Khalid cannot hide behind the Selangor Sultan but must come forward as an honest, honourable and accountable political leader  to explain why he deliberately misled the Sultan on August 11 that he still commanded the majority in the Selangor state assembly when this was not the case

Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim cannot hide behind the Selangor Sultan but must come forward as an honest, honourable and accountable political leader to explain why he deliberately misled the Sultan on August 11 that he still commanded the majority in the Selangor State Assembly when this was not the case.

It is pointless for Khalid to pass the buck and suggest that those accusing him of misleading the Selangor Sultan to write to the ruler himself for an explanation.

The question is not an explanation from the Sultan but an explanation from him as the  issue is not whether the Sultan was satisfied on August 11 that Khalid had the confidence of the majority of the Selangor Assembly representatives but why Khalid had made false representation to the Sultan that he had the majority support in the state assembly when clearly he did not have it.

Is Khalid seriously suggesting that after he was sacked  as a member by PKR on 9th August, he still commanded support of the majority in the Selangor State Assembly?

When Khalid had an audience with the Selangor Sultan on  Monday 11th August, what was the basis of his  confidence and his representation to the Sultan that he still commanded the majority of the State Assembly, as both the 13 PKR and 15 DAP Assembly representatives have already publicly declared their support for Datuk Seri Wan Azizah as the new Mentri Besar.

Even with PAS’ 15 State Assembly representatives still to make their public stand after Khalid’s expulsion from the PKR, there was no basis whatsoever for Khalid to make any representation to the Sultan that he still commanded majority support in the State Assembly.

If Khalid can make a false representation to the Selangor Sultan that he still commanded majority support of the Selangor State Assembly when this was not the case after his expulsion from PKR, what other misrepresentations is he incapable of making  as Selangor Mentri Besar to the people of Selangor?

Khalid should have gracefully and honourably resigned as Selangor Mentri Besar when he was sacked as a member of PKR last Saturday (August 9), as his appointment as Selangor MB stemmed from the trust and mandate given to him by PKR and the Pakatan Rakyat coalition after the 13th General Elections last May, and once this mandate was withdrawn  by PKR by his expulsion from the party, his continued tenure as Selangor Mentri Besar became completely untenable.

Khalid now says that dissolution of the Selangor State Assembly may be an option.

This will make a double mockery of the landslide mandate given by the Selangor voters in the 13th General Elections in May last year where Pakatan  Rakyat won 44 of the 56 Selangor State Assembly seats with the support of  79% of the state electorate as well as the clear-cut provisions in the Selangor Constitution.

There is no constitutional crisis as to who commands the majority of the 56-member Selangor State Assembly, made doubly clear by the Thursday declaration of the 30 Selangor State Assembly representatives – 13 PKR, 15 DAP and 2 PAS (with 13 PAS Assembly representatives still to make their public stand) – but only a constitutional crisis created by one person, Khalid, who refused to resign gracefully and honourably but  is making a mockery of the Selangor Constitution and all democratic principles.

The question of a general election does not arise if both the word and spirit of the Selangor Constitution are strictly complied with.

Article 53(6) of the Selangor Constitution is very clear as it states:  “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the State Executive Council.”

There is no basis for Khalid to request a dissolution of the Selangor State Assembly as firstly, he does not represent any resemblance of a substantial Assembly grouping  to make such a request; and secondly, the State Assembly is not paralysed by a lack of a commanding majority for a new Mentri Besar and new state government to be formed.

Apart from the 12 Umno Assembly representatives whom the Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy UMNO President, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said would give him “unconditional support”, what other support could Khalid get?

Is Khalid seriously suggesting that if the Selangor State Assembly is dissolved, he stands a chance of winning in the state general elections and to return to the State Assembly to  continue as Selangor Mentri Besar?

In fact, Khalid would not be able to save himself if there is a dissolution, for he would be defeated in his present Pelabuhan Klang state seat if he recontests – and everybody knows why he did not recontest in Ijok state seat in the 13th GE last May.

Constitutionally, there is still an honourable final exit for him if he could perform a “political miracle” – to convene an emergency state assembly meeting in a matter of days to establish that he still commanded the support of the majority in the State Assembly despite his expulsion from PKR.

But Khalid should not have  misled the Sultan of Selangor in the royal audience on 11th August  that he still commanded the majority in the State Assembly when clearly this was not the case.

The facts are very clear and indisputable.

(i)	After Khalid was expelled from PKR, he lost the majority support in the Selangor State Assembly.

(ii)	When Khalid met the Selangor Sultan on August 11, he did not command the majority of the Selangor State Assembly and he misled the Sultan with the misrepresentation that he still commanded majority support of the Selangor State Assembly.

(iii)	Today Khalid still does not have majority support in the State Assembly.

(iv)	In an emergency meeting of the State Assembly, there is no way Khalid will win in a vote on a confidence motion.

Can Khalid explain why he is hanging on to the MB’s post instead of honourably and ethically tendering his resignation to the Sultan, as decreed by the Selangor  Constitution, democratic principles and political ethics and morality?

Or will  Khalid  immediately convene an emergency Selangor State Assembly which could be held in a matter of days for a confidence vote to be taken – and not to resort to the subterfuge of dishonourable, unethical,  unprincipled and undemocratic clinging to office for as long as possible until November before facing a confidence vote?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 August 2014, 9:48 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Khalid’s clinging on  as Selangor MB although he has lost majority support in State Assembly different and separate from his expulsion by PKR as member and the two issues should not be linked at all

Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has put himself beyond the pale of an honest, decent, principled and respected Pakatan Rakyat political leader when he is prepared to join forces with the darkest forces in the country which would not spare any scruples to destroy the people’s aspirations for change when he enlisted the support of the Registrar of Societies by filing a complaint over the manner of his sacking, threatening the deregistration of PKR.

However, Khalid’s clinging on as Selangor Mentri Besar although he has lost majority support in the Selangor State Assembly is different and separate from his expulsion as member of PKR and these two issues should not be linked at all.

Khalid is entitled to exhaust all avenues and resources with his team of lawyers and advisers to challenge his expulsion from PKR,  whether through the party processes  or the courts but he has crossed the Rubicorn when he initiated an action which could lead to the deregistration of PKR.

I can understand and share the outrage of the Bersih chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah at her “disgust” over such an action.

Be that as it may, the issue of Khalid’s expulsion from the PKR, whether it is valid or otherwise, is totally unconnected to the issue of the Selangor Mentri Besar – which is whether Khalid has lost the majority support in the Selangor State Assembly.

Surely, no one is suggesting that even if Khalid is reinstated as a PKR member, he would be able to restore majority support in the Selangor State Assembly.

Immediately after Khalid’s expulsion from PKR on August 9, there was no moment in the past eight days that Khalid had ever commanded the majority support in the Selangor State Assembly.

Khalid has been throwing up a lot of red herrings, as in claiming that there is no  Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government after he had spoken and acted in the name of the PR Selangor State Government both inside and outside the Selangor State Assembly in the past six years or that it would be  inconsistent for Pakatan Rakyat to use statutory declarations (SDs) to oust Khalid as Mentri Besar when PR was the one opposing to such a move when BN took over Perak in 2009.

But why is Khalid falsely and dishonestly claiming to have majority support in the State Assembly when it is clear since his expulsion from PKR on August 9 that he had lost such majority support, why has he misled the Selangor Sultan on August 11 that he still commanded such majority and finally, why is he not prepared to convene an emergency meeting of the State Assembly for a vote on a confidence motion to be taken in the State Assembly?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 August 2014, 4:25 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PAS veep’s final nail on Khalid’s MB coffin

– Koon Yew Yin

The Malaysian Insider

16 August 2014

When I first wrote on the Selangor Menteri Besar saga a week ago, I said that Khalid Ibrahim was singlehandledly doing what Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan have not been able to do: to bring down Pakatan Rakyat’s position in the state and even nationally.

I had also written that “Khalid is now being seen as the trojan horse introduced to destroy the unity and solidarity of PAS, and indirectly that of Pakatan, by his attempt to get the support of PAS leaders to ensure he remains in power”

Since then, Khalid has been upping the stakes by claiming that he has the support of the majority of the states’s assemblymen in his attempt to remain as MB. As a result he has been able to get the support of the Selangor Sultan in remaining as MB and also get His Royal Highness’ agreement to his sacking of the PKR and DAP members of the Selangor executive council.

These early successes enjoyed by Khalid have no doubt emboldened Umno and Barisan Nasional to predict the quick break-up of Pakatan and even to entertain hopes of a snap elections in Selangor, so as to take advantage of the disarray within Pakatan.

But slowly and surely, the tables are being turned against Khalid. Firstly, he is accused of deliberately misleading the Sultan on the extent of the support from the state assemblymen. Instead of the majority support that he claimed he got, at most count, he had the minority support of the 11 Umno assemblymen only. Even the limited PAS support that he has been alluding to in a sneaky and indirect way is suspect.

To me, quite apart from the legal opinions that now have emerged which have overwhelmingly concluded that Khalid no longer has the legal, political or moral right to continue holding on to his MB position, the final nail in his MB coffin appears to now be put by PAS vice-president, Datuk Husam Musa, in his open letter to the MB.

It is a letter which apparently has the endorsement of all the party’s top leaders including Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat and Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang and it also appears to set the tone for the party’s final decision on the MB issue when its central committee meets tomorrow.

The arguments in the letter and the principles it draws upon to support its arguments are significant. They are also important to emphasise especially to those who have doubted PAS ability to remain true to the Pakatan coalition in this crisis.

This, I should add, includes me, although I have also noted that “PAS’s image as a moderate Muslim party and its appeal to voters across racial and religious lines is largely because of leaders such as Nizar, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Khalid Samad and a few other liberal individuals in the party. Without them, PAS is doomed as a force in the coming elections as it is regarded as a conservative and even backward party by urban, non-Malays and younger voters”.

According to the PAS vice-president:

1. Khalid is clinging on to a post he had only earned from campaigning as a leader with a Pakatan Rakyat (PR) party.

2. Khalid has dragged PAS through the mud in the crisis when he retained the party’s four state executive councillors and sacked PKR’s and DAP’s six, purportedly because the former party’s lawmakers had declared they would support him.

3. Khalid has used PAS for his own survival as MB by tarnishing PAS’s good name in the eyes of Selangor voters.

4. Selangor government “is not Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s government” but a PR one, as the coalition’s three parties had collectively won the majority seats in the state’s 56-seat assembly.

5. Now that he has been sacked from PKR, Khalid should remove himself from the MB’s seat and accept that he no longer commands the confidence of the assembly.

6. If Khalid were to use PAS’s Selangor lawmakers as pawns in his quest for power, it would be similar to what Umno did during the 2009 Perak crisis, when the party used three defectors from PKR and DAP to wrest majority control of the state assembly.

It is also significant that the PAS vice-president noted that “Umno is PAS’s political foe and there is no element within PAS that would permit any effort towards sharing power with Umno without the approval of the party muktamar”.

Finally, Husam advised Khalid to do the respectful thing and to resign. The great majority of Malaysians will second that.

Khalid still enjoys some respect from those who think that he is simply a maverick in party politics and that he has not sold out in any way to Umno and Barisan. The longer he continues to cling on to power, the more his good name will suffer, and the fewer the people who believe that his intentions are basically decent and honorable.

It is hoped that Khalid’s supporters and lawyers will see the light on this, even if Khalid himself is not able to do so in the heat of battle. – August 16, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 August 2014, 10:42 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Kajang Move’ is ready to go to Shah Alam

– Dr. Tan Eng Bee

The Malaysian Insider

17 August 2014

Finally, PAS has sealed the fate of Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim with its concluded meeting on today that the party is not concerned with Khalid but has endorsed either Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah or Azmin Ali as the next menteri besar of Selangor.

While some would think otherwise, I have maintained that PAS’s decision was expected as its continuous political survival lies in its affiliation with Pakatan Raayat, failing which, the party may face a backlash at GE14, had the party chosen to support Khalid.

For PAS to leave the the coalition partnership is a sure political suicide as the coalition was given a strong mandate at GE13.

This is another episode which shows that when it comes to the core issue of survival of the coalition party, DAP, PKR and PAS have no alternative but to close rank and opt for a compromise that will see to their continuous survival in the political arena where only the fittest will survive.

The stage is set for Khalid to seek an audience with the Sultan of Selangor and gracefully tender his resignation as he has lost the majority support of his political friends in the state assembly.

To dissolve the state assembly is not an option but merely an unnecessary tedious process as there is a very strong mandate for the present state government under PR to continue except for the change of the menteri besar.

I hope Khalid will not even think of proposing the option to the Sultan as his former political masters are still in the driver’s seat and due respect should be given to them to continue without hindrance.

To tender his resignation is the right and honourable thing to do so as to safeguard his stature and dignity as a politician.

Khalid has said that he wants to see that procedures are followed as far as his removal is concerned. I am sure the signs are there for him to take note and to do the right thing at this juncture where the people of Selangor want to get on with their lives and not to contend with another state by-election.

Khalid has prolonged his stay by doing whatever it takes to ensure every option was explored and exploited to the fullest to see that he lives another day in the highest seat of power in Shah Alam.

The day has come where he has no alternative but to bow out gracefully and honourably in a manner that is expected of a man who was sacked and who has lost the support of the majority in the state assembly.

The stage is set to bring the entire episode to a close. There is no returning. It is about moving the state forward.

It is about the welfare of the people of Selangor and not about an individual. The welfare of the state supersedes and is paramount above all other personal or political considerations.

As one residing in Kajang, may I say this: Kajang is ready to send its newly-elected representative, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah to Shah Alam.

The people of Selangor are tired of what had transpired and are ready to welcome the person who is slotted to take over, the person who was put into office though “Kajang Move.”

“Kajang Move” will steer the state to higher heights and the nation will benefit too once the richest state in Malaysia is politically stable, secured and unwavering in its endeavour to serve the people and to bring further developments and progress to the state.

“Kajang Move” is ready to go to Shah Alam.

And please do not fail the people who have put you into office.

Be committed to the call the people have placed on you when they elected the whole lot of you into office at GE13. – August 17, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 August 2014, 7:49 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Khalid now required by law to resign, says law professor

The Malaysian Insider

17 August 2014

Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim is now required by law to tender his resignation following PAS’s announcement of its support for PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and her deputy, Azmin Ali, to take over as Selangor menteri besar, a law professor said today.

The decision was a clear sign that the Islamist party had rejected him as MB, said Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar of the University Malaya law faculty.

If Khalid refused to step down, his MB post and the state executive councillors’ posts would be deemed to be vacated, he said, adding that there was no need for the Sultan of Selangor to dismiss him and the exco.

Gurdial added that this was the essence of the judgment in the Federal Court case of Nizar vs Zambry over the Perak crisis, where the court had said:  “Once the MB is made to know that he has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, he should take the honourable way out by tendering his resignation and the resignation of the executive council.

“If the menteri besar refuses or does not tender his resignation and the resignation of the executive council, the fact remains that the executive council is dissolved (which also includes the menteri besar) on account of the MB losing the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

“Therefore, it is not necessary for the DYMM Sultan… to remove Nizar (the then Perak MB) and the other members of the executive council. His Royal Highness must appoint someone who has the command of the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.”

Gurdial said in a statement today that given this precedent, all that was left was for the sultan to appoint the “someone”.

“This also means that all acts done by the MB from the time he knows he has lost his majority may be illegal,” Gurdial added.

PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu earlier today said the party backed PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and her deputy, Azmin Ali, as candidates to take over as Selangor menteri besar.

He also said that the party would stand by the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition.

“Khalid’s name does not arise any more. He has been sacked (from PKR) and is no longer in PR.

“We collaborate with the party, not the individual,” Mohamad had said. – August 17, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 August 2014, 7:06 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan stronger after Selangor MB debacle, now focus on leadership

NEWS ANALYSIS BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

17 August 2014

Was there any doubt that PAS would come through and support PKR’s proposal for its president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to take over as Selangor Menteri Besar from Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim?

The short answer is yes. And for the past 24 days since PKR officially proposed her name, the coalition of three parties – PKR, PAS and DAP – have been held hostage to the idea that the Islamist party might have other ideas about the Selangor menteri besar issue.

But the PAS leadership came through today, deciding that Dr Wan Azizah and her deputy, Azmin Ali, can replace Khalid – the second-term MB sacked last week for disobeying party orders to resign from the job.

Component party leaders and officials agree that the Islamist party’s decision has strengthened the pact that came about after Election 2008 and won more seats in the 2013 general election.

But they also realise the Selangor debacle has taken some shine off their rule in the country’s wealthiest state, ironically opposite the aims of the Kajang Move which was to enhance and strengthen the PR government in the state.

The episode has also shown that ties between the parties are very strong on the ground in the past two general elections and countless by-elections but the opposite among the leadership.

Officials from the three parties concede that some leaders are very friendly to each other but some are just working-level colleagues with distrust over their personal political ambitions.

“Maybe we could have avoided it if the PKR leaders had spoken to their allies to explain the Kajang Move way before proposing Wan Azizah’s name. But it was not done.

“We have to focus on the leadership now so that we can avoid similar problems in the future,” one official told The Malaysian Insider.

It is an open secret that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang is not close to PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – a fact exposed in a quick meeting to resolve the Selangor MB issue last week.

Coalition sources also said it took DAP leaders Lim Guan Eng and Lim Kit Siang to keep channels open among the top leadership in the respective parties in the past three weeks.

“Fact is, the DAP was the only party that was solidly behind Dr Wan Azizah. The others had issues but it took patience and time to clear the air and move on,” one source said.

The PAS decision today, they said, was a result of hard work within PAS and also in PR to ensure that the pact can continue to ensure further success.

“The PAS decision has shown that we have to act in concert, we cannot act alone. We are stronger from this episode.” Guan Eng, DAP secretary-general, told The Malaysian Insider this afternoon.

PR runs three states – Kelantan, Penang and Selangor – and now holds 87 federal seats.

But he admitted that PR will have to work doubly hard to overcome the political and administrative fallout from the past three weeks when only DAP and PKR were quick to back Dr Wan Azizah but PAS leaders demurred and pleaded for more time.

“We have three years to make up for what happened. I am sure that can be done,” Lim said.

PAS central working committee member Dr Dzukefly Ahmad agreed that PR is now stronger after the Selangor MB impasse.

“The decision strengthens PR and we can now replace Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim,” said Dr Dzukefly, a leading strategist in PAS for the past two general elections, who has worked closely with other PR allies to keep the pact strong.

PKR communications director Fahmi Fadzil hailed the PAS decision today as “an important milestone in the maturing process of coalition politics”.

“Conflict resolution as we’ve seen in this extended episode is a prerequisite for a functional and pragmatic working relationship between the PR component parties.

“I think PAS has taken a very pragmatic approach. This shows us that PAS is far from being a mono-culture political entity, possesses rich and diverse voices and opinions,” he said.

But he agreed the coalition “will have to work doubly hard to repair the bad image that has resulted from this imbroglio”.

“I think these differences can be overcome,” Fahmi said, adding the infusion and inclusion of younger leaders into the parties will ensure changes for the better before the next general elections.

One coalition leader put it succinctly, saying “This is just the first step in a long journey for us in Selangor. We have a lot of work to do.” – August 17, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 August 2014, 6:57 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Selangor a Pakatan Rakyat family fight

By Bridget Welsh

Malaysiakini

Aug 17, 2014

COMMENT
The ongoing Selangor crisis has riveted the Malaysian public for weeks and called into question the ability of the opposition to govern as a coalition.

From attacks on each other to sackings and perceived party betrayals, the Selangor crisis has revealed underlying tensions among Pakatan Rakyat partners and showcased the fierce competition for power and positions within the national opposition itself.

This dynamics has overshadowed principles and escalated in tit-for-tat moves that reflect a family caught in battle. Emotions of anger and motivations of revenge have come to the fore, blinding many participants to the substantial deterioration of support among the public at large and to the shared struggles to strengthen Malaysia.

Most analyses to date have focused on the power contests among personalities and discussions of the steps taken in the crisis itself and their legal status. A number of commentators have highlighted the cost to public support and negative impact on governance.

This piece centres on developments within Pakatan. The argument developed below is that responsibility for the Selangor crisis must be shared across parties and leaders, and new approaches within Pakatan itself are needed to win back public trust and forge the common ground within the national opposition coalition.

Rise of undemocratic practices

When the crisis began is a matter of debate. Some point to when Azmin Ali’s supporters demanded their leader be given the post of Selangor menteri besar (chief minister) immediately after GE13 and openly revealed a lack of confidence in Khalid’s leadership.

Others point to the folly of the March 2014 ‘Kajang Move’, where the people were subjected to a by-election that revealed the inability of PKR to solve party problems in-house. Another focus was on mismanagement of governance challenges involving harmony among people of different religions and the state water crisis on the part of Abdul Khalid Ibrahim’s government.

The exact timing is moot, but a pattern has been clear: undemocratic pressures within Pakatan have been on the rise.

The most blatant example of this is the steps taken by Khalid Ibrahim in the past week, including the sacking of Pakatan executive council members (exco members) who opposed him.

In this action, Khalid has rejected the Pakatan coalition from which was elected to office, mistakenly believing that the vote in the last two elections were about him rather than the issues of better governance and inclusion that got him elected in the first place.

This is a common political mistake, where ego apparently fuels the misperception that the office is about the person holding the position, rather the people who put the leader in office.

The decision to go ahead and try to govern when it is clear, even without a formal vote of confidence, that he has a minority of support from the state legislature speaks volumes about Khalid’s prioritisation of self-interest over democracy and good governance.

It is indeed unfortunate that this path has been taken, for Khalid has made important contributions that should be recognised and appreciated. He still has valuable contributions to make, although given the reality of the current state of affairs, ideally in a new role.

Khalid is not alone in opting for undemocratic practices. A similar trajectory has been going on within PAS, where the conservative ulama-led faction has announced party decisions by decree, rather than through consultation and consensus reached by the elected executive political committee.

This has evolved after the PAS muktamar last year, when the ulama lost badly. They refuse to accept that the delegates voted decisively to stay in Pakatan and called for the leadership to reach more accommodative positions to strengthen PAS.

The decision over the move to tabling the hudud bill in Parliament last April, and more recently, pledging to support Khalid Ibrahim, were taken without adequately consulting the elected leaders in the party as a whole.

The conservative faction in PAS knows that it does not have the votes among the elected party leadership and refuses to recognise that PAS delegates did not elect many of them into leadership positions.

They are clearly uncomfortable with accepting difference and diversity. They would rather adopt undemocratic practices to impose their divisive agenda, rather than respect voters at large who supported Pakatan or even their own party delegates.

The conservative ulama group – many of whom are not actually ulama at all – also believe they have a special position that entitles them to putting their interests and opinions first.

Oppositional politics of confrontation

The misplaced political entitlement is only part of the current dynamics. For the past few months the opposition has applied opposition-like tactics against itself. The mode has been confrontation, rather than cooperation or even consultation.

The level of acrimony in the attacks make Utusan Malaysia and Umno barbs look tame. This is particularly true in PAS, where the young conservative ulama have forgotten the PAS culture of the years of Fadzil Noor and engaged in all out war.

PKR has followed suit, with DAP members also engaging in personal attacks. Only as a fellow members in a family can, the attacks have gone after weaknesses and in anger aimed to cause pain.

This focus on the negative has taken a life of its own, with attacks leading to counter-attacks and so forth. These have been ongoing for months tied to party contests for position. Pakatan has somehow forgotten that it opposes Umno, as it has concentrated energies inwardly and destructively.

It is clear that trust has eroded among Pakatan partners, and more polarised positions of laying blame and giving ultimatums have come to the fore. Words like ‘reject’, or ‘last chance’, and time periods of ‘24-hours’ and ‘immediately’ have narrowed opportunities to reach any compromise.

Issues and responses have been framed as all-or-nothing options, with decisions painted as the be-end-all for Pakatan. Problem-solving has taken a confrontational mode as issues are ‘forced’ onto others to reach a consensus that often is not a consensus at all but rather a bitter pill swallowed with bile and distrust.

Little reflection has taken the place of collective responsibility for the ongoing crisis, with frustrations, betrayals and disappointments overshadowing alternatives and more in-depth searches for common positions. For these parties long in opposition, confrontation is the easy route, for it is a familiar scene.

This situation is exacerbated when every position and decision-maker believes that he or she is right. It is much more difficult to opt for compromise in this confrontational mode.

The sad reality is that confrontation politics has worsened the Selangor crisis. No one likes to be pressured, a sultan or otherwise. The current face-off appears to make the crisis follow the zero-sum path of Perak, rather than take a page from the lessons of Terengganu and Perlis.

In these crises, accommodation, mutual respect and compromise ruled. To use the strategy of forcing an issue to reach ‘consensus’ on the sultan, or any of the key players, is inherently vulnerable to breakdown.

Further, to take a crisis to the royalty or to the courts puts pressures on Malaysia’s political institutions and, more often than not, the result has undercut democracy, rather than strengthened it. It is foolhardy to think that weakened institutions can offer a fair hearing in the current political climate.

Need for exit strategies

What then are the options ahead in what appears to a political impasse? The challenge for Pakatan has always been the ability to accommodate minority views, and reach compromises.

This is what distinguishes Pakatan from Umno, the level of compromise needed to maintain inclusiveness. This has been difficult from the start, and the Selangor crisis showcases this further.

This crisis is primarily about personalities and, as such, there is room to manoeuvre and reach some sort of genuine consensus. If the current slate of candidates is not working, then Pakatan leaders need to go back to the drawing board on the candidate slate for the current leadership.

A crucial element in this regard is to tone the rhetoric and to refrain from taking positions that escalate conflict, rather than open the way for compromise. There needs to be a return to common ground, rather than points of division.  This will be a test of Pakatan’s leadership.

If they fail, the voters will punish them. Ordinary Malaysians will not elect a coalition that cannot work together, least of all govern together.

Along with changing the approach to the crisis, a crucial dimension is to provide viable face-saving exit strategies for key players. One of the lessons, of similar crises in Umno, is the ability to find alternatives roles for different actors, to dampen acrimony and move forward.

While the opposition does not have the financial incentives of the BN, viewing the Selangor crisis narrowly has limited possible avenues.

A more challenging element in the long-term viability of any solution involves a regeneration of leadership within both the parties most affected by the crisis – PKR and PAS. Along with Khalid, Abdul Hadi Awang and Anwar Ibrahim could consider new roles in the opposition. The differences among top leaders will constrain the opposition to regenerate and resolve its differences.

Within PAS, Hadi is seen to have mismanaged GE13, with his decisions contributing to the loss of three states for PAS – Kedah, Terengganu and Perak. His ailing health has prevented him from bridging the differences within his own party. In fact, many of his decisions have worsened divisions within PAS, for Hadi is believed to have moved from being a bridge-builder to represent the conservative flank.

For PKR, the challenge is to move beyond being a personality-based party and to develop a core of younger, capable leaders with governing experience. The longer the Selangor crisis continues, the more younger members in the party are becoming embroiled in it.

Rather than being a unifying figure, as he has been in the past, Anwar has become, for some in Pakatan, a focal point for division. Pakatan’s future will depend on these leaders taking on new roles or returning to more bridge-building positions.

Crises at the state level are common in Malaysian politics, and will continue to occur. Umno has survived many of these and so will Pakatan.

But the form Pakatan will take, and the standing it will have, will depend heavily on whether the players and parties stop fighting and remember the reasons they became one family, for which the number one reason was to serve Malaysians, not themselves.

BRIDGET WELSH is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for East Asia Democratic Studies of National Taiwan University and can be reached at
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 August 2014, 7:31 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Well done, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim!

by Ong Kian Ming

Star Online

17 Aug 2014

The fluid political situation in Selangor, being the way it is, may make this column obsolete by the time it is published on the internet. As events unravel, what cannot be denied is the fact that Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim (TSKI) has created numerous political precedents in his desperate and increasing futile attempt to remain as the Mentri Besar of Selangor.

In many ways, TSKI has succeeded in accomplishing what Barisan Nasional failed to do. At the end of the day, when this crisis is over and a new MB is installed, I hope TSKI can ask himself this simple question – “Was it really worth it?”

Was it really worth almost breaking up Pakatan Rakyat? Was it really worth forcing the PAS excos stand by while you sacked their colleagues from PKR and DAP? Was it really worth it to mislead the Sultan when you clearly knew you did not command the confidence of a majority of the Selangor state assembly representatives? Was it really worth it to say that the government you led was never really a Pakatan government since it is not a registered entity? Was it really worth it to turn Pakatan colleagues against one another and to push things to breaking point within PAS? Was it really worth it to create divisions within NGOs and civil society that were previously united in fighting for human rights, media freedom and free and fair elections?

Of course, some would argue that this crisis is not the sole responsibility of TSKI and that strong enough reasons have not been presented to warrant his removal as MB. Having read through the legal documents, I am of the opinion that the coincidental out of court settlement between TSKI and Bank Islam in February 2014 and the rush to sign the MoU with the federal government on the water restructuring is cause enough for questioning TSKI’s loyalties, especially give his failure to give a proper account, either his own party (then) or to the public, more generally. One cannot just dismiss the ‘settling’ of a RM70 million debt as a ‘personal matter’ especially if one is a public figure running the richest state in the country.

More than this, TSKI is guilty of breaching the norms and conditions of a parliamentary democracy whereby the Prime Minister or in this case, the Menteri Besar, is put in his or her leadership position by the party and not because of a personal mandate. We do not have direct elections for the position of the PM or MB which is why he must step down if he loses the confidence of his party.

Pak Lah had to make way for Najib as PM because of an internal Umno decision to do so. Ahmad Said, the former MB of Terengganu, was replaced in May this year because of a party directive for him to do so. After earlier threats to quit UMNO, he finally relented and stepped down voluntarily. Hence, for TSKI to try to remain as MB even after being sacked as a PKR member and clearly being exposed as not having the confidence of a majority of ADUNs is a serious breach of this principle.

This is the first time in Malaysian history when an independent ADUN is making a claim to stay on as the MB with only the explicit support of 12 out of 56 state assembly reps! Another feather in TSKI’s cap, I suppose.

This sordid episode has undoubtedly harmed Pakatan’s political standing in the larger public, especially among the majority of voters in Selangor who put their trust in us. It will take us a while to recover from this and the relationship between the Pakatan leaders would probably not be the same moving forward, even if the coalition is preserved after that.

While Pakatan cannot absolve itself from blame completely, it is increasingly clear that TSKI has to shoulder the responsibility of not being transparent with his Bank Islam settlement, not consulting his party or Pakatan about the water deal, not wanting to attend his own disciplinary hearing, of seeing himself as above or bigger than his own party and even Pakatan, not respecting the norms of parliamentary democracy, not respecting the coalition which nominated him as the MB in the first place, misleading the Sultan of Selangor and for holding on to power when it is clear that he has lost the confidence of a majority of the state assembly.

Well done TKSI! Was it really worth it?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 August 2014, 7:40 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat leadership must meet urgently and frequently to map out and implement strategies to restore public confidence in the coalition badly damaged by the prolonged Selangor MB crisis

In the  three temple functions I attended  in Lima Kedai and  Taman Sri Skudai in Gelang Patah last night, members of the public showed great and  keen interest and concern about political developments in the country, especially about the future of Pakatan Rakyat as a result of the prolonged Selangor Mentri Besar crisis.

Undoubtedly, like Malaysians all over the country, the people of Gelang Patah had been following closely with great concern the worst crisis faced by Pakatan Rakyat in its six-year history, and by last Saturday, uppermost in the minds of many would be the question whether there would continue to be a Pakatan Rakyat in the next 24 hours, a question nobody could answer with any confidence.

The Selangor MB  crisis had been the despair of many Malaysians.

Over the weekend, I receive an email from veteran Malaysian politician, Dr. Goh Cheng Teik, who wrote:

“I am sick. I had to struggle to compose my thoughts. Forgive my bad English.

“I have been looking at the newspaper reports about Selangor. Selangor is a democracy. Its legislative assembly have been properly elected.  Whoever commands a majority in the house of Selangor should lead the government as Mentri Besar. The political boardroom works on the same principle as the corporate boardroom. If a person can obtain more than 51% of the shares in a company, he rules. Khalid knows this well enough. If he is a gentleman he should gracefully withdraw.

“Wan Azizah is a capable person. If she becomes Menteri Besar, she will surprise everybody with what she can do.  As the wife of a very controversial opposition leader, she has over the years learnt much more about politics from real life than those who learn politics from books.  She is a trained medical doctor.  Tun Dr. Ismail was a doctor and he proved to be a good political leader.  So were Dr. Lim Chong Eu and Dr. Tan Chee Khoon.”

By last night, the public sentiments and feelings in the three temple dinners in Gelang Patah – which should be a fair reflection of the national mood – could be summed up as follows:

(1)	Relief that Pakatan Rakyat had not broken up as a result of the prolonged Selangor Mentri Besar crisis as there is general consensus that Pakatan Rakyat drawing support from all races, religions and regions in the country is the best hope and vehicle to complete the unfinished work of the 13th General Elections to end the unbroken one-coalition government in Malaysia since Merdeka in 1957, as the change of Federal government in Putrajaya is the precondition for fundamental political changes to end the rampant corruption, abuses of power and the absence of good governance, accountability and transparency in the country.

(2)	Grave and growing doubts about the viability and sustainability of Pakatan Rakyat because of the degree of  commitment of component parties  to set aside their differences and to give topmost priority to the PR common policy goals,  platforms,  principles and objectives.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders all over the country and at all levels should not delude ourselves into thinking that PR had emerged unscathed from the prolonged Selangor Mentri Besar crisis which had gravely undermined the great trust and confidence which people from different races, religions and regions have placed on PR, which resulted in the PR winning a majority of 52 per cent of the national electorate in the 13GE last May, relegating the Umno/Barisan Nasional to a minority government with 47% of the national vote.

For this reason, the Pakatan Rakyat leadership must meet urgently and frequently to map out and implement strategies to restore public confidence in the coalition badly damaged by the prolonged Selangor MB crisis.

There is however one silver lining in the worst crisis faced by the Pakatan Rakyat in it six-year history – the Selangor MB crisis has highlighted the great and even fundamental difference between the Pakatan Rakyat  and the Barisan Nasional.

Pakatan Rakyat is a coalition of equals, as every component party in PR has an equal say in the future direction of the coalition – and any difference or disagreement will have to be resolved or thrashed out with a great deal of patience and  stamina.

If the three component parties cannot resolve their important differences in the PR, it will mark the immediate end of the PR coalition.

UMNO/BN purveyors of  falsehoods have tried their utmost in the in the past six years  to defame PR leaders through their controlled mass media and recently the  social media in the Internet to spread the lies that DAP, PKR and PAS leaders are not free agents and honest political leaders but political rogues and rascals, as disseminating the message to the Chinese ground that DAP leaders are puppets and stooges of  PAS while the Malay ground is poisoned with the lies that PAS leaders are DAP puppets and stooges.

DAP leaders are not stooges of PAS and PAS leaders are not puppets of DAP – similarly, PKR are not stooges or puppets of DAP or PAS.

We in the DAP, PAS and PKR are not in politics for profit or self-gain but  because of our political principles and convictions, for which many of us had paid a heavy personal price, unlike the Umno/Barisan Nasional leaders and politicians.

This is why PR coalition is completely different from  the Barisan Nasional coalition model.

PR is a coalition of equal parties while BN is only a coalition in name to hide the façade of the one-party UMNO dominance or hegemony, as the UMNO fiat is the law in Barisan Nasional. All the other 13 BN component parties, whether MCA, Gerakan or MIC,  cannot and would not dare to oppose if UMNO puts its foot down on what should be BN policy.

The people in the three temple functions in Gelang Patah last night, just like their counterparts in the nation, were  also keenly interested in the latest Mahathir move – his open “war” against Datuk Seri Najib Raza declaring in his blog that he was withdrawing support for the present Prime Minister as Najib is even worse than Pak Lah.

What was most intriguing were  the two children’s stories which Mahathir related in his blog to show his utter contempt for Najib – first, the Hans Christian Anderson’s tale of “The Emperor with No Clothes” of a king who was so into himself that  he could not see his own failings and his courtier yes-men who only say what the king wants to hear even though it’s obviously untrue; and secondly  of King Canute and the tides about a king who believed that he was so powerful that his command could hold back the tide.

It is most strange and even bizarre  that we have the  sitting sixth Prime Minister who is accused by his mentor and the fourth Prime Minister – and  longest-serving 22-year Prime Minister –  as an “Emperor with No Clothes” and “Canute” who thinks he could command the tides.

Pak Lah, the former fifth Prime Minister Malaysia, must be the  happiest man in Malaysia after reading Mahathir’s latest blog – to find that he was not that bad after all!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 August 2014, 2:56 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The trouble with Wan Azizah is…

By Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Aug 18, 2014

The people who doubt Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s suitability as Selangor menteri besar (MB) and who claim that Malaysia is not ready to accept a woman to govern either the state, or the nation, are wrong. Step forward, the self-appointed ‘First Lady of Malaysia’ (FLOM), Rosmah Mansor.

In the past, many people, especially those from Umno Baru, despised the FLOM because they believe that she was masquerading as the FLOM when she was really the prime minister. Najib Abdul Razak, they said, is her proxy. So, are the critics of Wan Azizah afraid that the top echelons of political power will become too crowded with women? So, who are the groups which are sabotaging Wan Azizah?

 Many people claim they want change, but when faced with opportunity for change, which is to have Wan Azizah as the MB, they develop cold feet. They fear uncharted waters. Dr Wan Azizah is not unfit to be MB, but Malaysians are afraid of change.

 The trouble also lies with the indecisive politicians, in Umno Baru, BN, Pakatan and PAS, and the conservative people who want to retain our patriarchal society.

 The people who currently hold the reins of power know that when Wan Azizah turns the country around, they will be in trouble. They know they will lose power, status and wealth, and be punished for their past crimes.

 The men who fear a woman at the top are probably afraid that a woman will show up their weaknesses.

 The rakyat is fed up with the current administration which puts in minimal effort to help uplift the lives of women. A few years ago, Najib nominated himself as the women, family and community development minister but failed to bring any meaningful changes for Malaysian women.

 Najib could not even force himself to sack his predecessor for her role in the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal.  Was he afraid of what she could do to him? An honest person can never be conned. Likewise, a person who has nothing to hide does not fear the skeletons tumbling out of his closet.

 Malaysians want something done about the many crimes against women – the gang rapes, the child marriages, the increase in domestic violence, the abuse of maids, sometimes by women themselves, women being infected by HIV/Aids by their husbands, women who are abandoned by their polygamous husbands, the abandoned babies and the single mothers with no lifeline.

 Why are Malaysian men, principally Malay men, averse to women holding senior and important roles in society, especially in politics?

 Are they afraid that women in power might behave like the wife who has discovered her husband’s cheating and will curtail both his nocturnal and extracurricular activities? Will the Malay men fear that Wan Azizah may force a complete overhaul of the syariah law, in Malaysia, to gain more protection to Malay women?

‘Priority to her husband’s needs’?

Do Malay men have the same opinion as the vice-president of the Obedient Wives’ Club (OWC), Rohaya Mohamad (left), who in 2011 said that women should be “high class whores in bed” to prevent their husbands from straying. Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali certainly thinks so. He said, “From a Muslim perspective, the wife has to drop all of this (cooking, etc). She must give priority to her husband’s needs.”

If only Rohaya realised the struggles of Malayan fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who in the early 1900s, valued education. They fought for the right of education for their daughters. They did not think that to become whores was the full extent of an education. They wanted to empower their daughters.

 The trouble with Wan Azizah is that compared with other Umno Baru women, she is educated, well-travelled, sophisticated and squeaky clean; but that does not stop people from making up lies about her, like former PKR Youth secretary Lokman Nor Adam, who jumped like a frog to Umno Baru and defamed Wan Azizah with claims that she led an extravagant lifestyle and had a penchant for expensive suits.

 Around the world, there are women who had to take charge of multi-million dollar enterprises when their husbands died. These women, who had previously not known how to pay an electricity bill, were able to make their companies more successful.

 If they did it, why can’t Wan Azizah be MB? Many of her detractors claim that she lacks experience, but is this really such an impediment? She will have an army of advisers, including economists, lawyers, security experts, bankers, academics and industrialists to assist her.

 Wan Azizah may not be good at ‘investing’ like a former Umno Baru politician, who corralled public funds to secure the purchase of many luxury condominiums. Wan Azizah may not have the financial wizardry of one Umno Baru wife, who is able to purchase multi-million ringgit jewels and handbags, because she began saving when she was a teenager.

 PAS acted like a dithering adolescent with its wishy-washy endorsement of Wan Azizah. They must learn that one can be committed to democracy and equality, and still be a true Muslim.

 The opposition to Wan Azizah is not because of her sex, her educational background, or that she is Anwar’s wife. She could be perfect in every way, but her detractors will always be able to find a reason for her unsuitability.

 The only reason people oppose Wan Azizah is that they do not want the floodgates to be opened, for the empowerment of women. They fear the moment when Malaysians discover that Malaysian women are as good as, or better than, men, at ruling, promoting justice and equality, ensuring peace and harmony, and providing opportunities for all.

 MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 August 2014, 8:50 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Air safety: Flying blind

By Andrew Parker

Financial Times

August 18, 2014

The downing of flight MH17 has revealed gaps in the policing of air space that could endanger passengers

Trouble below: airlines’ access to and interpretation of security assessments in the countries they fly across vary widely

On July 14, Ukrainian officials issued an updated “notice to airmen”. The bulletin instructed commercial pilots to increase their altitude but stopped short of telling them to avoid an area where pro-Russia rebels had began shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft.

The final line read “FM FL260 up to FL320” – technical guidance to increase the minimum height for flights passing over the country’s eastern flank from 26,000ft to 32,000ft.

Three days later, Malaysia Airlines’ Flight MH17 followed the instruction and flew at 33,000 feet en route to Australia from Amsterdam via Kuala Lumpur. By early afternoon, the Boeing 777 went out of contact and crashed, killing all 298 people onboard and sparking international outrage.

While investigations continue, western experts point to overwhelming signs that the flight was struck by an anti-aircraft missile with a range of more than 32,000ft.

The MH17 disaster has “changed everything”, says Sir Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, the world’s largest operator of long-haul aircraft, who wants wide-ranging reforms to air space management. “It amounted to premeditated mass murder.”

Whatever the findings of the international inquiries now under way, the crash, along with several other recent air safety incidents, is triggering a fierce round of soul-searching in the aviation world. The loss of MH17 and Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared in March over the Indian Ocean with 239 people onboard, has forced the Malaysian government to nationalise the airline.

The MH17 incident has raised broader questions about safety, revealing that the system of policing air space in conflict zones is broken. It has shown how instructions from aviation authorities, information available to airlines and the responses they adopt, vary radically – with lethal implications.

If the downing of MH17 is confirmed as the work of a rebel group, it would be the first case of a passenger jet being destroyed at cruise altitude. Yet some airline executives are not waiting for confirmation of who shot down the aircraft to call for reforms, including allowing airlines to have better access to information from intelligence agencies that could save passengers’ lives.

“Airlines were told that flights above 32,000ft that traverse Ukraine would not be in harm’s way. We now know how wrong that guidance was,” Tony Tyler, director-general of the International Air Transport Association, the airlines’ main representative body, said last month.

For years, airlines flying over conflict zones have had to contend with shoulder-fired missiles with a range of about 10,000ft that can be a real danger when aircraft take off and land.

But MH17 was allegedly shot down with a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile with a range of 70,000ft, capable of destroying any aircraft flying at cruise altitudes.

In late June, separatists in Donetsk posted on their Twitter account a picture of a Buk missile launcher and declared that it was in their possession. Western intelligence and boasts posted by rebel leaders on social media websites suggest they were responsible for the July 17 crash.

Several inquiries have since been launched, including a criminal investigation by Dutch prosecutors focused on possible war crimes. An interim report by the Dutch Safety Board into the cause of the MH17 crash is due to be released early next month.

While Ukraine accuses separatists of firing a missile, a charge backed by the US, and Russia says that Kiev was responsible, some experts say the disaster could have been prevented if commercial flights over eastern Ukraine had been banned. Chris Yates, an aviation analyst, says that a complete ban should have been imposed as soon as military aircraft came under threat.

Volodymyr Hroisman, Ukraine’s vice prime minister and head of a government task force investigating MH17, did not respond to questions about the country’s air space management decisions.

The fact that airlines were flying over the Ukraine conflict zone may seem baffling to those outside the airline industry. In the seven days before the tragedy, Malaysia Airlines was among 66 carriers and private jet operators identified over the same area, according to data collected by Flightradar24, an aircraft tracking service. These included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, the German carrier, and KLM of the Netherlands.

The eastern Ukraine route was one of the most direct ways of flying between Europe and Asia, helping minimise airlines’ fuel bills, which often constitute their biggest single expense. Aeroflot, the Russian carrier, estimates that avoiding the region will cost it $20m a year in extra fuel, for example. Such sums are considerable for an industry already grappling with wafer-thin profit margins.

In other conflict zones, airlines have also adopted differing policies. Experts say there is no evidence that insurgents from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis, who control much of northern and western Iraq, have acquired a high-altitude missile. But several airlines announced last month they would stop flying over Iraq.

Air France suspended routing over the country on July 25, for instance, and Emirates announced plans to follow suit on July 28. These carriers had to make significant changes to their flight paths because Iraq was an important segment on their routes. For Emirates, it was one of the main connections with Europe. In contrast, British Airways, Etihad Airways of Abu Dhabi and Qatar Airways continued to fly over Iraq until August 8 – the day the US began a campaign of military air strikes against Isis, and when the US Federal Aviation Administration banned US carriers from passing over the country.

One problem with policing air space in conflict zones is that decisions about flying are divided between national regulators and airlines themselves. There is very little meaningful international co-ordination, and political and economic factors may weigh on their decisions.

The prime responsibility for air space management lies with the country over which flights pass. A national regulator – usually the civil aviation authority – can restrict aircraft flights. Introducing limitations means the country concerned will lose the money generated from charging airlines for air traffic control guidance over the territory. This raises questions about a possible conflict of interest between a state’s responsibility to keep airlines out of dangerous air space and the wish to maximise revenue from air traffic control charges.

Since the downing of MH17, some regulators have appeared to be putting greater emphasis on passenger safety. But the result is confused. On July 22, the FAA banned US airlines from flying to Ben Gurion International airport in Tel Aviv after a Hamas rocket landed close to the Israeli hub.

Authorities in Israel responded by insisting that it was safe to fly to Ben Gurion, and accused US airlines of handing a “prize to terrorism”. Some airlines continued to fly to Tel Aviv, including BA. Less than 24 hours after imposing its ban, the FAA lifted the prohibition following a review of measures that Israel had taken to safeguard aircraft.

In the absence of a regulatory ban, each airline is left to decide if it will pass over a conflict zone. Carriers make their own risk assessments to determine which countries are safe to fly to or over.

The big airlines have employees dedicated to the task. These companies will often draw upon information provided by their home country government, usually based on material obtained by its intelligence agencies.

Yet smaller airlines are unlikely to have access to such government intelligence. Their routing decisions are also vulnerable to pressures such as the desire to take the most direct routes in order to save fuel. “This risk assessment approach gives an illusion of safety but it is in fact vulnerable to all sorts of influences including commercial pressure,” says the British Airline Pilots Association.

The problem is compounded by the fact that airlines rarely share their risk assessments. Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Airlines Group, the parent of British Airways, said the carrier has never shared the risk analysis that led it to stop flying over eastern Ukraine in March.

Earlier this month, Mr Walsh suggested that if BA had done so with Malaysia Airlines, the disaster might have been avoided. “Would it have made a difference?” he said. “You would like to think that it would.”

The key – and this is why it is so difficult – is to use information that is only available to military and government intelligence agencies to safeguard

– Carsten Spohr, chief executive of Lufthansa

One approach that most airlines reject is placing anti-missile technology on their aircraft. Ian King, chief executive of BAE Systems, the UK defence manufacturer, suggested carriers should think about such protection after the MH17 disaster.

But Mr Walsh described Mr King’s comments as “absolutely ridiculous”, adding: “If Ian King has a concern, then . . . stop developing any military equipment.”

Carsten Spohr, chief executive of Lufthansa, reflects a more widely held view that airlines should have greater access to information from governments, and in particular, intelligence agencies. “The key – and this is why it is so difficult – is to use information that is only available to military and government intelligence agencies to safeguard . . . our industry,” he said.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN agency that sets global aviation standards, held an emergency meeting in late July and has set up a task force to investigate issues raised by the MH17 disaster.

Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, president of the ICAO council, said that there could be a bigger role for the agency in decisions about whether airlines should fly over conflict zones.

One person familiar with the organisation’s work said a possible reform would be the creation of a body operating under it collected intelligence from multiple sources and shared it with airlines.

These changes sound straightforward but implementation would not be simple. Governments are reluctant to share intelligence, mindful of the risk of compromising their sources. The ICAO has a reputation for being slow to act, partly because it reaches decisions by consensus among its 191 member states. That process has slowed its efforts to tackle airlines’ carbon emissions, for instance.

The organisation’s task force is set to report by the end of October, and it has a safety conference next February that could consider any proposed reforms following the MH17 crash.

In the meantime, voluntary co-operation between airlines may offer the best hope. Emirates is among the carriers hoping it can at least exchange risk assessments with its peers about flights over conflict zones.

Sir Tim points out that one carrier could gain access to critical information about whether it is safe to pass over a conflict zone from their home country government, and this could then be brought to other airlines’ attention. “If that [information] has come from Lufthansa or KLM or British Airways, that is good enough for me,” he adds.

Travel risk: A deadly year for flight, but fatalities are still low

Crashes always put some people off boarding a passenger jet but statistics suggest long-term flight safety trends continue to improve.

Passenger deaths and air accidents have been broadly falling since the early 1970s in spite of surges in certain years, including 2014, according to the Aviation Safety Network, an organisation that tracks crashes and other incidents.

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines’ flight MH370 on March 8 showed that there is still no robust way of tracking aircraft. In spite of an intensive search of the Indian Ocean off Western Australia, the aircraft has not been found.

In the seven days after the downing of MH17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, there were crashes involving a TransAsia Airways turboprop aircraft and an Air Algerie jet. More than 160 people died in these incidents, which may have been due to poor weather.

The number of fatal accidents fell markedly around 2000, once regulators started auditing not just airlines but also aviation oversight agencies

– Harro Ranter, president of the Aviation Safety Network

There have been 13 fatal air accidents so far this year involving passenger and cargo aircraft, compared with 29 in 2013. It is principally the loss of MH370 and the downing of MH17 that will ensure 2014 records the highest level of passenger fatalities in five years.

Yet deaths peaked in 1972, when 2,510 people were killed in 75 air accidents. The number of incidents has been falling since even as the use of air travel has increased significantly. There were 30.3m commercial flights in 2012, compared with 9.4m in 1970.

Harro Ranter, president of the Aviation Safety Network, says the number of fatal accidents fell markedly around 2000, once regulators started auditing not just airlines but also aviation oversight agencies.

Ascend, an aviation consultancy, says fatal passenger accidents are occurring at an average of less than one per month today compared with one per week at the start of the commercial jet age.

The global accident rate in 2013 – measured in aircraft losses per million flights involving western-built jets – was the equivalent of one incident for every 2.4m flights, according to the International Air Transport Association. That makes air travel safer than many other forms of transport, notably the car.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 August 2014, 1:25 pm and is filed under
MH 17
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M’s tirade will not result in Najib’s downfall, say analysts

The Malaysian Insider

By Eileen Ng

20 August 2014

Despite Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s stinging criticism of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, there is little chance of any revolt against the prime minister from his Umno comrades, say political analysts.

And this, they told The Malaysian Insider, is because there is no one in the Malay party who is either suitable or willing to take the nation’s top job.

As such, they believed the retired prime minister’s latest rebuke against Najib will not see a repeat of the groundswell which made it untenable for Najib’s predecessor, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, to remain in office.

“The ability to mobilise support within the party to unseat Najib now is a bit of a stretch. Najib’s position is safe for now,” said respected pollster Ibrahim Suffian.

Ibrahim, who is the executive director of opinion research firm Merdeka Center, said the longest-serving prime minister has “considerable influence” within Umno because of his legacy in shaping the country’s political history as well as its economic development.

This latest salvo by Dr Mahathir would not “effect much political change but more of influencing the minds for discourse,” he added.

As such, the onus was on Najib to figure out what was more important to him that would ensure that he kept his post, Ibrahim said.

This include articulating a vision for the country, seen as championing for a more moderate Malaysia and not allowing the country be hijacked by right-wing groups or those with narrow sectarian interests.

In lashing out against Najib’s administration, Dr Mahathir had said on Monday he was withdrawing his support for the prime minister as his criticism had fallen on deaf ears.

“I have tried to give my views to him directly, which are also the views of many people who have met me,” Dr Mahathir said in his popular blog, chedet.cc.

“I have no choice but to withdraw my support. This has not been effective so I have to criticise,” he said, adding that Najib was no better than Abdullah.

Political observers also said Najib now needed to pull his socks up and start being a decisive leader to lead the country’s reform agenda as a way to thumb his nose at Dr Mahathir’s criticism.

They said the prime minister needed to show strong leadership and willingness to make hard decisions to steer Malaysia to be on track towards developed nation status.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan, who heads the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) said while the statesman’s criticism should not be dismissed completely, Najib needed to have the political will to stick to his reform agenda although there were questions over his

commitment.

“Najib should be confident in his own leadership now. He should pursue the reform agenda vigorously. He should lead the way.

“Najib needs to start showing the country he is on a leadership role and is capable of making hard decisions.”

Wan Saiful believed Dr Mahathir’s outburst might find some traction among Umno’s rank-and-file, but this was mostly because Najib has not really gone all out to persuade members that they needed to change their mentality of safeguarding Malay rights.

Najib, he said, needed to show firm leadership that such a mentality has no place in modern Malaysia where anyone is capable of competing with anyone and the Malay community has no need of any protection.

“It is time for the current prime minister to be someone else,” said Wan Saiful.

“Dr Mahathir retired many years ago, he’s very nearly overstaying his welcome in commenting on current leadership issues,” he said, noting that the current administration was trying to move away from Dr Mahathir’s legacy and the problems associated with it.

Credited with modernising Malaysia in his 22 years of helming the country before he stepped down in 2003, Dr Mahathir was also often criticised for his unyielding authoritarian rule.

But Universiti Putra Malaysia political analyst Dr Jayum Jawan said while there was some merit in Dr Mahathir’s rebuke, it could be done more diplomatically.

He also believed the ex-prime minister could make all the noise he wanted, but the prerogative was with the person at the receiving end.

“People can listen to advice but that does not mean they have to follow it.”

He said Dr Mahathir’s outburst would not snowball into an effect which could cause Najib’s downfall.

“Umno is quite weak now. At this stage, I am not sure the people within the party are ready for any change of leadership.

“Who’s the next person to take over? Getting a person that is equal or better than Najib, that’s the decision Umno has to make.”

Umno ministers rallied around Najib in light of Dr Mahathir’s outburst, telling the former strongman to give Najib a chance.

On Monday night, Dr Mahathir had said his criticism against Najib was not personal and it did not mean that the prime minister should resign.

Instead, he was unhappy with Najib’s policies and his soft approaches, which he saw did not bring any benefit to the country.

To this, Wan Saiful said: “To be honest, the right response to Dr Mahathir is ‘thank you very much for the criticism, some will be accessed but today, the prime minister is Najib and no longer Dr Mahathir’.

“It is time to tell Dr Mahathir that he has retired, two prime ministers ago.” – August 20, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 August 2014, 9:38 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s Cabinet must not skirt issues raised by Dr M

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

20 August 2014

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been the Malaysian prime minister for more than five years now but going by what his Cabinet colleagues say, the Pekan MP’s only success is handling the flight MH17 incident.

His cousin, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, said as much when defending Najib against stinging criticism from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s longest-serving prime minister, who stepped down in 2003.

Hishammuddin cited accomplishments, such as the handling of the remains from the MH17 incident, saying Najib succeeded where US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin had failed.

But the defence minister hastened to add that he respected Dr Mahathir’s views, similar to some of his Cabinet colleagues, who straddled the fence in saying that Najib and the blunt political veteran should be equally respected.

Most pro-Umno bloggers have kept mum on Dr Mahathir’s scathing assessment of Najib but some have added their two cents to what is seen as simmering grievances coming to boil.

And this is really the point of what Dr Mahathir finally said this week that ministers are missing.

Dr Mahathir’s criticism hit on substantive issues, such as race relations, crime and the economy – all hot-button issues that have been bubbling since he resigned 11 years ago.

Perhaps Dr Mahathir’s old-fashioned prescriptions of tough love might not find a place in a world where social media builds people up and bring them down in an instant.

But his concerns must be addressed. He didn’t build Malaysia to punch above its weight class and to be the top 20 trading nations in the world only to see a nation riven by hate and despair, where Malaysians return to racial silos and distrust each other.

So, it is really nauseating that ministers are trying to milk tragedy for political gain. It is also interesting that Hishammuddin talks about MH17 but no mention of the vanished flight

MH370, which is a more accurate barometer of the Najib administration.

You want another barometer of what people feel about the current government in Putrajaya? Dr Mahathir put it succinctly when he said he couldn’t imagine that Najib fared worse than Tun Abdullah Badawi.

That must have hurt more than Dr Mahathir saying he was cutting off his support for the country’s sixth prime minister.

Now, how do you respond to that stinger of a criticism? Not by just citing Najib’s handling of the flight MH17 incident but all the complaints made by Dr Mahathir and the rest of Malaysia – including revealing and sorting out shortcomings in handling flight MH370’s disappearance and the Sabah defence.

After all, Malaysians are the ones who will decide the next government. And Dr Mahathir has already proven that while he has no access to the mass media or government machinery, he has brought down at least two Umno presidents.

It is best to address the issues that Dr Mahathir has brought up and for the Najib administration to strengthen all his transformation programmes and show the results that will shut up his critics. – August 20, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 August 2014, 7:59 am and is filed under
Hishammuddin
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Minister, who really is ISIS?

KJ John

Malaysiakini

Aug 19, 2014

Malaysia is not an Islamic state or a Muslim nation-state, but a Muslim-majority country which is well regarded by most of the world for our unity-style moderate government and our consistent principled stand on global issues; within the larger paradigm and context of a Muslim world which appears often confused or inconsistent on universal issues and values; mostly internal but some global inaction as well.

While it is not my purpose to highlight any failures of our Foreign Affairs Ministry, we have to manage Malaysia’s reputation which had been put on a global scale which is still much respected for our principled position, as exemplified by the late Tunku Abdul Rahman, especially on the issue of a racist South Africa.

Today however, we appear somewhat inconsistent in a number of foreign policy issues and global actions. For example, for me it is still not very clear if and whether the government of Malaysia did pay a few hundred millions for the release of our cockpit recorders for the downed MH17. Is then negotiating with International terrorists’ part of our new foreign policy?

For another instance, we have not ratified many international agreements and conventions; can the minister please explain the delay especially since we are now fighting so hard to sit not only on the UN Human Rights Council but also seeking to occupy one of the UN Security Council’s non-veto seat.

Our credibility has been as an international values promoting nation-state; even if we are small, we are perceived as part and parcel of the international global community. The Tunku left us that legacy, by also personally campaigning and then assuming the appointment of the secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Therefore, the even more critical question today for you, minister is: what is our stand on the Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS or Boko Haram or even the Yemeni pirates.

In this column I want to rather focus on ISIS; because I genuinely do not know much about them, and what they appear to be fighting for, other than they are merciless group of who are inhumane, and who kill at will and without a conscience. What is our view of them, and why are you and the ministry so quiet about them and their current activities?

Who is ISIS?

Scott Ng wrote in FMT a comment on ‘Malaysia’s ISIS problem’ on Aug 16, 2014 and concluded:

The new ‘Islamic Caliphate’ taking hold of Syria and Iraq is already spreading its tentacles and threatening our way of life in Malaysia as well.

Is this true? Are his arguments, facts and storyline true?  If not, who, if not Wisma Putra, should correct our/and his misperceptions about who this fearsome group is and if in fact they have ties other terrorists in Malaysia?

Scott Ng also wrote

“That is scary,” you may say, “But what does all that have to do with Malaysia?”

A lot more than you may think. Just a few days ago, buried under news about the current Selangor political crisis, was an interview in the South China Morning Post with Ayub Khan, the senior counter-terrorism division official at Bukit Aman.

In that interview, Ayub revealed that some 19 Malaysian jihadists captured had confessed that there are plans to storm Putrajaya and replace the government with an Islamic Syariah government through armed warfare.

Along with that, they also planned to attack a disco, a Carlsberg factory and several pubs.

Well, I can only assume that since Bukit Aman knows about this, things should be under control, right? My honest fear is that they are too busy chasing the like of students who put ‘likes’ on the pro-Israel FB page, and framing sedition cases to be concerned about these real militant-links to terrorism in Malaysia.

For that matter, I also received an article and video from a reliable friend.

My question is: what is Malaysia’s foreign policy on the ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Please do not get me wrong, I support the Malaysian government’s policy on Palestinians, and their loss of their homeland.

But, I have serious reservations about why we are so quiet about the ISIS in Syria and Iraq and maybe the Government must table a white paper in Parliament on this subject to inform and educated on all Malaysians become educated on these issues.

I wait to hear from the foreign affairs minister. May God bless Malaysia.

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at
[email protected]
 with any feedback or views.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 21 August 2014, 6:27 pm and is filed under
International
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Seamless, orderly transfer of power to Wan Azizah

– Tommy Thomas

The Malaysian Insider

21 August 2014

The unanimous decision of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition to support Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the next Menteri Besar of Selangor means that she will be able to secure 43 votes in a confidence motion in the 56-member Selangor State Legislative Assembly.

One cannot imagine a clearer case of a candidate commanding the confidence of the majority of the Assembly.Yet, there is much disinformation clouding the matter.

Perhaps the best way to provide clarity is to consider previous Barisan Nasional (BN) precedents, particularly at the Federal level.

The Federal Constitution and the 13 State Constitutions follow the Westminister system of parliamentary democracy with regard to the appointment of the Prime Minister and the Menteri Besar, whether after a general election or between elections.

The relevant provisions are Articles 40(2) and 43 of the Federal Constitution which are mirrored in Articles 12, 16 and 18 in the Perak Constitution and Articles 51, 53 and 55 of the Selangor Constitution. They are substantially similar.

The first opportunity for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to exercise discretion to appoint a prime minister of Malaysia outside elections occurred in 1976 with the death of the second prime minister, Tun Abdul Razak.

The political reality in 1976 was that although the federal government comprised members of all the BN coalition component parties, the dominant political party was Umno. Its deputy president, Tun Hussein Onn was the deputy prime minister.

The transfer of power to Hussein Onn was orderly and seamless. There was no question of the constitutional monarch asking the BN coalition to put forward another candidate to Hussein Onn; nor was there any need for a general election.

Similar orderly transfers of power occurred in 1981 when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister, in 2003 when Tun Abdullah Badawi became prime minister, and in 2009 when Datuk Seri Najib Razak became prime minister.

In each case, the incumbent resigned from office.  Yet in none of the three episodes did the Agong ask for two candidates, and general elections were never an option.

So by established political reality and constitutional convention, when Pakatan puts forward Dr Wan Azizah as their leader in Selangor with the support of 43 members in a 56-member House, a transfer of power should occur, as has happened in this country on countless occasions.

It should be equally orderly and seamless. It is certainly not a crisis situation. Nor is there an emergency. It is just an illustration of a political coalition wishing to change its leader in mid-stream: a common enough occurrence in democracy which Umno has done many times.

It must never be forgotten that in Selangor, Pakatan secured over 1 million votes representing more than 60% of the total votes cast, well over the 52% popular vote that it had received nationally. For these voters, so long as Pakatan remains the governing coalition, the personality of the menteri besar is very much a secondary issue. Dr Wan Azizah would certainly be supported by the vast majority of this electorate.

Finally, even at the state level, the recent episode in Perak is instructive.  The 31-28 Pakatan majority in 2008 became a 31-28 BN majority in 2009 when three assemblymen switched allegiance. Datuk Seri Nizar Jamalludin, as the menteri besar who lost support of the majority, sought dissolution of the Assembly, which was refused by the Sultan of Perak. BN’s nominee, Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir, was sworn in as the new menteri besar. The BN coalition governed the state comfortably for the remaining 4 years.

If elections were refused when an incoming menteri besar (Zambry) was leading a coalition with a margin of 31-28, what more when an incoming menteri besar (Dr Wan Azizah) will be leading a coalition with a margin of 43-13. Only stability will ensue. Accordingly, Dr Wan Azizah should be sworn in as menteri besar as soon as possible. – August 21, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 21 August 2014, 10:28 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M’s words have made impact across nation, ex-minister warns Najib

The Malaysian Insider

21 August 2014

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should look beyond the flattering news articles about him and instead focus on the huge impact Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed’s withdrawal of support has wrought on the country, a former minister said.

Ex-information minister Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin said that the former prime minister’s criticisms again Najib and his administration had spread like a wave through all corners of society.

“Behind the support plastered across newspapers today after Dr Mahathir rejected him, Najib must obtain a valid and truthful report on how great the wave blown by Dr Mahathir is.

“It has enveloped the entire nation, villages and towns, the upper and lower levels, schools and universities,” Zainuddin wrote on his blog today.

On Monday, Dr Mahathir said he was withdrawing his support for Najib and his administration as his criticism had fallen on deaf ears.

“I have tried to give my views to him directly, which are also the views of many people who have met me,” said the country’s longest-serving prime minister on his popular blog, chedet.cc.

“This has not been effective so I have to criticise. I have no choice but to withdraw my support,”?

But the following day, Malaysian newspapers were silent over the attacks, suggesting that editors had deliberately muffled any criticisms against Najib.

This was despite Dr Mahathir lashing out at government supporters for not speaking out against Najib’s policies.

“Many of the policies, approaches and actions by the government under Najib has destroyed interracial ties, the economy and the country’s finances,” Dr Mahathir wrote on Monday.

“This is all because government supporters have never criticised their leaders.”

Dr Mahathir said Najib’s slide began when the latter listened to his “enemies’ demands” and repealed the Internal Security Act in 2011 and the Restrictive Residents Act, which allowed the government to detain anyone, including suspected criminals, without trial.

Zainuddin today called on all Umno divisions to save their president by urging him to bring back the controversial ISA once they convene this November for the Umno general assembly.

He said abolishing the ISA was a big mistake on Najib’s part, as it allowed certain “anti-national quarters to insult and belittle the Federal Constitution”.

“I understand that Najib’s move not only shocked the rakyat, but it disappointed the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police, who had advised him to make amendments, and not abolish it,” said Zainuddin.

He said Najib put an end to the ISA to build a name for himself internationally, without taking into account the sentiments of Malaysians.

“This is the same with Khairy (Jamaluddin) who showed up at the protest over Gaza in London because he felt it would boost his image compared with joining the protests in Malaysia,” said Zainuddin.

But he added that “Najib is not Khairy”, and understood the prime minister well from his days as Utusan Malaysia’s editor-in-chief.

“There is no reason for Najib to feel guilty or worried his dignity will be compromised if he retracts his mistake.

“On the contrary, his image will return to its peak and become stronger if he is willing to right his wrongs, which have emboldened Malaysians to become ruder and tarnish the purity of the Constitution,” he wrote. – August 21, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 August 2014, 6:07 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why did Islamic State militants execute James Foley? (+video)

By Howard LaFranchi

Christian Science Monitor

August 20, 2014

WASHINGTON — The video of the beheading of American journalist James Foley features a black-robed Islamic State militant claiming – in British-accented English – that the execution is in retribution for recent US air strikes against IS forces in Iraq.

The video also shows another prone and bound captured American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and issues a warning that he will suffer the same fate if the US pursues its military campaign against fighters for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

But while the IS militants who made and disseminated the gruesome video may have aimed on one level to halt the US air strikes, experts in Islamist terrorism and its messaging say the group had a range of objectives and audiences in mind.

In addition to President Obama – whom the black-robed executioner addresses directly – the message is intended for other Western leaders, moderate Muslims who would stand in IS’s way, as well as young radicalized Muslims from Britain to Yemen who are drawn to the Islamists’ fight.

“Clearly this kind of message has multiple audiences, and it wasn’t just President Obama and other Western decision-makers,” says Jerrold Post, a professor of political psychology at George Washington University in Washington and author of “The Mind of a Terrorist.” “I think it’s meant to remind moderate Muslims that they can expect to be treated just as harshly.”

“This was also designed in part as a kind of recruitment film,” he adds, “to bring in the people who are inspired by the ruthlessness on the one hand, but also by the expression of leadership and power.”

Indeed at one point in the video the IS fighter says, “You are no longer fighting an insurgency, we are an Islamic army.” In other words, analysts say, the group is declaring to the world that IS is now indeed a state, exercising powers associated with states – from establishing an army to rendering “justice,” including through execution.

Obama appeared to want to counter this claim of legitimacy – and whatever attraction the message might have for vulnerable Muslims – in the statement he delivered from his Martha’s Vineyard vacation Wednesday afternoon.

After saying the world is “appalled” by Mr. Foley’s murder and noting that he personally expressed to the journalist’s family how “heartbroken” the nation is, Obama went on to describe the “stark contrast” between IS and what he called the “civilized” world.

“Let’s be clear about ISIL,” he said, using the administration’s preferred acronym for the group, the organization’s “empty vision” has “no place in the 21st century.”

Declaring the group has “no ideology of any value to human beings,” Obama also said IS “speaks for no religion” as he noted that “their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim.” But he appeared to allude to the fact that the extremist group did receive assistance from some Sunni Arab countries when he listed “governments and people across the Middle East” among IS’s victims, and said that there “has to be clear rejection of these kinds of nihilistic ideologies.”

Just the fact that by their action IS elicited a swift and stern statement from the president of the United States could be conjured by the group as a sort of victory, some experts say.

“Of course [Obama] had to say something about this terrible act, but you get caught in a trap where anything you say about it can serve their purposes because it can make them seem powerful,” says Martha Crenshaw, an international terrorism expert at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation in Palo Alto, Calif.

Dr. Crenshaw, who has studied IS’s evolution from its roots as Al Qaeda in Iraq in the early days of the American invasion of Iraq, says the group [while still AQI] did for a time stop its tactic of widely disseminating beheadings and other extreme violence, and she’s unsure why the group recommenced with the Foley execution.

“It’s quite plausible they really thought it would frighten Americans, although I think it’s more likely to anger than to frighten,” she says. “It may also be something as simple as a reaction to the setbacks they’ve experienced” at the hands of the US, she adds, “It might simply be an act of retaliation.”

GWU’s Dr. Post agrees, finding that, “Beneath the bravado, there’s a certain amount of desperation, too.”

But Crenshaw, who is one of the organizers of Stanford’s “Mapping Militant Organizations” website, notes that perhaps a quarter of IS’s estimated 12,000 militants are from Western countries, and as a result she says the Foley video has to be seen as a potential recruitment tool.

“I do think we have to consider this as some sort of recruitment video, even though it’s hard for us to fathom the appeal,” she says. Having the message delivered by a fighter with a British accent has the potential to tell other European Muslims, “I’m showing the world how tough I am, and you can be tough, too,” she says.

Clearly to someone’s thinking “this [beheading] was some sort of implementation of justice,” Crenshaw says. Noting that IS militants hold captive other journalists besides Mr. Sotloff and aid workers, she says, “Sadly, I suppose we can expect more of it.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 August 2014, 6:29 am and is filed under
International
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Snap polls could see chaos and uncertainty in Selangor, forum told

By Zurairi AR

The Malay Mail Online

August 23, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 23 ― The Sultan’s consent to dissolve the state assembly for snap polls would be an irreversible decision that may send the state hurtling into chaos, Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Bari told a forum on the mentri besar crisis last night.

The regularly-cited constitutional expert expressed fears of possible attempts to trigger unrest that may allow Putrajaya to regain control of Selangor via an emergency.

“If it is dissolved, we can do nothing … If this Monday His Highness decides to dissolve it, then it will be dissolved,” Aziz said of the state assembly.

Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim is set to meet the Selangor Sultan on Monday, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The Selangor University (Unisel) lecturer pointed out to a previous case of an unsuccessful challenge against the dissolution of the Sabah state assembly, to back his point.

But he asserted that Khalid no longer has the authority to request for a dissolution of the assembly, as he can be considered a “caretaker” MB after a demonstrable loss of confidence in his administration among state lawmakers.

Citing the cases of the 1977 Kelantan Emergency and the 1966 Sarawak Constitutional Crisis, Aziz said an emergency might be declared in Selangor should chaos be instigated by agents provocateur.

“I’m worried it would turn out like that, it created a chaos. Then this provides the ground for the authorities to do what they want,” Aziz claimed.

In the 1966 Sarawak crisis, the federal government declared a state of emergency to reinstate a new chief minister after a High Court declared that the ouster of the previous chief minister Tan Sri Stephen Kalong Ningkan was illegal.

In the 1977 emergency, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong similarly declared emergency at the request of the federal government after street violence and a political impasse.

The impasse and violence happened after Kelantan MB Datuk Muhammad Nasir requested consent from the Regent of Kelantan for a dissolution of state assembly, but was refused instead.

Other panelists in the forum last night was electoral watchdog Bersih 2.0 chairman Maria Chin Abdullah and Khairul Ariffin Mohd Munir, the vice-president of Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM). It was moderated by Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan of the coalition Negara-Ku.

Selangor was thrown into a leadership crisis after PKR sacked Khalid for refusing to yield his position to party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

Khalid responded by removing all hostile PKR and DAP officials from his executive council, leaving Selangor in the hands of an independent MP and four excos from PAS.

The Pakatan Rakyat parties banded together last Sunday to demand Khalid’s resignation, saying he no longer commanded the confidence of the state’s lawmakers.

Khalid is refusing to acknowledge this until it is tested in a vote of no-confidence in the state assembly.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 23 August 2014, 7:13 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.