By-elections: Pakatan on the defensive

By
Bridget Welsh

But despite the BN’s victories in recent by-elections, neither side is coming out to be the clear winner.

The upcoming contests of Merlimau and Kerdau are like a drawn-out boxing match where both opponents are bruised and tired. The next two rounds heavily sway in favour of the BN, as both constituencies are in traditional Umno territory.

In the upcoming two matches, the BN has a comfortable weight advantage.

What matters in these by-elections is not the final result – almost a foregone conclusion in states where the result will not affect the balance of power – or arguably even the majority, but the honing of tactical skills in the campaigns and the condition of the opponents after the by-election battle is over. These contests foreshadow the real prize fight – the next general elections.

As these rounds begin, allow me to reflect on the tactics and lessons to date, and suggest that despite the BN’s victories in recent rounds that neither side is coming out to be the clear winner.

Umno’s offensive tactics

BN under Najib Razak has adopted a take-no-prisoner strategy, aiming to secure every victory in its column. It has moved from a defensive strategy after the March 2008 polls to the offensive.

The BN has begun campaigning the day after its representatives passed away and brought in a well-funded nationally driven effort to win each and every contest, backed by favourable timing of the election date, strategic decisions to place contests simultaneously to put themselves at an organisational advantage and a willingness to do almost anything to win, from buying votes to the use of government vehicles to ferry party supporters.

What has emerged from Umno is a pummeling of blows on the opposition – as they have tried to recapture the multi-ethnic label through 1Malaysia, aimed to shatter the confidence of PAS by challenging their representativeness of the Malay community, used race-based campaigning to put strain on opposition cooperation across parties and distracted the leader of the opposition in a legal trial.

This combination of shots at the head and gut of the opposition point to the intensity of the BN effort to win each round, and in the process hold onto the big prize of national power.

The victories have instilled greater confidence in Umno, but arguably at the expense of their component parties. The MCA in particular has been showed to have consistently lost the majority of support among its Chinese base, even with some small movements here and there, and its own role within the BN coalition has been undermined.

In the blind battle to win every round, the BN has engaged in a high-risk strategy of feeding racial tensions and increasingly relying on money for its campaigning.

While in some places such as Galas and Tenang, the BN has strengthened its organisation on the ground, the party has not yet substantively addressed some of the core reasons it lost support in the 2008 polls – infighting, arrogance, perceived corruption and a distancing from its traditional base.

Ironically, in choosing to adopt race-based and financial heavy strategies, they are reinforcing some of the very weaknesses they faced at the polls nationally in 2008, and it is a mistake to assume that these issues have gone away.

The BN and Umno have chosen not to adopt a more substantively positive message of delivery and results, to show that they are strong enough to sustain blows. Little attention has centered on some of successes of Najib’s tenure – economic growth and crime reduction. It is difficult to do so, since some of the successes have not been concretely felt by voters and many policies of the last two years have been promises and have yet to reach their possible potential.

Indeed, it is especially hard to instill long-term confidence when the dominant strategy has been one of sowing conditions of instability through feeding racial tensions with leaflets of hate.

The BN faces the most difficult obstacle of all, to rebuild trust across the different communities. While its efforts at outreach in the Indian community have yielded some increased support, it can easily evaporate through continued insensitivity over Interlok and continued concerns voiced by Hindraf.

Najib’s popularity shows that he has made some headway personally, but it is not clear if he can carry his party or his coalition, especially given that some in his party are not giving him their support and many in the BN coalition feel more bruised and beaten than the opponent in the ring.

Arguably, the offensive BN strategies are not sustainable long-term or even in a general election. The BN may win rounds and make gains, as I expect they will do in both upcoming contests, but the questions emerge whether it is really winning and at what expense.

Pakatan’s defensive maneuvers

Pakatan has moved from a position of strength – winning Permatang Pauh and Bukit Gantang – to one of defensiveness. This decline began after the Manek Urai by-election of July 2009, when PAS scrapped through with a slim 65 majority in its heartland state of Kelantan.

While the opposition won Sibu as the underdog contest in May 2010, its failure to win Hulu Selangor in April and make substantial headway in BN territory afterwards has fostered the impression that it has lost ground.

While it shows up to contest each by-election, there is almost a defeatist approach starting from Bagan Pinang in October 2009 as it gets ready to be beaten up by an opponent in an uneven playing field.

The bruises on the opposition are showing, and recent changes in tactics to focus on what they perceive to be their Malay deficit by PAS in particular show they are having an impact. Merlimau and Kerdau will show whether the opposition has the ability to adapt and maneuver effectively, or whether it has lost its footing.

For the opposition, these contests will be largely local – local candidates with the immediate effect of building up local machinery in places where they have comparatively limited grassroots. The tactics and campaigning they adopt, however, will have national implications.

First and foremost, will be how PAS adapts its campaign strategy, especially in Kerdau.

Pahang is more of a PAS frontline state than Malacca, and the home of rising leaders in the party, vice-president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man and the party Youth chief Nasarudin Hassan.

The double-contests of a multi-ethnic seat in Malacca and Malay-majority seat in Pahang will force PAS to come to terms with how it will formulate its national message.

PAS’ campaign decisions will send a signal whether it will prioritise an exclusive intolerant “moral” supremacy strategy that led to their losses of 2004 – recently reemerging among some PAS leaders aka condemning the expression of love of Valentine’s Day – or is focused on common ground Pakatan strategy of justice and reform that is more nationally holistic.

These contests will show whether it has learnt that PAS’ conservative narrow moral agenda does not go down with a large share of Muslims. It will also continue to test the ability of the party to reach out to Felda settlers, whether it can offer an alternative to rural voters that is not based on patronage.

Finally, it will challenge PAS to address how it can improve the conditions for the Malays outside of the NEP framework.

The tactics used by Umno under Najib have apparently had their effect on PAS, as they have chosen more Malay- oriented positions and focused in engaging the Umno attacks. So far, they have been on the back foot. Some have reverted to old comfortable positions. Others have embraced more forward-looking efforts, as the party is uncertain and divided on the strategy to pursue.

PAS’ conference last weekend on Malay identity shows the recognition of a needed rethinking, but simultaneously highlights the challenges the party is facing. They have yet to clearly present an alternative for Malaysian empowerment that is outside of race and religion. Little is heard about what PAS has achieved individually or in Pakatan in terms of governance or the economy.

Beyond the political fight

Part of PAS’ challenge is that the opposition as a whole has not presented a clear vision of the future for Malaysians. What is Pakatan’s agenda for the future? What exactly have they accomplished after they won over a third of seats in Parliament? In defensive mode, the opposition remains unable to articulate coherently a clear set of priorities and initiatives for the future.

There have been important statements such as the 100-day plan, but any real discussion of the policy issues have been buried in larger attention to personal attacks and engagement in defensive move.

Attention has largely focused on Penang and Selangor to the exclusion of discussion of PAS’ states – Kedah and Kelantan. The key will be how Pakatan moves towards presenting a genuine alternative based on their own performance nationally, rather than in response to their opponent’s agenda or the showcasing of specific individuals.

Minimally, Pakatan’s footwork has not been consistently coordinated. While it is an accomplishment to stay in the ring, to take the punches, and worked together as a coalition that many believed would not last even a few rounds, standing in the ring is not enough to win national power, as the contests in Merlimau and Kerdau will show.

With politicians across the spectrum centred on the fight in the ring – now going for 16 rounds – they have in many ways lost track of the audience. The fight has been dirty, full of illegal punches, and not necessarily even. It is not inspiring.

Merlimau and Kerdau offer both sides the opportunity to come out with dignity, as the contest is as much about the results as the tactics. Who opts for the long-term strategy that showcases Malaysian positive successes ultimately will be at the advantage in winning the grant prize.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 February 2011, 2:41 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Saluting a True Malaysian Son

by Koon Yew Yin

(Speech on the occasion of Perak DAP celebration of Lim Kit Siang’s 70th birthday in Ipoh at Tropicana Grand Ballroom  on 25th Feb. 2011 after presenting a RM100,000 donation to Perak DAP to restore a legitimate and popularly elected government in the state )

Let me begin by thanking the DAP for its invitation to me to celebrate the occasion of Saudara Lim Kit Siang’s 70th birthday, and for this honour to say a few words to this distinguished audience.

Firstly, it is only right that we are gathered here to pay tribute to a giant of a politician, Saudara Lim Kit Siang.  In my mind, there are two key people who have been responsible for this turning point that we have reached in our country’s politics.

One is of course Saudara Anwar Ibrahim who has been the glue in bringing the DAP, PAS and PKR together in Pakatan Rakyat to challenge the political hegemony of BN and UMNO and in galvanizing the electoral vote for the opposition.  The Government has launched a ridiculous campaign to harass and destroy him by a fictitious charge but I am sure Anwar will prevail and will continue his struggle for a better Malaysia.

The second hero in Malaysian politics – someone who has put his heart and soul into transforming Malaysia, and who has paid the price for standing up for the ideals of parliamentary democracy – is Saudara Lim. This is a truly towering Malaysian who has stood unwavering on behalf of justice, truth and equality for over 40 years in the public arena. Many young Malaysians may not be aware that for standing up for our basic freedoms, Saudara Lim was put in detention on two  occasions under the ISA, the first time for 17 months in 1969 and the second time under Operation Lallang in 1987, when Kit Siang and his son Guan Eng were detained for another 18 months, together with five other DAP leaders.

What remains of our democratic system despite the attempts by Barisan and UMNO to debase and corrupt and destroy it – witness what has taken place in our beloved state of Perak –  owes a great deal to the untiring efforts of Kit Siang.  He has been a true Malaysian political giant.

I am not alone in my appreciation. In December 1999, HAKAM the national human rights society had written a tribute to Kit Siang:

“HAKAM would like to put on record its tribute and appreciation to you for your selfless and fearless long-public service in the quest for a more just and equitable society and commitment to the principles of parliamentary democracy and good governance.

“We have no doubt that the cherished ideals and principles that you have steadfastly championed through the long years of trials and tribulations and personal sacrifices will not be in vain and your precept and example will surely be a source of inspiration and an example for the young generation of Malaysians to emulate.”

These words of appreciation were written more than 10 years ago.  Kit Siang continues his fight for a better Malaysia, a fight which I hope the younger generation gathered here will contribute in whatever way they can.

My own contribution is in the way of a donation to the DAP to mark Kit Siang’s birthday.  The contribution is to enable the party to renew its efforts at winning the elections and together with the other members of Pakatan Rakyat, form the next government of Malaysia.  This is the goal – to end the over 50 years of BN autocratic rule – with a new era of clean and transparent politics, with a new government committed to good governance and respect for parliamentary democracy.

This RM100,000 donation is made publicly and openly so that others – whether in business or in the professions – can be encouraged to play their role in transforming the country.  We must never be afraid to put our money where our mouth is.

Too many of my peer group will bitch and complain about how bad the government is; how corrupt BN politicians are; how disgusted they are with the racist politics engaged in by the BN; how the young children of Malaysia face a bleak future; even how badly their own businesses have been affected by the crony-ridden state and national agencies working with the BN politicians.  Yet they do nothing about it.  All they do is mourn and groan.  To this group of rich and well-endowed businessmen and professionals, I challenge them: PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS and I assure you – together we can change the government and Malaysia.

Thank you

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 February 2011, 6:43 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Perak
,
Personal
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sarawak BN may fall like Berlin Wall, says British anti-Taib crusader

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

February 26, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 — Barisan Nasional (BN) has held on to power in Sarawak through intimidation, but could still fall just like the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall, said the sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who has turned into an internet and radio crusader against Tan Sri Taib Mahmud’s administration.

Clare Rewcastle Brown, who operates radio station Radio Free Sarawak and blog Sarawak Report from Covent Garden in London, told The Malaysian Insider that “every person I have spoken to is scared of the fact that the BN government will know how they vote.”

But she said that even though voters “face naked threats that BN will withdraw vital services from longhouses that vote against them,” the tide of opinion can subtly change and “wash away the foundations of power without anybody quite realising.”

“The collapse of the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall took the world by surprise and almost happened overnight,” she said, recalling her experience as a reporter with Sky TV when the wall fell in 1989.

“I remember the shock of it all, as the grip of communist power had seemed so immovable for so long,” said the 51-year-old investigative journalist who began her career with the BBC World Service in 1983.

The Berlin Wall was the physical manifestation of the Iron Curtain, a symbolic partition between the communist and democratic halves of Europe until it fell in 1989, marking the end of the Cold War era and then erosion of communism globally.

Rewcastle-Brown made the comparison between the Iron Curtain and Sarawak in an interview with The Malaysian Insider today.

In the interview, she said that Radio Free Sarawak, which broadcasts to the state over short wave, a long range band of frequencies, has fed what “seems to be such a hunger for news in the jungles of Sarawak … that they seem to be back tuning in to these old fashioned radios.”

The two media that she publicly took responsibility for on Wednesday, have repeatedly accused Abdul Taib and his administration of corruption and illegitimate political practices.

However, these allegations have also been made by others before and have not prevented the 74-year-old chief minister from holding power for 30 years.

Rewcastle Brown, who was born and raised in Sarawak until the age of eight, added that the opposition parties in the state have also realised that they need to unite and “are now putting normal political bickering and personal ambitions aside.”

Although Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties had ensured straight fights across the peninsular in the 2008 general election, Sarawak saw 15 state seats that were contested by more than two candidates in the 2006 state polls.

However, with state polls expected in April and the assembly’s mandate expiring in July, DAP, PKR, PAS and also the Sarawak Nasional Party (SNAP) have begun negotiations over seat allocations in a bid to ensure one-on-one battles with BN.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 February 2011, 7:16 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The destiny of this pageant lies in the Kingdom of Oil

by
 Robert Fisk

Independent.co.uk

Saturday, 26 February 2011

The Middle East earthquake of the past five weeks has been the most tumultuous, shattering, mind-numbing experience in the history of the region since the fall of the Ottoman empire. For once, “shock and awe” was the right description.

The docile, supine, unregenerative, cringing Arabs of Orientalism have transformed themselves into fighters for the freedom, liberty and dignity which we Westerners have always assumed it was our unique role to play in the world. One after another, our satraps are falling, and the people we paid them to control are making their own history – our right to meddle in their affairs (which we will, of course, continue to exercise) has been diminished for ever.

The tectonic plates continue to shift, with tragic, brave – even blackly humorous – results. Countless are the Arab potentates who always claimed they wanted democracy in the Middle East. King Bashar of Syria is to improve public servants’ pay. King Bouteflika of Algeria has suddenly abandoned the country’s state of emergency. King Hamad of Bahrain has opened the doors of his prisons. King Bashir of Sudan will not stand for president again. King Abdullah of Jordan is studying the idea of a constitutional monarchy. And al-Qa’ida are, well, rather silent.

Who would have believed that the old man in the cave would suddenly have to step outside, dazzled, blinded by the sunlight of freedom rather than the Manichean darkness to which his eyes had become accustomed. Martyrs there were aplenty across the Muslim world – but not an Islamist banner to be seen. The young men and women bringing an end to their torment of dictators were mostly Muslims, but the human spirit was greater than the desire for death. They are Believers, yes – but they got there first, toppling Mubarak while Bin Laden’s henchmen still called for his overthrow on outdated videotapes.

But now a warning. It’s not over. We are experiencing today that warm, slightly clammy feeling before the thunder and lightning break out. Gaddafi’s final horror movie has yet to end, albeit with that terrible mix of farce and blood to which we are accustomed in the Middle East. And his impending doom is, needless to say, throwing into ever-sharper perspective the vile fawning of our own potentates. Berlusconi – who in many respects is already a ghastly mockery of Gaddafi himself – and Sarkozy, and Lord Blair of Isfahan are turning out to look even shabbier than we believed. Those faith-based eyes blessed Gaddafi the murderer. I did write at the time that Blair and Straw had forgotten the “whoops” factor, the reality that this weird light bulb was absolutely bonkers and would undoubtedly perform some other terrible act to shame our masters. And sure enough, every journalist is now going to have to add “Mr Blair’s office did not return our call” to his laptop keyboard.

Everyone is now telling Egypt to follow the “Turkish model” – this seems to involve a pleasant cocktail of democracy and carefully controlled Islam. But if this is true, Egypt’s army will keep an unwanted, undemocratic eye on its people for decades to come. As lawyer Ali Ezzatyar has pointed out, “Egypt’s military leaders have spoken of threats to the “Egyptian way of life”… in a not so subtle reference to threats from the Muslim Brotherhood. This can be seen as a page taken from the Turkish playbook.” The Turkish army turned up as kingmakers four times in modern Turkish history. And who but the Egyptian army, makers of Nasser, constructors of Sadat, got rid of the ex-army general Mubarak when the game was up?

And democracy – the real, unfettered, flawed but brilliant version which we in the West have so far lovingly (and rightly) cultivated for ourselves – is not going, in the Arab world, to rest happy with Israel’s pernicious treatment of Palestinians and its land theft in the West Bank. Now no longer the “only democracy in the Middle East”, Israel argued desperately – in company with Saudi Arabia, for heaven’s sake – that it was necessary to maintain Mubarak’s tyranny. It pressed the Muslim Brotherhood button in Washington and built up the usual Israeli lobby fear quotient to push Obama and La Clinton off the rails yet again. Faced with pro-democracy protesters in the lands of oppression, they duly went on backing the oppressors until it was too late. I love “orderly transition”. The “order” bit says it all. Only Israeli journalist Gideon Levy got it right. “We should be saying ‘Mabrouk Misr!’,” he said. Congratulations, Egypt!

Yet in Bahrain, I had a depressing experience. King Hamad and Crown Prince Salman have been bowing to their 70 per cent (80 per cent?) Shia population, opening prison doors, promising constitutional reforms. So I asked a government official in Manama if this was really possible. Why not have an elected prime minister instead of a member of the Khalifa royal family? He clucked his tongue. “Impossible,” he said. “The GCC would never permit this.” For GCC – the Gulf Co-operation Council – read Saudi Arabia. And here, I am afraid, our tale grows darker.

We pay too little attention to this autocratic band of robber princes; we think they are archaic, illiterate in modern politics, wealthy (yes, “beyond the dreams of Croesus”, etc), and we laughed when King Abdullah offered to make up any fall in bailouts from Washington to the Mubarak regime, and we laugh now when the old king promises $36bn to his citizens to keep their mouths shut. But this is no laughing matter. The Arab revolt which finally threw the Ottomans out of the Arab world started in the deserts of Arabia, its tribesmen trusting Lawrence and McMahon and the rest of our gang. And from Arabia came Wahabism, the deep and inebriating potion – white foam on the top of the black stuff – whose ghastly simplicity appealed to every would-be Islamist and suicide bomber in the Sunni Muslim world. The Saudis fostered Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. Let us not even mention that they provided most of the 9/11 bombers. And the Saudis will now believe they are the only Muslims still in arms against the brightening world. I have an unhappy suspicion that the destiny of this pageant of Middle East history unfolding before us will be decided in the kingdom of oil, holy places and corruption. Watch out.

But a lighter note. I’ve been hunting for the most memorable quotations from the Arab revolution. We’ve had “Come back, Mr President, we were only kidding” from an anti-Mubarak demonstrator. And we’ve had Saif el-Islam el-Gaddafi’s Goebbels-style speech: “Forget oil, forget gas – there will be civil war.” My very own favourite, selfish and personal quotation came when my old friend Tom Friedman of The New York Times joined me for breakfast in Cairo with his usual disarming smile. “Fisky,” he said, “this Egyptian came up to me in Tahrir Square yesterday, and asked me if I was Robert Fisk!” Now that’s what I call a revolution.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 February 2011, 12:34 am and is filed under
Articles
,
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


U.N. votes to impose sanction on Gaddafi

By
Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 27, 2011

UNITED NATIONS – The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday night to impose military and financial sanctions against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and his inner circle and to refer his regime’s crackdown on protesters to a war crimes tribunal for an investigation of possible crimes against humanity.

The move came as President Obama for the first time called on Gaddafi to step down, deepening the Libyan leader’s international isolation as he struggles to contain a revolt that threatens his 41-year rule. It also marked the first U.S. vote in support of a Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court, which the United States has not joined.

Speaking by phone with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama said that “when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” according to a White House account of the conversation. The statement brings U.S. policy in line with the position that European leaders adopted several days ago.

Obama had taken a more cautious approach, in part because he feared that hundreds of Americans in Tripoli could be in danger if he called for regime change. Those diplomats and other citizens have now been evacuated.

In a statement Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. would work with others to provide humanitarian assistance to Libyans in need. “We will continue to look at the full range of options to hold the Libyan government accountable and support the Libyan people,” she said. “Moammar Gaddafi has lost the confidence of his people and he should go without further bloodshed and violence.”

The hardening U.S. position came as Gaddafi’s renegade U.N. envoy endorsed a draft Security Council resolution Saturday that would impose a range of military and financial sanctions on the Libyan government and authorize the International Criminal Court to investigate.

In a letter to the Security Council president, Libyan envoy Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgam wrote that his delegation “supports the measures proposed in the draft resolution to hold to account those responsible for the armed attacks against the Libyan civilians, including [through] the International Criminal Court.”

A day earlier, Shalgam announced in a tearful appearance before the Security Council that he had broken ranks with his longtime friend, mentor and leader. That announcement followed a wave of defections by Gaddafi’s diplomatic corps, leaving the Libyan ruler essentially without a voice or influence outside the country.

The drama unfolded as the 15-nation council considered a package of sanctions, including an arms embargo, a travel ban and an asset freeze on Gaddafi and his associates.

Shalgam’s missive appeared calculated to overcome resistance to an international criminal investigation, particularly from China, Russia and India, which have expressed concern that an investigation could inflame, rather than calm, the situation on the ground.

After Shalgam’s appeal, Russia and India agreed to support the provision authorizing an investigation. China, whose delegation requested time to seek instruction from Beijing, was the only holdout. It ultimately reversed its position and backed the vote, citing broad African and Arab support for the initiative.

The resolution imposed a travel ban on Gaddafi and 15 relatives and loyalists. Six of those individuals, including Gaddafi himself and his immediate family members, are also subject to a freeze of their assets.

In addition, the resolution calls on Libya to respect press freedom and to permit the entry of relief workers, medical supplies and other humanitarian assistance. It also urges Libya “to ensure the safety of all foreign nationals and facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country.”

The arms embargo is designed to prevent Gaddafi from resupplying loyalist forces, including thousands of African mercenaries.

Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, secured a provision precluding the United States and European powers from using the resolution as a pretext for military intervention in Libya.

The original text of the resolution, drafted by Britain, included broad language authorizing states “to adopt all measures necessary” to enable the delivery of humanitarian assistance. European diplomats said the language was not intended as a legal basis for a military invasion of Libya.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 February 2011, 4:40 pm and is filed under
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dying in two different ways

by
Goh Keat Peng

In the news this week, we are numbed by reports of the death of hundreds of human beings not unlike ourselves. Some of these our fellow human beings were going about quietly in their everyday life in a city that is not only beautiful in myriads of ways but also ordinary like many other cities of the world. At 12.51 pm on February 21, 2011 an earthquake struck and to date, 147 have being confirmed dead, with still 200 people missing.

What do we, can we, say? For all these many years, that city like so many others in the human world was functioning normally with few if any extraordinary event ever happening. Then this thing happens and loved ones, colleagues and neighbours are taken from this life in a twinkle of an eye leaving behind heartache, anguish and bewilderment. Even those who are left without loss of loved ones face months if not years of rubble- physical and emotional- to cope with. Normalcy and routine as one resumes one’s life under these circumstances is not possible for a while.
Then, we hear that the man in Libya has arranged for live bullets to be fired at street protestors, and in at least one instance, even worshippers who were coming out of the mosque after Friday prayers. In his televised speech, he said that the arsenals will be opened if need be so that loyal supporters of his regime can be supplied with weapons and ammo to wage a patriotic war against the enemies of the country, that is, those out there who are demanding his removal. To date, more than 1,000 have lost their lives many of whom were where they were when killed by their own decision, seeking freedom from despotism and the suppression and corruption which come with it.

What do we, can we, say? Especially when each new day will see many more deaths in this fashion.

In the case of natural catastrophes, there is little if indeed any room for argument or debate. Death comes when it comes. If one happens to be there, the scene of the happening, one is there at that particular time of the catastrophe. Victims were not taking a conscious risk. It could not be said of them that they knew the risk involved. They were not going anywhere which could be regarded as a place of present or perpetual danger. To say that the place one is in is within the ring of fire (that is, earthquake prone) does not necessarily mean that nobody should be staying on there. If that were so, whole human populations (not to mention, animals) in countless number of places the world over would have to be moved or resettled. But where to, how to?

Obviously, the predicament faced by protestors against despotism is in a very different category of equation altogether. The danger to one’s wellbeing, limbs and life is clear to all such protestors especially in the case of Libya. Unlike in the case of the Philippines in 1986, you won’t get nuns (of any religion) going around and quietly, slowly, deliberately placing a stock of bright flower into the barrel of each gun pointed at the protestors. To go against this particular man, you would have to be making a conscious decision; you are putting yourself at great risk.

Clearly, for any person to go on the street who is not an obvious supporter of the power that be, would be to place him- or herself in clear and present danger. The chances of being hit by a live bullet or beaten up or arrested and shut away are bound to be very high.

It is a very humbling sight to behold, these people who are intentionally placing themselves in the line of fire. Humbling precisely because when people don’t have to be in a desperately dangerous place but knowingly choose to do so. It is a very sobering thought for us who view such scenes on television to know that this or that face we are seeing may be the next victim of a brutal act, may have lost his or life in the next moment.

Fastforward from Benghazi, Az Zawiyah and Tripoli to our own situation in Malaysia where the challenge we face is not guns with live bullets or any life-threatening or even necessarily job-threatening or captivity-threatening. The task before us seems very much easier, so much more doable. Like for instance, if I am not already registered to vote, I must do so immediately. If I am already eligible to vote, to just make sure I turn up to vote, despite the traffic or the queue or the weather. If any of the by-elections happens to be in my constituency, I must make sure that my name is not transferred to some other polling station without my knowledge. When I vote, I should bear in mind what my vote involves and I am ready to vote with good reasons and at least in a deliberate, intentional way, knowing who, why and what I am voting for.

Just taking a little trouble to think through certain things in the midst of my daily schedule, my at work or at home responsibility or my entertainment, sports or leisure schedule. To think about the nation, where it is going and where instead it should be going.

Itu pun tak boleh. Even this little we are unwilling to do?

Come to think of it, there is a third way of dying. That is, dying in effect by not living in a responsible, thinking way. Doing by not doing.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 February 2011, 12:43 pm and is filed under
environment
,
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


History’s shifting sands

The revolutions sweeping the Arab world indicate a tectonic shift in the global balance of people power

by
Mark LeVine

Aljazeera

26 Feb 2011

For decades, even centuries, the peoples of the Arab world have been told by Europeans and, later, Americans that their societies were stagnant and backward. According to Lord Cromer, author of the 1908 pseudo-history Modern Egypt, their progress was “arrested” by the very fact of their being Muslim, by virtue of which their minds were as “strange” to that of a modern Western man “as would be the mind of an inhabitant of Saturn”.

The only hope of reshaping their minds towards a more earthly disposition was to accept Western tutelage, supervision, and even rule “until such time as they [we]re able to stand alone,” in the words of the League of Nations’ Mandate. Whether it was Napoleon claiming fraternité with Egyptians in fin-de-18e-siècle Cairo or George W. Bush claiming similar amity with Iraqis two centuries later, the message, and the means of delivering it, have been consistent.

Ever since Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, the great Egyptian chronicler of the French invasion of Egypt, brilliantly dissected Napoleon’s epistle to Egyptians, the peoples of the Middle East have seen through the Western protestations of benevolence and altruism to the naked self-interest that has always laid at the heart of great power politics. But the hypocrisy behind Western policies never stopped millions of people across the region from admiring and fighting for the ideals of freedom, progress and democracy they promised.

Even with the rise of a swaggeringly belligerent American foreign policy after September 11 on the one hand, and of China as a viable economic alternative to US global dominance on the other, the US’ melting pot democracy and seemingly endless potential for renewal and growth offered a model for the future.

Trading places

But something has changed. An epochal shift of historical momentum has occurred whose implications have yet to be imagined, never mind assessed. In the space of a month, the intellectual, political and ideological centre of gravity in the world has shifted from the far West (America) and far East (China, whose unchecked growth and continued political oppression are clearly not a model for the region) back to the Middle – to Egypt, the mother of all civilization, and other young societies across the Middle East and North Africa.

Standing amidst hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in Tahrir Square seizing control of their destiny it suddenly seemed that our own leaders have become, if not quite pharaohs, then mamluks, more concerned with satisfying their greed for wealth and power than with bringing their countries together to achieve a measure of progress and modernity in the new century. Nor does China, which has offered its model of state-led authoritarian capitalist development coupled with social liberalisation as an alternative to the developing world, seem like a desirable option to the people risking death for democracy in the streets of capitals across the Arab world and Iran.

Instead, Egyptians, Tunisians and other peoples of the region fighting for revolutionary political and economic change have, without warning, leapfrogged over the US and China and grabbed history’s reins. Suddenly, it is the young activists of Tahrir who are the example for the world, while the great powers seem mired in old thinking and outdated systems. From the perspective of “independence” squares across the region, the US looks ideologically stagnant and even backwards, filled with irrational people and political and economic elites incapable of conceiving of changes that are so obvious to the rest of the world.

Foundations sinking into the sands?

Although she likely did not intend it, when Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, warned Arab leaders in early January that they must “reform” lest their systems “sink in the sand” her words were as relevant in Washington as they were in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo or Sanaa. But Americans – the people as much as their leaders – are so busy dismantling the social, political and economic foundations of their former greatness that they are unable to see how much they have become like the stereotype of the traditional Middle Eastern society that for so long was used to justify, alternately (and sometimes simultaneously) supporting authoritarian leaders or imposing foreign rule.

A well known Egyptian labour organiser, Kamal Abbas, made a video telling Americans from Tahrir that “we and all the people of the world stand on your side and give you our full support”. It is a good thing, because it is clear Americans need all the support they can get. “I want you to know,” he continued, “that no power can challenge the will of the people when they believe in their rights. When they raise their voices loud and clear and struggle against exploitation.”

Aren’t such lines supposed to be uttered by American presidents instead of Egyptian union activists?

Similarly, in Morocco activists made a video before their own ‘day of rage’ where they explained why they were taking to the streets. Among the reasons, “because I want a free and equal morocco for all citizens,” “so that all Moroccans will be equal,” so that education and health care “will be accessible to everyone, not only the rich,” in order that “labour rights will be respected and exploitation put to an end,” and to “hold accountable those who ruined this country”.

Can one even imagine millions of Americans taking to the streets in a day of rage to demand such rights?

“Stand firm and don’t waiver …. Victory always belongs to the people who stand firm and demand their just rights,” Kamal Abbas urged Americans. When did they forget this basic fact of history?

From top to bottom

The problem clearly starts from the top and continues to the grass roots. Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency on the slogan “Yes we can!” But whether caving in to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, on settlements, or standing by as Republicans wage a jihad on the working people of Wisconsin, the president has refused to stand up for principles that were once the bedrock of American democracy and foreign policy.

The American people are equally to blame, as increasingly, those without healthcare, job security or pensions seem intent on dragging down the lucky few unionised workers who still have them rather than engage in the hard work of demanding the same rights for themselves.

The top one per cent of Americans, who now earn more than the bottom 50 per cent of the country combined, could not have scripted it any better if they had tried. They have achieved a feat that Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak and their fellow cleptocrats could only envy (the poorest 20 per cent of the population in Tunisia and Egypt actually earn a larger share of national income than does their counterpart in the US).

The situation is so desperate that a well known singer and activist contacted me in Cairo to ask organisers of Tahrir to send words of support for union workers in Wisconsin. Yet “Madison is the new Tahrir” remains a dream with little hope of becoming reality, even as Cairenes take time out from their own revolution proudly to order pizza for their fellow protesters in Wisconsin.

The power of youth and workers

In Egypt, workers continue to strike, risking the ire of the military junta that has yet to release political prisoners or get rid of the emergency law. It was their efforts, more than perhaps anyone else, that pushed the revolution over the top at the moment when people feared the Mubarak regime could ride out the protests. For their part, Americans have all but forgotten that the “golden years” of the 1950s and 1960s were only golden to so many people because unions were strong and ensured that the majority of the country’s wealth remained in the hands of the middle class or was spent on programmes to improve public infrastructure across the board.

The youth of the Arab world, until yesterday considered a “demographic bomb” waiting to explode in religious militancy and Islamo-fascism, is suddenly revealed to be a demographic gift, providing precisely the vigour and imagination that for generations the people of the region have been told they lacked. They have wired – or more precisely today, unwired – themselves for democracy, creating virtual and real public spheres were people from across the political, economic and social spectrum are coming together in common purpose. Meanwhile, in the US it seems young people are chained to their iPods, iPhones and social media, which has anesthetised and depoliticised them in inverse proportion to its liberating effect on their cohorts across the ocean.

Indeed, the majority of young people today are so focused on satisfying their immediate economic needs and interests that they are largely incapable of thinking or acting collectively or proactively. Like frogs being slowly boiled alive, they are adjusting to each new setback – a tuition increase, here, lower job prospects there – desperately hoping to get a competitive edge in a system that is increasingly stacked against them.

Will Ibn Khaldun be proved right?

It now seems clear that hoping for the Obama administration to support real democracy in the Middle East is probably too much to ask, since it cannot even support full democracy and economic and social rights for the majority of people at home. More and more, the US feels not just increasingly “irrelevant” on the world stage, as many commentators have described its waning position in the Middle East, but like a giant ship heading for an iceberg while the passengers and crew argue about how to arrange the deck chairs.

Luckily, inspiration has arrived, albeit from what to a ‘Western’ eye seems like the unlikeliest of sources. The question is: Can the US have a Tahrir moment, or as the great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun would have predicted, has it entered the irreversible downward spiral that is the fate of all great civilizations once they lose the social purpose and solidarity that helped make them great in the first place?

It is still too early to say for sure, but as of today it seems that the reins of history have surely passed out of America’s hands.

Mark LeVine is a professor of history at UC Irvine and senior visiting researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden. He has authored several books including Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine (University of California Press, 2005) and An Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books, 2009).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 February 2011, 7:05 pm and is filed under
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is CSL going to apologise for producing a MCA President and MCA Deputy President who betrayed the trust of the people and country as Transport Minister in the RM12.5b PKFZ “grand corruption”?

MCA President Datuk Dr. Chua Soi Lek astounded Malaysians and the world with his smug reaction to the corruption charges against a second MCA Minister yesterday – former MCA Deputy President and former Transport Minister Tan Sri Chong Kong Choy – in connection with the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) “scandal of scandals”.

Chua said Chan’s court case will not affect MCA. He said when a person was charged in court, it did not mean he was guilty.

He said: “We should let the legal process take its course.”

Chua’s comments raise many intriguing questions.  Has the MCA President been given an assurance by the “higher-up” that Chan was not guilty of three charges of corruption laid against him yesterday for which a RM1 million bail was posted – and that the former MCA Deputy President would be cleared in the trial, most likely after the next general elections?

Or has Chua any good reason to believe that the corruption charges against Chan as well as the corruption charges made previously against former MCA President and former Transport Minister Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik were just “a political charade” and that the charges would be quashed with the duo declared innocent after the next general elections?

Whatever the future outcome of the corruption trials against Ling and Chan over their role in the PKFZ scandal, the question is how Chua could come out with such a smug response yesterday that the charges against Chan will not affect MCA when for first time in history, a second MCA Minister was accused of “grand corruption” and betraying the Prime Minister, Umno, Barisan Nasional  and the nation in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “scandal of scandals”?

Never before in the nation’s 53-year history had a Cabinet Minister been accused of such “grand corruption” or of misleading the Prime Minister (Chan’s case) or the entire Cabinet (in the case of Ling) resulting in the country’s worst financial scandal – whether from Umno, MIC, Gerakan or the Sabah/Sarawak component parties of the ruling coalition.

Now, two former senior Ministers have been charged in court one after another for  “grand corruption” and what should be completely unforgivable of misleading and cheating the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet landing the country’s in the worst ever financial scandal – one who was MCA President and the other MCA Deputy President.

Chua himself said yesterday that “anyone who had committed an offence in the eyes of the Attorney-General should face the music” as “This shows that the Government is fair because it doesn’t just go after the small fish but also the big fish”!

Isn’t Chua, as current MCA President, going to apologise not only to UMNO and  Barisan Nasional but even more important to all Malaysians for producing a MCA President and MCA Deputy President who had betrayed the trust of all Malaysians and the country in being involved in “grand corruption” and cheating the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the nation in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal when they were Transport Ministers?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 March 2011, 3:47 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


London protesters want Taib’s assets frozen

Mar 1, 11

Malaysiakini

Some 20 protesters comprising Malaysians and foreigners have staged a ‘Stop Timber Corruption’ demonstration in the British capital to highlight alleged abuses of long-serving Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud.

The demonstration, organised yesterday by NGO Bruno Manser Fund (BMF), was held outside a property company controlled by the Taib family, Ridgeford Properties Ltd, in central London.

It was led by Clare Rewcastle Brown, the sister-in-law of former British premier Gordon Brown, and Sarawak native Peter John Jaban.

Rewcastle Brown is the founder of the critical website Sarawak Report, which has been exposing Taib’s alleged corruption and global business empire.

Peter is the DJ of Radio Free Sarawak, an independent short-wave radio station broadcasting from London. It focuses on Sarawak activists and communities defending their land rights and opposing abuses by Taib.

Protesters unfurled posters with Taib’s portrait that said ‘Stop timber corruption in Sarawak’ and ‘Freeze Taib assets’.

Other posters read ‘Chief Minister of Sawarak – 30 years is enough!’, ‘Stop illegal logging on native lands’ and ‘Respect natives’ rights’.

A similar demonstration organised by BMF was held in downtown Ottawa, Canada, outside another property company controlled by Taib’s family – Sakto Corporation.

Last week, BMF released a list of 49 companies located across four continents around the globe, which it claims are linked to Taib and his family.

The intention of the blacklist is to help anti-corruption and anti-money-laundering authorities in the countries listed, to identify and freeze allegedly illicit assets accumulated by Taib and his family, the Swiss-based BMF said.

Following the release of the list, BMF launched an online petition on its website, calling on the authorities in the respective countries to investigate Taib and his family’s financial dealings and freeze their assets for subsequent restitution to the people of Sarawak.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 March 2011, 12:56 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yes, It Could Happen Here – Why Saudi Arabia is ripe for revolution

BY MADAWI AL-RASHEED | FEBRUARY 28, 2011

Foreign Policy.com

In the age of Arab revolutions, will Saudis dare to honor Facebook calls for anti-government demonstrations on March 11? Will they protest at one of Jeddah’s main roundabouts? Or will they start in Qatif, the eastern region where a substantial Shiite majority has had more experience in real protest? Will Riyadh remain cocooned in its cloak of pomp and power, hidden from public gaze in its mighty sand castles?

Saudi Arabia is ripe for change. Despite its image as a fabulously wealthy realm with a quiescent, apolitical population, it has similar economic, demographic, social, and political conditions as those prevailing in its neighboring Arab countries. There is no reason to believe Saudis are immune to the protest fever sweeping the region.

Saudi Arabia is indeed wealthy, but most of its young population cannot find jobs in either the public or private sector. The expansion of its $430 billion economy has benefited a substantial section of the entrepreneurial elite — particularly those well connected with the ruling family — but has failed to produce jobs for thousands of college graduates every year. This same elite has resisted employing expensive Saudis and contributed to the rise in local unemployment by hiring foreign labor. Rising oil prices since 2003 and the expansion of state investment in education, infrastructure, and welfare, meanwhile, have produced an explosive economy of desires.

Like their neighbors, Saudis want jobs, houses, and education, but they also desire something else. Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in 2003, they have expressed their political demands in their own way, through petitions that circulated and were signed by hundreds of activists and professionals, men and women, Sunnis, Shiites, and Ismailis. Reformers petitioned King Abdullah to establish an elected consultative assembly to replace the 120-member appointed Consultative Council Saudis inherited from King Fahd. Political organizers were jailed and some banned from travel to this day. The “Riyadh spring” that many reformers anticipated upon King Abdullah’s accession in 2005 was put on hold while torrential rain swept away decaying infrastructure and people in major cities. Rising unemployment pushed the youth toward antisocial behavior, marriages collapsed, the number of bachelors soared, and the number of people under the poverty line increased in one of the wealthiest states of the Arab world. Today, nearly 40 percent of Saudis ages 20 to 24 are unemployed.

Meanwhile, scandal after scandal exposed the level of corruption and nepotism in state institutions. Princes promised to establish investigative committees, yet culprits were left unpunished. Criticism of the king and top ruling princes remained taboo, and few crossed the red line surrounding the substantial sacrosanct clique that monopolizes government posts from defense to sports. The number of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience swelled Saudi prisons. Under the pretext of the war on terror, the Saudi regime enjoyed a free hand. The interior minister, Prince Nayef, and his son and deputy, Prince Mohammed, rounded up peaceful activists, bloggers, lawyers, and academics and jailed them for extended periods. Saudis watched in silence while the outside world either remained oblivious to abuses of human rights or turned a blind eye in the interests of oil, arms, and investment.

“We are not Tunisia,” “We are not Egypt,” “We are not Libya,” (and perhaps in a month’s time, “We are not the Arab world”) have become well-rehearsed refrains of official Saudi political rhetoric in recent weeks. There is some truth in this: Carrots are often the currency of loyalty in oil-rich countries, including its wealthiest kingdom. But the Saudi royal family uses plenty of sticks, too. Public relations firms in Riyadh, Washington, and London ensure that news of the carrots travels as far as possible, masking unpleasant realities in one of the least transparent and most authoritarian regimes in the Persian Gulf. What cannot be hidden anymore is the political, economic, and social problems that oil has so far failed to address.

When Saudis were poor and lagged behind the world in education, aspirations, and infrastructure, oil was the balm that healed all social wounds. The wave of coups d’état that swept the Arab world in the 1950s and 1960s did not make much impression on Saudis, despite some agitation here and there. Few Saudis were impressed by the effervescence of Arab revolutionary or liberation movements. At the time, most Saudis lacked the education or inclination to question their government, apart from a handful of activists and agitators, including a couple of princes. By the 1970s, oil wealth was developing their taste for the consumer economy and the pleasures of cars, planes, running water, air-conditioning, and sunglasses. Political participation wasn’t part of the package.

Today, oil remains abundant, but Saudis are different. They enjoy more consumption and liquidity than others in the Arab world, but less than those in neighboring Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Saudis are today looking for something else. They are young — youth under 30 account for two-thirds of the Saudi population — educated, connected, and articulate. Above all, they are familiar with the global discourse of democracy, freedom, entitlement, empowerment, transparency, accountability, and human rights that has exploded in the face of authoritarian regimes in the Arab world since January. They watch satellite channels like Al Jazeera and eagerly consume news from uprisings around the region.

So far young Saudis have occupied their own “Liberation Square” on a virtual map. In the 1990s their exiled Islamist opposition used the fax machine to bombard the country with messages denouncing the leadership and calling for a return to pristine Islam. Later, a wider circle of politicized and nonpoliticized young Saudis ventured into Internet discussion boards, chat rooms, blogs, and more recently Facebook and Twitter to express themselves, mobilize, and share grievances. These virtual spaces have become natural homes for both dissenting voices and government propaganda. Recently the king’s private secretary and chief of the royal court, Khaled al-Tuwaijri, launched his own Facebook page.

Saudis thought that they were safe in their virtual world, but the regime has been determined to trace each and every word and whisper that challenges its version of reality. Young bloggers, writers, and essayists have been jailed for asking simple questions like: Who is going to be king after Abdullah? Where is oil wealth going? Who is responsible for corruption scandals associated with arms deals? Why do the king and crown prince take turns leaving the country? Why are Abdullah’s so-called reforms thwarted by his brother Prince Nayef? And who is the real ruler of Saudi Arabia? All unanswered taboo questions.

On Feb. 23, King Abdullah, 87 and frail, having spent three months abroad undergoing from two operations in New York and recuperating in Morocco, was brought back to Riyadh amid a package of welfare promises worth $36 billion. These were for the most part a rather transparent attempt to appease the burgeoning youth population and deflect it from the lure of revolution — public-sector salary increases, unemployment benefits, and subsidies for housing, education, and culture.

In years past, such handouts have been welcomed by a population that has grown used to royal largesse, but now the economy of unmet desires is raising the bar. The king, too old and too weak, may have misread the level of disappointment among many Saudis of all political persuasions, who are voicing their complaints on the Internet. The common thread is a demand for genuine political reform. All signs suggest that Saudis are in a rush to seize this unprecedented opportunity to press for serious political change. The response to King Abdullah’s handouts on Saudi Facebook sites is the refrain “Man cannot live by bread alone.”

Of course, it’s not just liberals who are demanding change. A couple of weeks before the king’s return, a group of Saudi academics and professionals announced the establishment of a Salafi Islamic Ummah Party and launched a web site. Reformist Salafists are calling for democracy, elections, and respect for human rights. Five of the founding members were immediately put in jail. The king’s brother, Prince Talal, disenchanted and politically marginalized but extremely wealthy, went on BBC Arabic television to praise the king and criticize other powerful royal players, the so-called Sudairi Seven (including Crown Prince Sultan, the defense minister; Prince Nayef, the interior minister; and Prince Salman, the governor of Riyadh) without naming them. He revived his 1960s call for constitutional monarchy, which is now being endorsed by some Saudi activists. To date, 119 activists have signed the petition calling for constitutional monarchy. More petitions signed by a cross section of Saudi professionals, academics, and journalists are circulating on the Internet. A broad swatch of Saudi society is now demanding political change.

If Saudis do respond to calls for demonstrations and rise above the old petition syndrome, the majority will be young freethinkers who have had enough of the polarization of Saudi Arabia into two camps: a liberal and an Islamist one, with the Al-Saud family presiding over the widening gap between the two. They want political representation and economic opportunities. An elected parliament is demanded by all.

So far, Saudi Shiites have remained relatively silent, with only minor protests in the Eastern Province. Having watched the Feb. 14 massacre in Bahrain’s Pearl Roundabout, they may hesitate to act alone. If they do, it would be quite easy for the regime to mobilize the Sunni majority and crush their protest, exactly as it did in 1979. In fact, the Shiites would do the regime a great favor at a critical moment when its legitimacy among the majority of Sunnis in the country cannot be taken for granted.

The Shiites may have to wait until they form solid coalitions with mainstream Saudi society to remove any sectarian dimension to their demands. The Hijazis along the western coast would be natural allies, as their complaints about the poor infrastructure of their main city Jeddah may act as a catalyst to push for more political rights and autonomy. A liberal constituency there would be more receptive to overtures from the Shiites of the Eastern Province. If Jeddah and Qatif were to unite in their demands, Riyadh would look more isolated than at any other time. It has many supporters among its historical Najdi constituency, but even they are flirting with the global discourse of freedom. And now some Salafists, the puritanical literal interpreters of Islam, are calling for a real shura, in other words democracy.

It seems that the kingdom is at a crossroads. It must either formulate a serious political reform agenda that will assuage an agitated young population or face serious upheavals over the coming months. To respond to public demands, the agenda should above all start with a written constitution, limit the rule of the multiple royal circles of power within the state, regulate royal succession, inaugurate an elected parliament, and open up the political sphere to civil society organizations. Hiding behind Islamic rhetoric such as “Our constitution is the Quran” is no longer a viable escape route. Many Saudis are disenchanted with both official and dissident Islam. They want a new political system that matches their aspirations, education, and abilities, while meeting their basic human, civil, and political rights.

Like other falling Arab regimes before them, the ruling Al-Saud will inevitably seek to scare the population by raising the spectre of al Qaeda and warning against tribal, regional, and sectarian disintegration. They will try to thwart political change before it starts. Saudis may not believe the scaremongers. The command centers of the Arab revolutions today are not the caves of Tora Bora or Riyadh’s shabby al-Suwaidi neighborhood, where jihadists shot BBC journalist Frank Gardner and his cameraman in 2004. They are the laptops of a young, connected, knowledgeable, but frustrated generation that is rising against the authoritarian public and private families that have been crushing the individual in the pursuit of illusions and control.

Yes, Egypt was key to the coming change, but when Saudis rise they will change the face of the Arab world and its relations with the West forever. Now is the time for the United States and its allies to understand that the future does not lie with the old clique that they have tolerated, supported, and indulged in return for oil, security, and investment. At a time of shifting Arabian sands, it is in the interest of America and the rest of the world to side with the future not the past.

Madawi Al-Rasheed is a professor of social anthropology at King’s College, University of London, and author of Contesting the Saudi State: Islamic Voices from a New Generation and A History of Saudi Arabia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 March 2011, 7:13 pm and is filed under
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An impossible dream for the MCA?

By
Thomas Lee

MySinchew.com

2011-03-02

Both MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and party secretary-general Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha have declared that the party has regained the support of Chinese community, and would do well in the next general election.

They claim that the Barisan Nasional victory in several recent by-elections in constituencies with considerable number of Chinese voters is an indication of the Chinese community support for the MCA.

How substantial is the claim?

An objective look at the roller-coaster history of the MCA will give some clues on whether or not such a claim for the current situation is justifiable, plausible and credible.

The MCA was a creation of necessity, for the survival and preservation of the Chinese community in Malaysia. The original impetus for its formation on 27 February 1949 was the civil war known as the Emergency in post-World War II Malaya, which was the catalyst that caused the mobilization of the Chinese community under the protective socio-political umbrella of the MCA as their indigenized political and civil rights platform in the country.

The founding fathers and early leaders of the MCA came from various social backgrounds with an assortment of miscellaneous political ideologies.

Contrary to current perception, it was not the Chinese-educated segment that initiated and established the MCA. The founding leaders and early members were generally drawn mainly from the elite English-educated business and professional leaders of the community.

The inaugural president was Tun Tan Cheng Lock, a wealthy Baba Chinese rubber tycoon who was a member of the Malayan Anti-Japanese League. Secretary-general Leong Yew Koh, a prominent lawyer and tin mine operator, was a Kuomintang (KMT) general who was appointed to the nation’s first cabinet and later became the first governor of Malacca. Tin miner, banker and newspaper owner Tun Henry H.S. Lee (Lee Hau Shik) was a KMT colonel, who had the distinction of being Malaysia’s first minister of finance.

Then, there was Penang Baba community leader Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu, the leader of the Radical Party, who joined the MCA later in 1952, He was a medical officer in the KMT with the rank of colonel. Chong Eu succeeded Cheng Lock as the MCA president in March 1958, after the founding president stepped down due to poor health.

Since those early stormy days, the party has gone through several major critical adverse political upheavals, at times bringing the party to the brink of disaster and disintegration.

The first major crisis that hit the MCA involved its second president Chong Eu, who fell out with the then powerful and popular Umno and Alliance coalition chief Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first prime minister of independent Malaya, following the Alliance crisis of July 1959.

The MCA was split almost equally between two major blocks, with one led by Chong Eu demanding the redressing and rectification of what he had described as the “unequal partnership” in the Alliance coalition set-up, and the powerful pro-Umno faction headed by Tan Siew Sin who defended the status quo.

Chong Eu’s demands that the MCA be accorded equal status as Umno in the Alliance coalition, accompanied by the equal treatment of the Chinese language, education and economic functions, and that the MCA be allowed to contest all parliamentary seats with Chinese majority may not be unreasonable, but was politically expurgatory and explosive.

The Tunku’s immediate reaction and response was to announce that Umno was prepared to go it alone, without the involvement of the MCA, in the impending general election, unless Chong Eu dropped his demands.

The MCA leadership met on 12 July 1959 and voted by a slim margin of 89 to 80 votes to adhere to the Tunku’s ultimatum. Chong Eu and his faction were ousted, and Siew Sin took over as the new MCA supremo.

The way this first major crisis in the MCA was resolved has since set the tone and trend for the resolutions of all subsequent critical disputes in the party, where Umno ultimately has the final say in its fate.

The second major crisis faced by the MCA was the result of the almost total desertion of the party by the Chinese community during the 10 May 1969 general election, when out of the 33 parliamentary seats the party contested, it managed only to retain 13. The party also lost control of the Penang state government to the new party Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia headed by former MCA president Chong Eu.

The infamous May 13 racial riots followed the electoral debacle of the Alliance, and when the country slowly returned to normalcy with Tun Abdul Razak as the nation’s new chief executive, the MCA was embroiled in another party civil war, this time between what has then be called the Perak-based Young Turks led by the super-duper political maverick Tun Dr Lim Keng Yaik on the one side, and what had then been dubbed as the Presdient’s Men, led the equally super-savvy political genius Tun Lee San Choon, who was then the MCA Youth leader and a fast-rising star in the party.

Umno’s vital role in resolving this MCA internal crisis is seen in the removal of Keng Yaik from his cabinet post, and the elevation of San Choon in the government administration.

By August 1973, the Young Turks were eliminated from the party, only to become a thorn in the MCA fresh over the next few decades after they joined Gerakan, which by then had become a component party of the Barisan Nasional.

Siew Sin announced his resignation from his party and government posts on 8 April 1974, citing health reasons. As expected, San Choon succeeded him as the MCA president.

The San Choon era from 1974 to 1983 was marked by various advances by the MCA which won back some support from the Chinese community. The launching of a scholarship fund called Kojadi, the massive expansion of TAR College, the building of the impressive multi-purpose complex Wisma MCA to house the party headquaters, the takeover of the fast-growing influential English-language newspaper The Star, and a nationwide membership drive gave the party a public image rejuvenation.

Despite San Choon’s attempt to regenerate and reenergize the party by bringing in many young professionals and intellectuals to the party fold, the MCA could not regain the full support of the Chinese clan and community leaders and educationists. Hence, during the 1974 and 1978 general elections, the influential veteran elders of the Chinese community threw their massive support behind the increasing popular opposition party DAP led the plucky charismatic ex-journalist Lim Kit Siang, whose personal integrity and moral character are beyond questioning, even till today.

As a result, the MCA was seen as losing its previously close connection with the Chinese traditional clan and community associations, including the all-powerful Chinese educationist lobby. The vital issues were the New Economic Policy (NEP), Chinese education and the Merdeka University controversy. The MCA was perceived as being impotent in its bargaining with Umno over these matters which are close to the hearts and minds of the Chinese community.

The San Choon era also saw a leadership crisis when in 1977 he managed to oust his deputy Lee Siok Yew and tried to install his good friend Chong Hon Nyan as his right-hand man and heir-apparent. The move was challenged by the popular senior vice-president Michael Chen, who managed to beat Hon Nyan in the contest for the deputy president post during a stormy party general assembly in 1977, which the police, including the FRU, were called in to restore order.

Despite the party crisis, the MCA did well in the 1982 general election, increasing its parliamentary representation to 24 from 17 previously in the 154-seat Dewan Rakyat at the expense of the DAP which had its representation reduced from 16 to just 9 MPs.

In April 1983, San Choon announced his resignation as party president and cabinet minister, sending shockwaves through the party and stunning those outside it. He was still young and healthy, was riding high in the party, and there seemed to be no legitimate reason for him to step down, unless the hand of the then Umno leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was behind it.

Mahathir had succeeded Tun Hussein Onn as Umno president and was sworn in as prime minister on 17 July 1981. There were rumours then that Mahathir was not happy or satisfied with San Choon, who was perceived to be ineffective and inefficient in delivering the Chinese support to the Barisan Nasional.

San Choon himself was apparently frustrated that he did not have much political clout with the Umno leadership, and felt that it was time to go before things got worse for him.

Following San Choon’s departure, Datuk Dr Neo Yee Pan was appointed the acting president in April 1983. Yee Pan was earlier elevated to the deputy president’s post following the resignation of Datuk Richard Ho as deputy president after he was not fielded as a candidate in the 1982 general election.

With Yee Pan, the MCA reached its nadir when a major crisis of tsunamic proportion erupted in March 1984 after he sacked his main rival Tan Koon Swan, a popular self-made tycoon who was appointed a vice-president by San Choon when Yee Pan moved up to become deputy president.

Along with Koon Swan, Yee Pan also expelled his rival’s team of reformist leaders, including Dr Ling Liong Sik, Lee Kim Sai and Kee Yong Wee.

The immediate cause of the row was the impending challenge of Koon Swan for the president’s post in the June 1984 party elections and the allegation of phantom members being created to boost delegate representation at the division level. The party election system provides that each division is allowed to send one delegate for every 100 members it has. The more members a division has, the more delegates it could send to the party national general assembly where elections for national leaders are made.

The phantom member issue was sparked off when it was alleged in February 1984 that the party branches in the Petaling division were beefed up with hundreds of fictitious members. It was found that many of the bogus members have Chinese names but identity card numbers of non-Chinese.

The Koon Swan camp was obviously incensed over the matter and demanded that the party headquarters under the control of party secretary-general Chong Hon Nyan investigate the matter and provide them with a master list of the party membership for verification. The request was simply dismissed by the party head office.

During the Yee Pan-Koon Swan struggle for power, the party image was scandalized in the Chinese community, causing it a complete loss of face. There were court cases, smear campaigns, poison-pen letters, fist-fights and chairs throwing. It was an era of shame for the party and, since then, its influence in the Chinese community had started to decline.

The Yee Pan-Koon Swan crisis reached its critical point when on Monday 19th March 1984, Yee Pan sacked Koon Swan and 13 other party leaders, including three MPs, two of them deputy ministers (Kim Sai and Liong Sik), and a senator (Kee Yong Wee). The immediate cause of the expulsion was the direct challenge by the Koon Swan camp to demand a party EGM to resolve the phantom member issue.

San Choon was recalled to be mediator of the dispute. His efforts, however, proved futile as his neutrality was questioned by both sides.

The Yee Pan camp refused to call for an EGM although the Koon Swan side had more than the legally required number of delegates to hold one. The issue finally landed in the court, following several tense confrontations between the two groups, which involved the police stepping in to maintain order. The MCA had then hit the height of folly and shame in the eyes of the Chinese community and others.

Finally, it was the direct intervention of Umno, with Ghafar Baba acting as the MCA supremo, that the crisis was settled with Koon Swan being elected the new MCA president in November 1985, with a stunning majority of 1,906 votes against Yee Pan who managed only to obtain 809 votes. Liong Sik was elected the deputy president.

Koon Swan, however, didn’t last long as president. He was arrested, convicted and jailed for criminal breach of trust involved the Pan-Electric Industries in 1986. Liong Sik was then elevated to the top post and stayed on till May 2003, being the longest serving MCA president.

When Liong Sik took over the helm at the young age of 43, he started to turn things around and brought in many young and well-educated men and women into the party, bringing about cohesion and competence in the party.

Liong Sik took bold measures to divest the party stake in commercial activities, and channeled all its energy towards education. He worked tirelessly to promote and raise funds for the expansion of Tunku Abdul Rahman (TAR) College and helped the college to realize its full potential and become one of the more excellent tertiary institutions in the country.

Liong Sik also enhanced the Kojadi scholarship loan scheme and launched the Langkawi Education Project. But his most ambitious and significant contribution to the country was the establishment of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Utar).

Liong Sik’s reign, however, was not without serious problems, the major one being the challenge to his leadership by his ambitious deputy Lee Kim Sai in 1990. Liong Sik survived the leadership struggle and continued to lead the party till May 2003.

And just prior to his retirement from politics in May 2003, Liong Sik managed to strike a compromise with his deputy Lim Ah Lek with a mutually acceptable succession scheme involving what was then generally referred to as Team A (led by Liong Sik) and Team B (led by Ah Lek).

The formula provided for Liong Sik’s heir apparent Ong Ka Ting to take over as president and Ah Lek’s man Chan Kong Choy to become deputy president.

On 23rd May 2003, after 17 years at the helm, Liong Sik stepped down as MCA president and handed over the party reins to Ong Ka Ting, whom he had personally groomed since 1986 when he appointed him as his political secretary. At the same time Ah Lek also stepped down as deputy president to make way for Kong Choy.

Following the 8th March 2008 general election when the MCA lost heavily, Ka Ting quit to take responsibility for the debacle. Ong Tee Keat was elected as the party chief on 18th October 2008. At the same time, Dr Chua Soi Lek, who had resigned from all party and government posts a year earlier after admitting to being involved in a sex scandal, bounced back into the top party leadership when he was elected the deputy president.

The unequally yoked partnership of president Tee Keat and deputy president Soi Lek was a sure recipe for disaster, and so it was. From day one after their election to the two top party posts, the political time bomb has started to tick, with the incompatible pair scheming, plotting and finally launching a full-scale divorce battle.

The climax of this titanic fight in the MCA was set for Saturday 10th October 2009, a very significant date in the history of the Chinese people, being the anniversary of the Wuchang Uprising of 10th October 1911 which triggered off the Xinhai Revolution, leading to the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the ushering in of the modern political era in the 5,000-year old Middle Kingdom.

The 2009 double-ten EGM of the MCA resulted in a non-confidence vote being passed by a simple majority against Tee Keat, the reinstatement of Soi Lek as a party member but an endorsement on his sacking as the deputy president.

The headstrong Tee Keat reneged on his pledge prior to the EGM that he would step down as president if he would to lose the non-confidence vote even by a simple majority. Using a provision in the party constitution stating that an elected official could only be removed by the vote of a two-thirds majority, Tee Keat announced that he would stay put as president.

His decision resulted in a revolt by some of his closest comrades in the party central committee and many in the general membership of the party who questioned his integrity and credibility, leading to a clarion call for an EGM to elect a new president.

The MCA was then set for another of its colossal party power struggles that could spell disaster for the second premier component party of the ruling Barisan Nasional.

A gigantesque factional conflict has been festering beneath the surface since Tee Keat took over the party presidency in October 2008, and dropped Soi Lek, his elected deputy, from the MCA cabinet line-up. Tee Keat had said that political leaders should have high personal moral standards, hinting in a veiled reference to the Soi Lek DVD sex scandal. Tee Keat later initiated disciplinary hearing on the scandal.

This triggered off a declaration of war, with the dissenting forces within the party starting to agitate for a special MCA delegates convention aimed at ousting Tee Keat as the party president. They then mobilized around Soi Lek and launched their assault on Tee Keat.

In March 2010, Soi Lek and his supporters together with vice-president Liow Tiong Lai and his supporters resigned en bloc from the central committee. Their combined number of seats in the central committee is more than two-thirds, and their en bloc resignation paved the way for a fresh election as per the MCA constitution.

The subsequent election saw Soi Lek defeating Tee Keat and former president Ong Ka Ting in a three-cornered contest for the party presidency. Tiong Lai, meanwhile, beat Kong Cho Ha in a straight fight for the deputy president post. Cho Ha, however, was appointed the party secretary-general by Soi Lek.

Throughout the 60-plus years of the roller-coaster history of the MCA, the party has thrived on a love-hate relationship with the Chinese community at large. The party’s biggest challenge is to preserve its political relevance in the Chinese community, and retain its support.

The MCA’s worse crisis is perhaps the 8 March 2008 political tsunami when the Chinese community abandoned it in droves, causing it to lose a huge chunk of its electoral territory to its foremost rival DAP. It was completely wiped out in Penang, losing all the parliamentary and state seats it contested.

However, following the titanic power struggle in the early part of 2010, the MCA seems to have regained some stability now, with the morale and motivation among the party ranks and files thriving.

However, the reception of the party at ground zero in the Chinese community remains cool and placid. The March 2008 debacle of the MCA and the emergence of a rejuvenated DAP as a very viable and powerful alternative guidance of the community has given the Chinese a very feasible option to dump the MCA.

Although Soi Lek and company are attempting to regain the middle ground lost en masse by the party in 2008, the party faces two big obstacles – one internal, and the other external.

The internal obstacle is surely its current leadership, which is composed of out-dated and spent political players, some with very weird and bizarre ideas like the one who proposed setting up a “Chinese Perkasa” to challenge the Malay rights group Perkasa, and some whose public comments of vital issues show their height of folly.

I think almost none of the current leaders will be able to do well if they are to contest in the next general election. The ground zero perception of them is generally negative.

According to a Merdeka Center survey last year, only 9% of the Chinese voters have any respect for Soi Lek, which is actually much better than that of Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon who received only 1%. The survey only listed these two Chinese leaders, but I believe it is a general reflection of the Chinese support for the MCA and Gerakan leaders.

The external obstacle in their way is the rejuvenated, regenerated, and reformed DAP.

Since the March 2008 general election, there has been a taxonomic group of very educated, progressive, professional and youthful politicians in the DAP, led by the relatively young but veteran political maverick Lim Guan Eng. The highly intellectual and articulate young elected representatives of the DAP are making waves in Parliament and at the various state assemblies, as well as in the public arena, where the battle for the hearts and minds of the people is taking place.

The DAP can boast of an army of very bright, well-educated, well-trained, and morally upright young politicians to spearhead the thrust for the transformation of the nation into a new and better Malaysia. Among the young leaders are the likes of Teresa Kok, Chow Kon Yeow, Anthony Loke, Fong Po Kuan, Lim Lip Eng, Teo Nie Ching, Tony Pua, Jenice Lee, Gobind Singh, Boo Cheng Hua, Hannah Yeoh, Violet Yong, Liew Chin Tong, Jeff Ooi, Thomas Su, and many more.

Can the MCA beat off such an impressive formidable challenge from its diehard political opponent DAP?

To regain the trust and confidence of the Chinese community and to remain relevant, the MCA must undergo a total revamp of its leadership, getting rid of those who had overstayed their usefulness, and those who intelligence are found wanting. The practice of cronyism and nepotism must be eliminated.

Otherwise, what Soi Lek and Cho Ha claimed about regaining the confidence and support of the Chinese community is merely an illusion – an impossible dream.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 2 March 2011, 10:32 pm and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


CSL and MCA leadership should  declare whether they  believe  in Ling and Chan’s innocence or that both were “political scapegoats” for Umno

The MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek and the MCA leadership should declare their stand – whether they believe that former MCA President Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and former MCA Deputy President Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy are innocent of the corruption charges which have been preferred against them when they were Transport Minister in connection with the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal or that both were “political scapegoats” for Umno.

Ling and Chan have made infamous Malaysian history for being the first two Cabinet Ministers to be charged for  “grand corruption” in misleading the Cabinet in September/November 2002 (Ling’s charge) and the Prime Minister in February 2004,  October 2005 and March 2006 (Chan’s charges).

Two of Ling’s contemporaries as Cabinet Ministers in 2002 are still MPs although backbenchers – Datuk Ong Ka Ting who was then the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Datuk Fong Chan Onn, then the Minister for Human Resources.

Other Ministers in the 2002 Cabinet of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad included the then Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak (Defence), Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs), Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin (Youth and Sports), Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz (Entrepreneur), Datuk Seri Yatim and Tan Sri Bernard Dompok (Prime Minister’s Department).

Would any of Ling’s Cabinet colleagues in 2002, especially Ong Ka Ting and Fong Chan Onn,  testify in court that they were not misled by him to approve Port Klang Authority’s purchase of PKFZ land, kicking off the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “scandal of scandals”?

Malaysians regardless of political affiliation would be interested to know whether the MCA President and the present MCA leadership believe in the innocence of Ling and Chan or  that there is nobody elsein UMNO who should be hauled to court whether for criminal breach of trust or other corrupt malpractices to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

Or do the MCA President and the MCA leadership believe that Ling and Chan had been made “political scapegoats” by the  UMNO leadership when they are hauled to court for corruption charges in connection with the PKFZ scandal.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 2 March 2011, 1:41 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ex-judge Shaikh Daud should not have compromised his stature by allowing himself to be dragooned by BN propagandists to run down Teoh Beng Hock’s family and lawyers

Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaikh Daud Ismail should not have compromised his stature by allowing himself to be dragooned by Barisan Nasional propagandists to run down Teoh Beng Hock’s family and lawyers for the family’s decision to withdraw from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s mysterious death at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Shah Alam in July 2009.

Another example of such a media blitzkrieg was the comment by the Universiti Teknologi Mara Assoc Prof of Law Datuk Halim Sidek.

I agree with the advice yesterday by the DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh to Halim that he should “in future demonstrate maturity by checking his facts before making public statements” so as “to set a good example to would-be lawyers under his charge”.

It is most unbecoming of a former judge of the Court of Appeal to make the baseless allegation that Teoh’s family had shown “clear disrespect” to the Yang di Pertuan Agong by pulling out of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

I am reminded of the shallow attacks by Cabinet Ministers against me in Parliament in the seventies when I first sought to move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address, on the ground that I was being disloyal and disrespectful of the Yang di Pertuan Agong in seeking to make such an amendment.

This was bunkum and baseless for the Royal Address though delivered by the Yang di Pertuan Agong at the annual opening of Parliament was the policy address of the government-of-the-day and it is established parliamentary practice and convention that criticism of the Royal Address is not criticism of the King but of the government-of-the-day.

It is just amazing that after more than half a century of nationhood, many Malaysians who should know better should still be grappling with such a basic understanding and notion of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.

If Sheikh Daud is right and consistent, why hasn’t he ever spoken up to criticize the Prime Minister and government-of-the-day for their disrespect and disloyalty of the Yang di Pertuan Agong when, for instance, the Royal Police Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation for the establishment of a Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police force or the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations for an independent judiciary were not implemented?

For more than 18 months, when the authorities denied the pleas of Teoh Beng Hock’s family for full, independent and no-holds-barred investigations into Teoh’s death, there has been no squeak of concern from either Shaikh Daud or Halim.

Both Shaikh Daud and Halim should have shown greater empathy and support to Teoh Beng Hock’s family for their decision to pull out of the RCI as the family members have no confidence in its independence and professionalism to get to the bottom of Teoh’s mysterious death especially in  their objections to the Attorney-General’s role – firstly, in seeking a revision of the Coroner’s “Open Verdict” which rejected “death by suicide” at Teoh Beng Hock’s inquest to one of suicide; and secondly, the AG’s officers conducting the RCI when these officers are committed to secure a finding of suicide instead of homicide as borne out by latest RCI proceedings.

Instead, they have chosen to cast aspersions on Teoh Beng Hock’s family and their lawyers, Karpal Singh and Gobind Singh Deo, doing them all a grave injustice.

Both of them are guilty of even greater injustice when they seem to suggest that the Teoh Beng Hock family has things to hide and do not want to real truth of Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death to be out!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 2 March 2011, 4:36 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When Change Beckons

by
Zairil Khir Johari

NB: This article was first published in the March 2011 issue of The Rocket.

    “A new star rises in the eastern sky – a star of freedom for yet another Asian people. A new hope comes into being, a dream long cherished now materialises. It is freedom for the Malayan people and once this torch of freedom is lit let us hold it up high so that all around us will glow with radiant happiness. Let freedom be secured for all the law-abiding people. There shall be freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of want, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement.” – Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, 1957

The aspirations above were cast 54 years ago by the buoyant father of a fledgling nation. Were he alive today he would undoubtedly lament over the fact that we, his children, have collectively failed to live up to his ideals of nationhood. The torch that he lit is now all but extinguished.

Over the last five and a half decades, every basic tenet aforementioned has been compromised for the sake of political and economic expediency by a government intent on maintaining their stranglehold on power. But what’s worse, we let it happen.

Our democratic institutions did not collapse overnight. It was a deliberate process over three decades, in which our country’s proud foundations – the civil service, judiciary, police, civil rights – were abused and dismantled piece by piece until we are left now with a dark void of tyranny where once there was a beacon of freedom and dreams of an august future. It happened systematically before our very eyes, yet we shrugged it off and allowed the decay because we were satisfied with the spoils that trickled down. Our country was rich enough that we could overlook the excesses of the regime because we were comfortable.

But we cannot afford to any longer.

Our finite resources are running out, and the Barisan Nasional government, mutated as it were to its current despotic form, will run our country aground if left unchecked. Our national debt is more than half of our GDP, and soaring from year to year. Our resources are mismanaged – operating expenditure increases exponentially while development expenditure remains stagnant. Inflation is accelerating by the day, and the government’s response is to reduce food subsidies that total only RM4 billion a year while conveniently maintaining the irrational subsidies for independent power producers and highway toll operators that cost us RM23 billion a year. Cost of living is spiralling and the income gap between the rich and the poor is acutely widening. The bottom 40% of our population earns 14.3% of total income while the top 20% earns nearly 50%. With an average household income of RM1,500 a month, millions of Malaysians exist only to subsist.

Yet the solutions proffered by our federal government are as maniacal as they are megalomaniacal. A RM36 billion MRT project and a RM5 billion 100-storey tower are championed as the answers to our economic woes. These are nothing more than the desperate salvoes of a government in decline. Whither goes our beloved country?

Not only have we been rendered economically impaired, but the BN formula of governance has left racial relations severely fractured. The mainstream media is used to antagonise ethnic fault-lines on a daily basis in an attempt to polarise the country to suit the political needs of the incumbents. Is this the country that we wish to raise our children in? A country in which deaths in custody are an accepted norm, in which the words ‘judiciary’ and ‘circus’ have become synonyms, and in which corruption is endemic and the term ‘cost overruns’ has become a part of everyday lexicon?

The future of our children is at risk unless we act collectively and immediately. The genesis of change must come from us: conscientious Malaysians who are willing to stand up for truth, justice and a natural sense of what is right. Our country is ailing, but it is not yet terminal. It can still be saved. I believe that, and so must you.

Change now, save Malaysia. This is our hope, and this is our cause. The time for change is now, and the champions of change are you, and me, and every true Malaysian out there. This, in essence, is our perjuangan.

I began this article with words of hope, a rhapsody to the stars on the birth of a new nation. Although we despair that our father’s dreams have thus far been unfulfilled, we must also persevere and believe that they will soon be.  And so I end now with the words of a man who inherited the dreams of a nation, and who against all imaginable odds, succeeded in making change happen.

    “We are the hope of the future. The answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided, that we cannot come together, that we cannot remake this world as it should be…. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” – Barack Obama, 2008

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 2 March 2011, 11:49 am and is filed under
Articles
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.