”

Another source told Asia Sentinel it is uncertain if the prosecution will appeal. “The government may just want to put it behind them,” he said.

The case obviously hands Anwar a huge political victory. It in effect became a trap for the government rather than for Anwar, who denounced it as politically motivated. “The government faced an unappetizing choice,” the lawyer said in a telephone interview. “They were damned if they convicted, damned if they didn’t. Only the judge himself knows if he followed his conscience.”

Given the political ramifications of the verdict, it could thus be a problem for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who has been accused by Anwar and others of manufacturing the case in a bid to drive him from politics. To the suspicious, the verdict does not demonstrate the independence of Malaysia’s courts but rather that the government ordered the acquittal by the judge as the lesser of two unappetizing choices. If that is true, Umno figures have to be questioning the prime minister’s strategy, since it has clearly backfired.

“They are in a trap of their own making,” said a business executive. “But they may step up their campaign to undermine Anwar in other ways.”

Last year, either Anwar or a double was entrapped in a Kuala Lumpur hotel and filmed having sex with a Chinese prostitute. Anwar has denied it was him in the video.

“What they don’t get is that their whole strategy was misguided from the get go,” the executive continued. ” They focused all their might to destroy Anwar, thinking that if they jail him, Pakatan falls apart. What they missed is that this is no longer about one man. There’s a mass movement here now, sparked by the 2008 elections. It’s beyond Anwar now. It’s about how Umno deals with an energized electorate.”

“Thank God justice has been served,” Anwar told cheering crowds after the verdict, vowing to topple the government in national elections, which are expected to be held this year.

Because of the vast number of questions about the case, international observers almost universally condemned it. Among those inconsistencies were the fact that the complaining witness, Mohamad Saiful Bukhairy Azlan, had gone to two hospitals to complain he had been sodomized but was turned away by doctors who examined him and said they found no evidence of penetration. Also, during testimony in the courtroom, he acknowledged that he had met with then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, prior to the filing of the charges.

There were many questions about the DNA, which was allegedly taken from Saiful’s rectum 90 hours after the reported act took place, during which he said he had neither eaten, drunk nor gone to the bathroom. The evidence was stored in an unguarded police office. Government laboratory technicians testified that as many as 11 different DNA traces had been found in Saiful’s rectum.

There were even questions whether Saiful had actually met with Anwar on the date he allegedly was sodomized. Although cameras showed him in the lift of the building where the offence allegedlyt took place, Anwar said he was meeting with a group of economists in the condo at the time and that Saiful had not appeared in the room.

The case began when the then-24-year-old former aide made the charge against the opposition leader on June 29, 2008, shortly after Anwar had led the Pakatan Rakyat coalition to a historic sweep of five Malaysian states, winning 82 parliamentary seats in 2008 national elections and breaking the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition’s two-thirds majority hold on parliament for the first time since the country was founded.

Anwar was arrested at his home on July 16 of that year by a contingent of 10 carloads of police commandos and was locked up overnight in a Kuala Lumpur jail. The case has kept Anwar preoccupied for a full two and a half years.

“I’m finally vindicated after the smearing of my character,” Anwar told local media. “I’m thankful to Wan Azizah and the team of lawyers led by Karpal Singh. He also thanked the support of Pakatan Rakyat leaders. “We want to continue on the reform agenda, fighting corruption, and freedom of the press.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 10:41 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar’s acquittal a victory for justice but not yet a triumph for the justice system

I had in my first response to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal from Sodomy II charges yesterday said  that it was a victory for justice.

There was immediate response from detractors accusing me of double standards, alleging that I would regard the justice system as fair and just when Anwar is freed but the opposite if Anwar is imprisoned.

These detractors have got me wrong. Anwar’s acquittal was a victory for justice but not yet a triumph for the justice system.

Just as a swallow does not make a summer, the justice system in Malaysia has a very long way to go despite the Anwar Sodomy II acquittal to restore national and international confidence in its in efficiency, independence and integrity.

In acquitting Anwar, Judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah cited the possibility that the DNA samples were compromised and the lack of corroborative evidence. On these grounds alone, Anwar should never had been charged in this first place. Furthermore, Anwar’s defence should not have been called at the end of the prosecution case.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today joined the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim to proclaim that Anwar’s acquittal was proof of the independence of the judiciary in Malaysia and would increase the confidence of Malaysians and international community in Najib’s transformation promises.

Such claims and proclamations are most fragile.

Firstly, it will not be easily forgotten that the crisis of confidence in the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law reached a new climax under Najib’s premiership, when he orchestrated the unconstitutional coup d’etat and power grab in Perak state which was given legitimacy by compromised and subservient judiciary.

Secondly, such claims would be instantly destroyed if Anwar is subject to new and further persecutions, whether in a decision to appeal against Anwar’s acquittal or to harass him with new charges.

I call on Najib to end all gutter politics and character assassination of political opponents and the politics of lies and hate, which of late has poisoned Malaysian politics and the nation-building process – as for instance the incessant lies trying to portray the DAP as anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers.

Let the battle for the hearts and minds of the voters be on policies and programmes and not on character-assassination, lies and falsehoods.

Anwar’s acquittal yesterday has given hope that the decay of key national institutions have not reached the point of no return and that it is possible to effect changes and reforms from within the present system – although there can be no  better surety of fundamental reforms of key national institutions than to bring about a change of federal power in Putrajaya in the next general elections.

Anwar’s acquittal is likely to affect Najib’s time-table for the holding of the next general elections as the possibility of dissolution of Parliament immediately after the Chinese New Year has receded into the background.

This is probably why Parliament has   announced the dates for the new Parliamentary calender this year – with official opening of Parliament by the Yang di Pertuan Agong on March 12 starting a 20-day meeting for Dewan Rakyat from March 12 to April 12, 2012; a second parliamentary meeting of 12 days from 11th June to 28th June and a 34-day 2013 Budget meeting from Sept. 24 to Nov. 27, 2012.

As of now, I expect the March meeting of Parliament to be held but not the June meeting, as otherwise the “feel good” feeling generated from Najib’s 2012 Budget “goodies” would have been completely dissipated.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 3:52 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Elections
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar’s acquittal and the 901 rally

By
Kee Thuan Chye
 | Jan 9, 2012

Malaysiakini

Anwar Ibrahim is free! Many people did not expect he would be acquitted by the High Court judge presiding over his Sodomy II trial.

In fact, the situation looked dire for Anwar when the judge ruled in May that Anwar’s alleged victim, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, was a truthful and credible witness.

But now the judge feels that Saiful’s testimony is not enough to convict Anwar (left) because it is uncorroborated. More important to the judge is his uncertainty about the integrity of the DNA samples, and that is his main reason for acquitting Anwar.

Does this mean that the episode is over? No. The government can still appeal. And who knows what the outcome of the appeal might be?

I would say, however, that the government should not appeal. This would drag the case on and on again, and it’s already drained such a lot of resources – the rakyat’s money, the rakyat’s emotions – and tarnished the country’s image.

The man himself has already gone through a virtual hell. Not to mention as well his having suffered the sex video allegations of the Datuk T trio. A lesser man might have crumbled.

I think it’s best to let things be. The verdict has been made, it’s time to move on. Even Saiful (left) has accepted the verdict.

Sadly for the judge, Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, because there is now so little faith and belief in the independence of the judiciary, the jury is still out as to whether he is “a Daniel come to judgement” or a lackey acting on instructions from the Executive.

With so much political stake invested in this one case, the public perception was that the Executive might interfere. After all, a guilty verdict could have given Pakatan Rakyat sympathy votes at the next general election.

But now, with the judge letting Anwar go, on basically a technical point, i.e. the unreliability of the DNA samples, an element of doubt remains as to whether the sodomy did not take place.

Of course, those who believe that it did not will continue to believe that, even if Anwar had been found guilty. But among the fence-sitters, this doubt might niggle them.

More willing to become friends

A free Anwar would have numerous positive things going for Pakatan Rakyat, the coalition he leads. He can concentrate now on the mission of winning Putrajaya. Much work would be needed on getting enough seats in Sabah and Sarawak.

Perhaps foes might now be more willing to become friends, and others might be more willing to jump on his bandwagon. This is the time to go all out to exploit the possibilities.

It would seem the cards are now stacked against Prime Minister Najib Razak and Barisan Nasional (BN).

While people may acknowledge that Anwar’s acquittal does not amount to outright attestation that he had no sexual dalliance with Saiful, they may still perceive that Najib had some involvement in the case because Saiful met with him a few days before he made the police report.

Najib, who was deputy prime minister then, has admitted that until that meeting, he had not known Saiful, but questions will always be asked as to why Saiful approached specifically Najib to tell him about the alleged sodomy.

This connection may cause some to think that the acquittal, if it was independently decided, is a letdown for Najib.

Another worry for Najib is the support Anwar got outside the High Court in the so-called 901 rally to respond to the verdict.

The presence of about 7,000 supporters was an indication that the leader is still relevant, in contrast to the pronouncements of critics who say he is fading off.

Although the numbers at the rally did not add up to 100,000, as pledged by PKR deputy president Azmin Ali a few days before, it ultimately did not matter.

The message it sent out was clear. The police standing by did nothing to enforce the 10 conditions they had set; the protestors brought banners and chanted nonetheless, and Pakatan leaders and others made speeches.

I suppose when you have the rakyat on your side and the public sentiment is clear, the police would be loath to touch you for fear of the backlash.

In any case, the conditions were ridiculous; what sort of rally would it be if banners, chanting and speeches were disallowed? What would the protestors do? Stand around and chat, bury their noses in their mobile phones and perspire in the heat?

Bill’s provisions are ‘rubbish’

So the organisers did right to ignore those conditions. Besides, the day before the rally, the police looked like nothing more than whining school prefects, griping about the need to follow the conditions and calling the organisers “liars” for saying they were never discussed at the negotiations.

The 901 rally was the first major one since the passing of the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011. But already we can see that its provisions are rubbish.

First, under this bill, you don’t need a permit from the police any more to stage a gathering, which must therefore mean you don’t need their approval. And yet for the 901 rally, the language used by the police indicated that they were giving approval.

Worse, apart from setting conditions, the police effectively restricted the numbers that could attend the rally.

The Inspector-General of Police (IGP) said the car park of the court complex was the only place protestors could gather – anywhere else would be considered illegal – so once it was filled, latecomers would be turned away.

And since, as he said, the car park could accommodate only 5,000 people, that set a maximum number for the protestors. The only way to accommodate thousands more would have been for the protestors to climb on the shoulders of their colleagues or better still form human pyramids all over the car park!

As it turned out, however, the IGP’s estimation was way off the mark. The car park could accommodate at least double the 5,000 he projected. Was he underestimating the capacity to discourage people from attending?

The real point is, how can the police restrict the number of people who want to attend? If the space was not big enough, let the people spill onto adjacent areas. Why declare other areas outside the car park illegal for the rally?

This new development is even worse than before the Peaceful Assembly Bill came into force. The police have even more power now.

Is it any wonder then that there are still manifestations of resistance against the bill? The most consistent of these is the ‘Kill the Bill’ campaign that brings dissenters together every Saturday at the Kuala Lumpur City Centre to voice their cause.

This is indeed a bill that needs to be killed because it is actually imposing more restrictions than ever before. And it deceives the people into believing that there is no need to seek approval from the police for a gathering when in fact the police can still stop any gathering if they wish to.

They did not stop the 901 rally because they said they were keeping to “the spirit of the Peaceful Assembly Bill”. I wish the police – and government ministers – would stop saying this. My reason is simple. It sounds like pure bullshit.

________

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of the book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, which is scheduled for release soon.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 11:24 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar’s acquittal marks a new chapter

By
Dr Lim Teck Ghee
 | 10 January 2012

Anwar Ibrahim, a key page in the country’s political history has been turned.

Immediate winners are of course Anwar, his family, his team of lawyers, and the opposition. For Anwar, it was not only exoneration of the sexual smear charges brought against him; it was also a victory for his political fortunes and that of Pakatan Rakyat, now reenergized, ahead of the coming elections.

As the clock winds down – much more slowly now as a result of this verdict – towards the end of the current term of the Barisan government, Anwar has quite rightly refrained from crowing over this unexpected verdict.

In his first comments to the press following the court decision, Anwar asked his supporters to concentrate on the larger reform agenda, and on fighting against corruption and ensuring the freedom of the media.

Tribute to a courageous and conscientious judge

This reminder that Malaysians have to focus on the larger struggle for justice and freedom is salutary. Anwar’s is only one in a string of recent political cases, the great majority of which the independence and integrity of the country’s judiciary has been tested and found wanting.

Special tribute must be paid to judge, Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, who must have come under tremendous pressure to return a guilty verdict in what was clearly a politically motivated trial. Instead he delivered a judicial decision based on established principles of criminal justice. His judgment was the right one. His statement that the court could not exclude the possibility of the DNA samples being compromised addressed only one of the many doubts raised against the prosecution’s case.

It was a case which relied on the accusation of one person, Saiful Bukhari Azlan who coincidentally had met the then-deputy prime minister, Najib Razak, several days before the alleged incident.

In most other democratic courts of law, this meeting would have raised immediate doubts about the credibility of the accuser as well as resulted in outright dismissal of the charges, and condemnation of the prosecution and its political masters for attempting to use the courts to cripple their political opponents.

Losers in the Sodomy II case

Losers are the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General exercising his office as public prosecutor, and Umno. Najib’s unexplained meeting with Saiful and refusal to testify despite being served subpoenas requiring him and his wife, Rosmah Mansor to appear in court, should have alerted his minders that even if the judge had returned a guilty verdict, the court of public opinion – in Malaysia as well as the rest of the world – would not easily believe that the Prime Minister was not an interested party and had no connection at all with Saiful.

Najib’s political standing has now taken an enormous beating that no amount of spinning, by the Information Minister Rais Yatim that the verdict proves that the courts are free from political manipulation, can help salvage.

As for the Attorney-General, he must have been expecting to secure conviction and deliver his greatest triumph to his political masters. Instead he was handed a lesson in the principles of the delivery of justice by one of his colleagues in the judiciary legal service.

The prosecution can still appeal against the decision but in doing so it can only worsen the negative opinions and perception of the public at large that the Attorney-General’s Chambers has been turned into a political tool of the Barisan government, with the current Attorney-General drastically lowering the standards of his office in his partiality towards the executive.

Umno – more correctly the legacy of Mahathir’s Umno – is the biggest loser. Dr Mahathir Mohamad concocted the first sodomy charge against Anwar to prevent his deputy from taking over power but before that he had already gutted the judiciary of its integrity and independence.

Dr M’s Umno supporters have continued in a similar vein, taking the political persecution of Anwar further by using it as the lynchpin of their campaign of demonization of Anwar and the opposition. Now that strategy has backfired badly and may be the final nail in the coffin of Barisan rule over the country.

The biggest winner

Lastly, the biggest winner of all is the thinking and writing Malaysian public. Not reported in the mainstream media and constantly ahead of the pundits and even legal analysts in their analysis of the Anwar case, Malaysians used the Internet to voice their outrage at the prosecution’s case and to call for an end to attempts to make a mockery of the justice system in the pursuit of power.

Cynical observers have argued that the judiciary is only free and fair when it suits Umno and the government, and that the verdict was only because its leaders felt that a guilty verdict would lead to a worse situation compared to discharging Anwar.

That may be true but it still is a testimony to the influence of new and vibrant voices of dissent aimed at reform and restoring a truly free and independent judiciary.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 2:29 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar’s problems are not over yet

By
Sakmongkol AK47
 | 10 January 2012

Anwar has been acquitted. I don’t wish to douse the flames of enthusiasm that was evident on the faces and response from his supporters. Family members and friends were elated. I am watching out for possible landmines.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Anwar said, this present case shouldn’t be considered as a landmark case representing the independence of the judiciary. The only concession he made was to recognize the courage of the presiding judge to arrive at this particular verdict. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the coming months.

The future of Malaysia will depend on what happens within one or two weeks after the Anwar verdict. He has been acquitted. However I do not think he is out of the woods yet. Despite being acquitted Anwar is circumspect about the judiciary. His acquittal does not prove the judiciary is independent he says. Now, that is somewhat ominous. Why would Anwar say that?

Anwar knows this. He is let off the hook this time- that’s what the government MAY want the public to think. So that they can say, this is proof that the judiciary is independent. DR Mahathir says it before the sitting PM does. Dr Mahathir says Anwar’s acquittal is proof that the judiciary in independent. The information Minister said the same thing too. Finally the PM joined in saying the same thing. It’s almost like preparing the ground to justify that if Anwar is charged and convicted for some other offences, it is not possible for people to accuse the judiciary of being not independent. It is the same judiciary that acquitted Anwar in this sodomy 2 case.

What if, Anwar is charged for other offenses? And he is convicted there because the evidence is so overwhelming. Anwar isn’t able to say the judiciary is independent now because if he is indeed convicted on another instance, he can’t turn around to say, the judiciary is not independent. That would be contradictory. So despite being acquitted, Anwar can’t say the judiciary is independent.

He can be charged for making a false report about the video showing a man resembling Anwar having sex with a China doll. Having sex is not a crime but making a false report is. Anwar is charged once more because the prosecution has the omega watch, the Chinese national in their custody and the video is proven as authentic by forensic experts. Anwar can then be charged and may be found for committal.

So, he is still not out of the woods yet. Even in the present case, the prosecution can appeal. Dr Mahathir will order DS Najib to appeal. Dr Mahathir would rather have UMNO lose than allow Anwar to be PM. He knows if Anwar ascends to the chief executive office, Mahathir and all those on the same ship are finished. So Anwar must be stopped at all cost.

We must move this country beyond Anwar. Much energy and resources have been spent on the Anwar Saga. While Anwar and his supporters will shout of fitnah and of lies perpetrated, the public is also wasted with the tiring claim of conspiracy.  It’s been 14 long and bloodletting years.

Anwar’s salvation actually lies in changing the government. And that is possible through the next general elections.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 2:35 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reform or inertia? It’s gone past that by now

By
Farish A. Noor
 | January 09, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

JAN 9 — It has been a rather long time since I have had any reason to be thankful or optimistic about where Malaysia is heading, but today I allowed myself a small helping of optimism (and I hasten to add it was a small helping) as a result of the judgement that was passed (or rather not passed) on Anwar Ibrahim.

Others have already sagely noted that it is too early to jump the gun and proclaim that Malaysia is on the path of genuine institutional reform, though I was pleased to see that the charges against Anwar were thrown out for the best of reasons, namely that there was little that could be used against the man.

Decades from now a movie might be made about the life of Anwar Ibrahim, and though he — and Malaysia — cannot be said to be an individual or country that merits such global attention it has to be conceded that very few individuals have had to go through what he has been through, along with his long-suffering family.

If on that basis alone I can say that I truly sympathise with Anwar for what he has been put through since 1998. The movie, if it is ever made, is bound to a spectacular tear-jerker with moments of tension and drama aplenty; and indeed one can say that few people have had to be the centre of drama for so long; and so unflattering terms.

However, I digress. My optimism lies in the fact that one can perhaps read today’s events as a case of regime maintenance 101, when the embattled powers-that-be face an uncertain future and are forced to accept the simple fact that the society they have governed for so long has wised up and matured, and no longer believe in ghosts or bogeymen of the past.

Cynics may scoff at today’s court decision and claim that it was an instance of a regime trying to defend itself against the rising tide of public criticism; but never mind. Even if that were the case, it only drives home the simple fact that regimes the world over now have to accept the necessity of reform or run the risk of perishing.

This is, by now, an old story and the structuralist in me cannot help but see patterns that have been repeated time and again across the postcolonial world. Of course since last year the global media was abuzz with talk of the Arab spring and how it may impact beyond the shores of the Arab world, reaching Asia.

Do give it a rest, for surely anyone with a memory that extends back at least a decade will tell you that long before the Arab spring there was the fall of Suharto in May-June 1998; and a decade before the equally graceless fall of Ferdinand Marcos and his designer shoe-loving wife Imelda.

In all these cases we see structural similarities at work: Postcolonial elites in Asia, North Africa, Africa and the Arab world come to power in the 1950s as decolonisation spreads across the globe, and immediately assume the mantle of the new saviours of the new-born nation.

But then what happens? Look at the corruption and excesses of the nationalists of Algeria, who almost immediately took to corruption and abuse of power like ducks to water. Look at the megalomania and cult of leadership among the Arab and South Asian leaders, with men like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto talking about democracy on the one hand and sponsoring his private army on the other.

Look at the downright crass and vulgar consumerism of the elites of Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, who robbed their people blind while extolling the virtues of the free market and development, and along the way collecting enough handbags and shoes to fill a score of department stores. And now that the scourge of the OKB complex — Orang Kaya Baru, as they call it in Indonesia — has come to Malaysia as well, we now have our own lurid tales of handbags galore to excite our jaded imagination.

What all these regimes did was common in many respects: They personalised power and centralised it in the hands of an increasingly smaller oligarchy; they kept power in the hands of a few families and cronies; and they lorded it over the masses who could not have and could not afford what they had.

The creed of postcolonial authoritarian states has always been uncontrolled capitalism and the rush for more wealth; with the attendant power and economic cleavages in tow. Imelda Marcos did not end as a woman whom others admired for her handbags; she was loathed for them by people who could not afford rice. The same applies to the Suharto family and all the other corrupt ruling elites of the postcolonial world.

In the process of enriching and empowering themselves, it was they — and not the masses — who first introduced, and later expanded — the gulf between the rich and the poor; pushing the already poor masses to the extreme of being more and more disempowered and disconnected from the system.

The end result is a growing pyramid of inequality where the gradient grows steeper, to the point where those outside the system of networks and privileges feel that they — literally — have nothing left to lose. I recall seeing how students in Jakarta were throwing bricks and sticks at every Mercedes-Benz or BMW that drove past, as these were symbols of their relative want and poverty.

Yet it seems to have become a norm that so many elites in the postcolonial world cannot see this happening around them until it is too late, because they cannot look beyond their credit cards and the next purchase in front of their noses.

Our political culture across the postcolonial world remains a hybrid entity, made up by the misappropriated tools of modernity held in the clutches of a feudalism that cannot and will not die. Every cheap, low-grade tin-pot dictator wants a yacht for himself, a private jet, a luxury home and some babes in tow (Or tucked away in some apartment block in Orchard road). Their wives are often just as bad, exhibiting a gluttony for shopping that borders on the pathological, even during times of economic hardship.

Ultimately the disconnected masses who have nothing to lose (as they have for so long been denied a stake in anything) will say enough is enough, and this brings us one step closer to social change whether we like it or not.

Can Malaysia reform in time? I don’t know as I am not a fortune teller (if I was I wouldn’t be earning the salary of a teacher I can tell you), but change will happen; whether it comes from within or without. Or perhaps from both ends at the same time.

One thing is clear though, and it is that the old institutions of power are beginning to adjust to the new realities on the ground. The fact that they even realise this is happening is already a miracle for someone like me who is jaded beyond description and with a failing heart to boot.

Whatever happens in the weeks and months to come, things — or at least something — will move. And movement, and change, are always positive indicators that there is life in the nation yet.

________

*
Dr Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 12:04 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An independent judiciary… really?

by Dr Kamal Amzan

The Malaysian Insider

Jan 11, 2012

JAN 11 — We are a funny lot.

Just because of one acquittal, we claim to have an “independent” judiciary. Forget about Eric Chia, forget about the first sodomy trial, forget about what happened to Teoh Beng Hock and let us all just focus on this one and only trial.

From the mainstream media to the online news portals, the response from the government and the opposition leaders to the verdict was akin to striking the lottery.

Today’s headlines in the Star and NST, “Government says it shows freedom of judiciary”, “Slow reassertion of Malaysia’s public institutions”, “Court ruling clears government of baseless accusations.”.

Really? I may be wrong but to claim the judiciary’s independence from one trial verdict seems a bit premature, no?

Why is this verdict such a landmark one… that the entire judiciary’s independence is based on it? Or is it because the verdict went against the establishment that we feel it is independent and free?

In case you haven’t realised, going against the establishment seems to be the “in” thing nowadays. It has been demonstrated by students from UPSI whose tuition fees are borne by us, the taxpayers. They became overnight heroes to some for their so-called “courage”, no matter how misplaced that was.

In as much as I wonder what their grades are like, and whether we should have such individuals teaching our children, I also wonder whether the rakyat will still claim judicial independence when and IF the appellate court overturns the verdict later? Less we forget, the AG has the power to appeal.

Or will we cry conspiracy then?

I ask because I think it is too early to celebrate. Mind you, this is not a perfect science, because only science expects predictable, reproducible results time and again. This is the judiciary.

Malaysian judiciary at that.

Just like winning the SEA Games does not make our Harimau Malaya Olympic champions, one unexpected verdict means nothing in the long run, nor should we start exclaiming judicial independence based on it.

We should be cautiously optimistic, and not lose sight of the real goal. Guilty or innocent, the future of this country does not lie with one man and our progress should not be hindered by the verdict.

It is time we move on. Let the politicians politicise. Malaysians should do what we do best all this while; work hard for our family and by extension the nation. We must keep level heads, be logical and not let our emotions run high. Nothing, and no one should distract us from building and developing this nation of 28 million.

Failing which is detrimental to our own future.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 January 2012, 6:52 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.