Anwar wins 'US agent' suit

KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIAN opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday won RM100,000 (S$138,000) in a defamation suit over a newspaper article that portrayed him as a US agent, his lawyer said.

The High Court ordered the New Straits Times, a leading English-language daily, to pay compensation and legal costs to Anwar over an article titled 'Anwar's links to US lobbyist' published in March 2002.

'We have argued in court that the article imputed Anwar as an American agent and an unfit politician,' his lawyer Sankara Nair told AFP. 'The court held the article was defamatory. Anwar said he is vindicated and is very satisfied with the judgement,' he said.

Mr Sankara said the article was based on a report in an American magazine that also said Mr Anwar had amassed RM3.0 billion in funds. 'The article was recklessly published without checking the truth and accuracy of the story,' he said.

The 62-year-old opposition leader is currently facing a sodomy trial over charges levelled by a 24-year-old former aide. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment if he is convicted. -- AFP

Mahathir - a living monument of shame!

Mahathir is not only Malaysia's real dilemma but also a traitor of the highest degree. He'll be remembered as the one who institutionalised racism, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, destroyed our judiciary, democracy and freedom of the Press. He's truly a "Maha Koteh" & "Father of Corruption". Pity his children & grand children who might have to bear the brunt because of his shamed legacy later, even many years after he has died. He is now a living "monument of shame". Worse than Mugabe, Marcos & Suharto put together! - Anwar Ibrahim

'Dr M, you killed democracy in Malaysia'

'That is your legacy You silenced the voices of dissent in no uncertain terms. And in the end, the monsters your created devoured you in the process.'



Dr M on democracy and sore losers

Suhaimi Said: Dr Mahathir Mohamad, I remember you as a dictator. Hundreds of people were detained under ISA during your rule. So don't talk about democracy. I was a victim of your dictatorship.

Equaliser: Dr Mahathir, you killed democracy in Malaysia - that is your legacy. We don't need people like you anymore in this blessed country. You are a Malay nationalist, that's all. You didn't serve all of Malaysia's people, which include the Chinese, Indians, and other ethnic groups.

A statesman is one who has served his country's people well and promoted democratic values and principles within government institutions and society as whole. You silenced voices of dissent in no uncertain terms. And in the end, the monsters your created devoured you in the process.

Yes, you created monsters greedy for money and power, and who were willing to use any means necessary to acquire them. This country has failed to serve all its people and continues to do so. You began the trend of money politics and this is the result of your actions.

Just watch the news daily and you can see how lop-sided the coverage is in favour of the ruling party, and this right in front of our very own eyes. If only all Malaysians would open their eyes and ears to see and listen, they would know what to do come the 13th general election.

Kris: It has been estimated that during Mahathir's premiership, the amount of taxpayers' money allegedly misused by him and his cronies was in the region of hundreds of billions. To carry out this, he completely destroyed the judiciary and the enforcement agencies by replacing the honest top officials in these agencies with tainted officials who could be blackmailed into doing his bidding.

By having these people under his thumb and by controlling the media and the civil service, he ensured that he literally had dictatorial powers. To make sure that all the crooked deals that he made were not known to the public, he enacted laws like the Official Secrets Act.

In short, he was a premier who manipulated the democratic system to give himself dictatorial powers. That is why it is extremely disgusting to hear this man pontificating on democracy or corruption.
Playfair: It is sad but not surprising that Dr Mahathir continues to peddle half-truths to justify his opinions. He reduces democracy to a one-dimensional event - elections - and fails to refer to other equally important elements that constitute the package called democracy.

He speaks of "sore losers", but what about the 'tyranny of the majority' (which he should be all too familiar with)? A system cultivated and nourished through dubious means and made legal through a two-thirds majority and then used to subvert national institutions to do the bidding of the majority - sore losers are nothing compared to this tyranny.

Asian values were promoted as an ideology to restrict mass political participation, good governance, transparency and accountability. The sacking of Anwar Ibrahim could not have been more un-Asian, not to mention un-Islamic, un-Malay and un-Malaysian (if Umno will allow the use of such a term).

Please keep speaking, sir, so that we can find out how you worked your way to remain in power for so long.

TC88: Talk about sore losers. Mahathir is probably a hypocrite. When Umno was declared illegal and Mahathir's position as its leader and prime minister was sorely threatened, he sacked the then Lord President and the five Supreme Court (now called the Federal Court) judges when he knew the verdict was not going to be in his favour.

Dr Mahathir, you destroyed the very fabric of Malaysia's public institutions, its constitution, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies like the police, attorney-general, and the then ACA

This has been highlighted by Ku Li (Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah) in his speeches. Please do the honourable thing and retire, and just keep quiet like your anointed successor, Pak Lah (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), the Father of Malaysia's Conscience. - MalaysiaKini

BBC's News on Teoh Beng Hock's body exhumed

Pathologist Pornthip Rojanasunand suspects Mr Teoh was murdered

The BBC's Jennifer Pak in Kuala Lumpur says her story gave credence to a widely held belief that Mr Teoh's interrogation was part of a government drive to discredit opposition politicians after their success in 2008 elections.

The body of a Malaysian opposition activist who died in police custody has been exhumed after a pathologist said there was an 80% chance he was killed.

Teoh Beng Hock fell nine stories to his death from the offices of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission in July.

He was said to have committed suicide after being questioned over allegations that his boss had misused public funds.

The authorities will be conducting a second autopsy on the body, following suspicions of foul play.

Last month Thai pathologist Pornthip Rojanasunand said marks on the body suggested Mr Teoh had been tortured and strangled.

Her testimony had been sought by the opposition-led authorities in Selangor state - where Mr Teoh was an aide to a member of the state cabinet.

Abuse of power?

The BBC's Jennifer Pak in Kuala Lumpur says her story gave credence to a widely held belief that Mr Teoh's interrogation was part of a government drive to discredit opposition politicians after their success in 2008 elections.

The ruling coalition's confidence was shaken after it lost its two-thirds majority for the first time in four decades.

The country's anti-corruption commission has called on a British pathologist to observe the second post-mortem on Mr Teoh's body.

The Malaysian government has accused the opposition of politicising his death.

In July, a member of the governing coalition quit to join the opposition Pakatan Alliance.

Chua Jui Meng said he was concerned about alleged abuse of power and Mr Teoh's unexplained death.

Breaking News : M'sia GDP shrinks 1.2%

Malaysia's economy shrank 1.2 per cent in the third quarter, an improvement from the previous two quarters as the financial services and construction sectors gained strength. -- PHOTO: AFP

KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIA'S economy shrank 1.2 per cent in the third quarter, an improvement from the previous two quarters as the financial services and construction sectors gained strength, the government said on Friday.

The year-on-year fall in gross domestic product came amid declines in key sectors such as manufacturing, which dropped 8.6 per cent, and mining, which slid 3.5 per cent, the Department of Statistics said in a statement. But it was a more moderate contraction compared with the 6.2 per cent drop in the first three months of 2009 and 3.9 per cent in the second quarter, the statement said.

The government last month narrowed its forecast for the contraction in the economy this year to 3 per cent following stimulus measures totaling RM67 billion (S$27.3 billion). It earlier expected the economy to shrink 4 per cent to 5 per cent. For 2010, the government has forecast growth of 2 to 3 per cent.

The services sector was the 'main impetus' for the better economic performance, expanding 3.4 per cent in the third quarter due to increasing finance and insurance activities and retail trade, the department said.

The construction sector grew 7.9 per cent, buoyed by stimulus spending on new infrastructure. Exports and imports both continued a downward spiral.

Exports shrank 13.4 per cent amid reduced foreign demand for electrical and electronics products and petroleum goods. Imports contracted 12.9 per cent because of lower purchases of intermediate and capital goods. -- AP

Anwar defends Talam move, Salehuddin’s rights

KUALA LUMPUR: In a move to defuse tension within the party, PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim defended Selangor’s move to acquire Talam Corp Bhd’s debts, but added that the party’s secretary-general Datuk Salehuddin Hashim did no wrong in questioning the move.

Salehuddin had despatched a strongly-worded e-mail to all PKR Members of Parliament and assemblymen in the state questioning why Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had kept them in the dark about the move.

”At the outset, the political bureau respects and defends the right of any party leader to raise and question policy matters of any state government, including states that are ruled by a Pakatan Rakyat coalition government,” Anwar said.

Speaking to reporters at the Parliament lobby, he said Sallehuddin’s e-mail was his personal view and only meant for internal circulation.

”The secretary-general neither alleges fraud nor impropriety on the part of the Mentri Besar or the Selangor state government,” said Anwar.

He said the party leadership had discussed the issue of the loan taken by the Selangor state government to buy over Talam’s RM391mil debt owed to subsidiaries of Selangor Development Corporation (PKNS), and were satisfied with Khalid’s initial explanation on the core issues involved in the transaction.

The State Assembly had on Nov 9 approved a supplementary budget of RM391mil for the state investment arm, Mentri Besar Incorporated, to buy over debts owed by Talam Corporation to several state agencies.

Talam is a major player in the Malaysian property sector, involved mostly in building affordable homes.

Syariah court system hypocritical, says Anwar

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 18 — Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim accused the country’s Islamic judiciary system of being hypocritical.

The Permatang Pauh MP said that the syariah court was practising selective prosecution.

“The question is how to restore the confidence in this system. If it is the issue of drinking alcohol, there are big and popular figures who drink alcohol but only the small people are punished. People will of course question but this is not about questioning the Quran. There is a hypocrisy and inconsistency in this system.

"What is disputed is the implementation of the laws which help restore confidence in the syariah court’s integrity in the eyes of not only Muslims, but also non-Muslims and the world,” he in his supplementary question to Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim in Parliament.

Anwar also asked why an Islamic scholar or a mufti needs a permit to preach.

Mashitah replied that it was not a question whether the person is an Islamic scholar or not but a person needs a permit to preach.

“Even if you can drive a car well on the road but you don’t have a licence, the police will still arrest you. The same can be applied here,” she said.

Anwar interrupted and asked why a person who can be a mufti needs a licence to preach to loud jeers from Barisan Nasional lawmakers.

Former Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin was charged in the Gombak Syariah Court today with teaching without a permit.

The controversial scholar was arrested by the Selangor Islamic authority Jais some two weeks ago while giving a private lecture at a friend’s residence in Ukay Heights.

Though Asri cried foul play over the arrest, which he claimed was “aggressively” executed, Jais said the apprehension was not due to the ongoing war of words between them but simply because he had broken the law by giving a sermon without a permit.

Various leaders from both sides of the political divide, including former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a known supporter of Asri's, have condemned the arrest.

Asri, who was a university lecturer until his appointment as Perlis mufti in 2006, is noted for his unconventional interpretation of Islamic principles which often contradict government-endorsed doctrines.

Earlier, Sri Gading MP Datuk Mohamad Aziz stressed that the syariah court is important for Muslims, and non-Muslims should not interfere.

“We are disappointed when punishment handed out by the syariah court is disputed by certain parties that try to interfere and insult Islamic principles.

"I can’t stand it when non-Muslims insult Islamic judgments,” he said.

More crisis if...

US President Obama said the world economy was on a path to recovery but warned that failure to re-balance the global economic system would lead to further crises. -- PHOTO: AFP

US PRESIDENT Barack Obama said on Sunday the world economy was on a path to recovery but warned that failure to re-balance the global economic system would lead to further crises.

Mr Obama was addressing a meeting of Asia Pacific leaders in Singapore, where officials struggled to agree a final communique after Washington and Beijing debated the wording on market-oriented exchange rates and trade protectionism. An Apec delegation official who declined to be identified said the statement had been delayed because of discussions between the two global giants on the sidelines of the meeting.

His comments suggested an earlier statement could be watered down and underscored the strains between the two countries. Beijing fears it could set a precedent for more duties on Chinese goods that are gaining market share in the United States.

Mr Obama told Apec leaders the world could not return to the same cycles of boom and bust that sparked the recession.

'We cannot follow the same policies that led to such imbalanced growth. If we do, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis, a failed path that has already had devastating consequences for our citizens, our businesses, and our governments,' Mr Obama said. 'We have reached one of those rare inflection points in history where we have the opportunity to take a different path - to pursue a new strategy for jobs and growth. Growth that is balanced. Growth that is sustainable.'

Mr Obama's strategy calls for America to save more, spend less, reform its financial system and cut its deficits and borrowing. Washington also wants key exporters such as China to boost domestic demand.-- THOMSON REUTERS

Al Gore: "Civil Disobedience Has A Role To Play"

Al Gore: 'Millions upon millions of people have suffered infinitely greater losses than I suffered.' Photograph: Amanda Marsalis

Perhaps the best way to understand the extraordinary transformation of Al Gore is to study the changing rhetoric of his enemies. A mere nine years ago, back when George Bush was just a cheeky rogue with an adorable line in malapropisms, presidential candidate Gore was famously derided as wooden and dull. Having failed to win the presidency – though of course that depends, as ever, on your definition of the word "win" – he next became a pitiable loser, then a laughable climate-change wonk, then the Oscar-winning, peace prize-winning, Live Earth-organising darling of liberal Hollywood. And so it says something hugely flattering about his present-day stature, surely, that the new official anti-Gore line is that he is quite simply evil: an anti-American hypocrite, a supporter of world government, and, like Barack Obama, probably a communist or a fascist or both. A recent documentary about Gore made by Irish global warming denialists, Not Evil Just Wrong, made the mistake of diverging from this stance, prompting fury among parts of its intended audience in the US. Not evil? Get real.

In person, Gore is neither wooden nor, in any obvious way, evil. What he is, is reserved: settling back into an armchair at a fancy hotel in Los Angeles, he answers questions obligingly and at length – sometimes at very great length – but without the effort to connect that seems to be a compulsion of most politicians. He is trim, strikingly handsome, in a dark blue suit and black cowboy boots, and looks mysteriously unsleepy, despite having just flown in from a three-day trip to China. (After LA, he's due home for one night in Nashville, then off on a book tour that will take him to South Africa and Egypt. Denialists enjoy attacking Gore's personal carbon footprint, even though, as denialists, it's not clear what they're objecting to.) Not long ago, Time magazine called him "improbably charismatic", which is accurate, though this may be a consequence of his new incarnation: for a successful politician, Gore comes across as surprisingly distant, but as professorial climate change experts go, he's a rock star.

Beyonce, Anwar Ibrahim and The Mufti

Gore, optimistically, attributes the hardening tone of his critics to "the sunset phenomenon, where there's a spectacle just before the subsiding": as the remaining climate change doubters and vested interests begin to realise that the game is up, he suggests, they're bound to make one last stand. "This self-interest on the part of some of the carbon polluters – who are becoming a bit intense in their efforts – reflects their awareness that public opinion has been shifting very significantly," he says. "When I say 'they', I don't mean to indict all of them, because the business community is now very much split… but that realisation has produced a desire on the part of some of these carbon polluters to dig in their heels."

He points to the US Chamber of Commerce's new hardline stance against action on the environment, which prompted several major American corporations to resign from it. (They included Apple, on whose board Gore sits, though he says he first heard of that decision when he read about it in the paper.) "They're calling for a new Scopes trial," says Gore, referring to the Chamber's efforts to liken a belief in global warming to creationism. "Ha! The Scopes trial happened in my home state, and I can tell you, one was quite enough." But many firms are beginning to take a different approach, he notes, for example those who have joined the 10:10 campaign in the UK, which is supported by the Guardian; Gore calls 10:10 "brilliant", and sees no reason why it couldn't work in the US, too.

Gore's new book, Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis, gives global warming deniers short shrift, and shows little concern for displays of political bipartisanship: he likens the doubters to the "birthers" intent on proving that Obama is a Kenyan – not just mavericks, but fantasists who inhabit a different version of reality. "The golden thread of reason that used to be stretched taut to mark the boundary between the known and the unknown is now routinely disrespected," he writes, in a typically Goreish sentence, immediately prior to quoting Theodor Adorno, King Solomon and Aesop. Primarily, though, Our Choice is a sumptuously illustrated coffee-table book of potential solutions, explaining both Gore's favourites (geothermal energy, biochar, "smart" electrical grids) and those about which he's deeply sceptical (nuclear power, carbon capture and pumping sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, a plan he describes as "insane").

When making his Oscar-winning 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore arguably had it easy: it's fairly straightforward to grip an audience when you're portraying scenes of apocalyptic destruction. The new book pulls off a considerably more impressive feat. It focuses on solving the crisis, yet manages to be absorbing on a topic that is all too often – can we just come clean about this, please? – crushingly boring. Importantly, it seeks to enlist readers as political advocates for the cause, rather than just urging them to turn down the heating. "It's important to change lightbulbs," he says, in a well-burnished soundbite, "but more important to change policies and laws." Or perhaps to break laws instead: peaceful occupations of the kind witnessed recently in the UK, he predicts, are only going to become more widespread. "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play. And I expect that it will increase, no question about it." People sometimes express incredulity that Gore, who was groomed for the presidency almost since birth, seems so resolved that he'll never return to electoral politics. But here's a vivid example of the benefits of life on the outside: how many serving politicians would feel able to come so close to urging people to commit trespass?

Gore is particularly compelling on psychology: his book addresses head-on the fact that merely repeating grave pronouncements about the climate crisis isn't a remotely effective way to get governments or individuals to act. Instead, he explores ways to link long-term environmental goals to everyday incentives that people and businesses can actually get their heads around, most obviously by putting a price on carbon via cap-and-trade and other mechanisms: "If the only tool we use to analyse what's valuable is a price tag, then those things that don't have price tags begin to look like they have no value," he writes. He's also passionate about the potential psychological impact of Dscovr, the Nasa satellite project he proposed while serving as Bill Clinton's vice-president (which Dick Cheney mothballed, and Obama has resurrected). Among other things, it would provide a continuous view of the sunlit side of the Earth, available via the internet – a sort of real-time version of the famous Earthrise photograph, serving as a constant reminder and update on the fragile state of our planet.

But it is, naturally, the state of Gore's personal psychology that interests people just as much. Everyone has their hypotheses. They want to know if his environmental campaigning has somehow brought him peace, after the almost unimaginable disappointment of the 2000 election. Or they speculate that he feels guilty for not focusing sufficiently on the climate during that campaign, and is making up for lost time, or guilty for not fighting harder over Florida, given all that subsequently happened under Bush. Our Choice, like An Inconvenient Truth, declares that we are at a historic decision point, at which we can choose to hesitate, with disastrous consequences, or to rise to the occasion – which is virtually an invitation to engage in armchair psychoanalysis. Didn't Gore himself blink, at an analogous crucial moment, with momentous results for himself, and the world?

In the years immediately following the disputed presidential election – after growing a beard and gaining weight – Gore drew on deadpan humour to help process the experience, and to put audiences at their ease. "You win some, you lose some, and then there's that little-known third category," he would say. Or: "I don't want you to think I lie awake at night, counting and recounting sheep." But these days the gags have subsided. "To place the disappointment, which I felt keenly, into some perspective, there are millions upon millions of people who have suffered infinitely larger losses than I suffered," he says now. "They move on with their lives, and if they can, I certainly can. If we walked through the lobby of this hotel and down the sidewalk outside, we'd run into a lot of people who, without us knowing it, are carrying enormous burdens of loss and disappointment. It's part of the human condition."

It does seem, though, as if taking on the biggest conceivable global challenge has helped heal the wound, and perhaps even provided him with a satisfaction that being vice-president didn't. "It's a blessing to have work that feels fulfilling," he says. "There's a passage in the Bible – not that I wear religion on my sleeve; I do not – but there's a passage that's long had meaning for me: 'Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might'... There's that wonderful old English movie, Chariots Of Fire, when the runner says at one point, 'When I run, I feel God's pleasure.' He was expressing a universal human emotion that I think is applicable."

It is easy to forget exactly how unlikely it is that Gore should be doing anything, at this point, other than serving as an elected politician. The son of the Tennessee senator Albert Gore, he was born in Washington DC and grew up immersed in politics; by the time he went to Harvard, he'd gone public with his ambition to become president. He met his future wife, Tipper, at his high school prom in 1965, and served in Vietnam as an army journalist, despite opposing the war; by 1977 he was a Congressman, aged 29. He upgraded to the Senate in 1985, where he played a key role in securing funding for the nascent internet – even if he didn't quite invent it, as some critics falsely alleged that he'd claimed – and ran unsuccessfully to be the Democrats' presidential nominee in the 1988 election. In 1989, his son Albert, then six, was hit by a car while crossing the road and nearly died: Gore said the experience transformed him, and put him off running for president; instead, he joined Clinton's ticket in 1992. During 2007 and 2008, it was frequently suggested that he should run again – indeed, that he had a moral duty to run again – and he never quite fully dismissed the notion until he endorsed Obama. More than any other living figure on the US national stage, perhaps, Capitol Hill and the White House have dominated his life.

And yet here he is, aged 61, living in Nashville, in an 18-room mansion that has been retrofitted to rely entirely on renewable energy, shuttling across the globe, positioning himself cleverly both as the ultimate insider and an activist willing to go far further than the insiders would dare. He serves as an adviser to Google, as well as an Apple board member, chairs a sustainable investment fund, and is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capital fund with environmental interests. (He is, as a result, often accused of a conflict of interest, but responds that all his profits go to his nonprofit organisation, the Alliance for Climate Protection.) "He's got access to every leader in every country, the business community, people of every political stripe," Tipper Gore told Time magazine. "He can do this his way, all over the world, for as long as he wants. That's freedom. Why would anyone give that up?"

Contrary to the general consensus among activists and journalists, Gore remains optimistic about the Copenhagen talks in December – optimistic that the US Senate will pass a bill to clarify Washington's position, arming Obama with much-needed moral authority, and thus optimistic that a worthwhile agreement, which hinges on a US commitment, will emerge from the gathering itself. "I was in China two days ago, and the premier of China asked me, in essence, why I'm optimistic that the Senate will pass legislation when the conventional wisdom says otherwise. And the answer is that I have been a part of conversations between Democrats and Republicans that give me a very different view from what the consensus is in the journalistic community." He refers to the op-ed by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in the New York Times, calling for legislation to pass. "There are other surprises like that in store."

Of the potential Copenhagen deal, Gore says, "I expect it to be far weaker than the one I would like to see. However, the important achievement [will be] to put a price on carbon, and reset expectations among business, government, NGOs and others." He likens the situation to the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer. "The world acted fairly quickly, but the agreement they reached was criticised for being insufficient." Yet, he points out, when the treaty was revised, "many of the businesses that had opposed [it] were there to argue in favour of toughening it significantly. Because once they began to comply... they realised that it was not as difficult as they had feared. And once they'd made the commitment to the change, they were eager to get on with it." It made more sense, financially and in PR terms, to go all the way instead of halfway.

Is it important for Obama to go to Copenhagen himself? "Oh yes. And I expect that he will. He hasn't told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I feel certain that he will."

In Gore's position, of course, optimism infused with urgency is the only rational stance to take in public. Unless you either don't believe in human-caused global warming, or you think it's definitely too late to do anything about it, there's no real upside to saying anything other than that the situation is grave yet addressable. But Gore, you get the feeling, really is an optimist, all the way through. His repeated references to JFK's promise to put a man on the moon may not, as a climate change analogy, bear close scrutiny: putting a man on the moon didn't require the average American to do anything at all. Still, the crisis needs its Kennedy, and Gore – for all his improbable, un-Kennedy-like brand of charisma – seems to be that man.

"We have a tendency as human beings to confuse the unprecedented with the improbable," he says. "If something has never happened before, we tend to assume it will not happen in the future... [but] throughout history, there have been examples of human societies confronting dire threats, and finding, in their response, that they were capable of more than they thought they were capable of." What everything depends on now, he says, is "how soon we reach a critical mass of political awareness that can... give us the ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption." We will win or we will lose: outside of dodgy Floridian elections, there actually isn't a third category.

guardian.

Pakatan preparing for coalition formation

KUALA LUMPUR: The Pakatan Rakyat is consolidating itself and details of this, including its leadership, would be hammered out at later date, said PKR strategy director Tian Chua.

He said the Pakatan had applied for formal registration as a coalition and is currently waiting for this to be approved so that the Opposition alliance -- which comprises PKR, PAS and the DAP -- would be a legal entity.

“The key now is we need to be registered. That is a simple process of getting approval so that we can get on with strengthening the alliance,” he told pressmen at the Parliament lobby here on Thursday.

He was commenting on reports that the Pakatan Rakyat had applied for formal registration and is proposing to appoint former minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim as its chairman.

Tian Chua said that the issue of leadership had not been discussed yet as the main priority was registering the three-member alliance.

“The rest, such as the constitution, logo and leadership, will be decided when the registration is approved. Who hold what position would be decided at a much later stage,” he said.

He said the Pakatan Rakyat was now in the process of strengthening its secretariat and drafting a common platform of policies.

“This is a process. It is like registrating a brand name for your company.

“The marketing plan is not part of registration. We still have to have a marketing plan and figure out how to improve our products” he said.

Tian Chua said that the Pakatan convention next month would discuss the alliance’s policies, how it functions and strengthening its election machinery.

Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim said Zaid had been entrusted with implementing the formation of the coalition as he has a legal background.

Zaid, Pakatan coordinator, is part of the secretariat involved in drawing up a charter spelling out the core policies of the opposition alliance.

“Rising Sun” — signalling a “New Dawn” For Malaysia

At last, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) has taken a big step towards formalising its alliance in order to go head on with Barisan Nasional (BN) as a registered coalition at the next general election.

The Malaysian Insider understands that officials from the PR alliance handed in their application to be made a formal coalition to the Registrar of Societies (RoS) some time earlier this week.

According to government sources, some 10 names each from DAP, PAS and PKR were listed in the registration form, together with a list of common objectives, which are expected to be laid out when the alliance holds its first convention next month.

A logo bearing a “rising sun” was also tendered — signalling a “new dawn” for the country — as the fledgling opposition front’s symbol against BN’s dacing, or scale.

The PR bloc believes its application this time will pass muster, based on the new stand taken by the Registrar of Societies Datuk Md Alias Kalil.

Md Alias had publicly stated that the previous reading of Section 2 of the Societies Act 1966, which states any coalition of political parties must have at least seven political parties as members to be registered did not apply.

The loose alliance of PKR, DAP and PAS first came together in the wake of the landmark March 8 general election last year, which saw its members wrest control of four key states from BN in spite of fundamental differences in philosophies.

But it remains to be seen if PKR, PAS and DAP will be able to settle their various spats within their respective parties as well as with each other and present a force capable of challenging BN.

The growing infighting within all three parties — from Sabah PKR leaders quitting in protest against heavy-handed treatment from its peninsula-based central leadership to frequent eruptions between the religious PAS and socialist DAP — has only served to diminish their viability in the eyes of the increasingly weary and wary public.

PR will need to keep in mind that many of the votes cast were also an act of protest against BN for perceived arrogance.

But under Datuk Seri Najib Razak, BN has managed to claw back some support for the ruling coalition.

- DSAI Blog

Poor effort to fight graft

By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 3 – Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today slammed the ruling coalition for what he alleges are cases of “selective prosecution”.

The arrest of maverick ex-Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin on Sunday night allegedly for delivering a lecture in Ampang without permission from the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (Jais) was a case in point, the PKR adviser said.

Anwar, who was in court today for his sodomy case to be mentioned, explained that he had just been updated on the happenings in the country by Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

The high-profile politician, who is fond of quoting from the Quran during his many public lectures, noted there was no valid reason for the Dr Asri's arrest.

“We do not condone those measures,” the PKR adviser stressed.

The former Umno man appeared cynical of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commision’s (MACC) seriousness about fighting graft when asked to comment on yesterday’s arrest of several lawmakers for corruption, including one from his rival Barisan Nasional (BN) faction.

He noted that they were merely hauling up the “small fry” instead of catching the “big fish.”

Anwar named several highly-controversial BN government business deals as cases the MACC should prioritise for prosecution; from the ongoing hulabaloo over the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project to old stuff such as the Defence Ministry's submarine and Sukhoi fighter jet purchases and state-owned Perwaja Steel corporation calamity.

“You can’t ignore these major cases,” he said.

“If they are serious in combating corruption, we will support them,” Anwar said.

First Manifesto For Next General Election

IPOH, Nov 1 — Despite being ousted just under one year in power, the Perak Pakatan Rakyat is already looking to the next polls by preparing its first draft manifesto ahead of the 13th general election. Besides promising to adopt the same policies it had implemented when the alliance helmed the state government last year, PR also offered other goodies to the people.

Barisan is arrogant and drunk on power

OCT 30 — So, the Perak farce grabbed the headlines again this week, while in my home state, Badrul Hisham Abdullah crossed over to the Barisan Nasional side of the floor. And there is no better way to sum this up: Barisan is a threat to our democratic and peaceful way of life. It is arrogant, drunk on the heady belief that no matter what, it can hold on to power and do whatever it likes — the laws or the people of Malaysia be damned.

I know it sounds like hyperbole to suggest Barisan is this nasty. And I don’t mean to say you’re a bad person if you like or support Barisan. I know a fair number of fantastic people in Barisan. But I also know for a fact that Barisan doesn’t give a rat’s ass about our democracy or our rights.

The most fundamental right — even more fundamental than the right to vote — is the right to fair and equal treatment under the law. That is why the Magna Carta is such an important document — it is the first codified instance of the rule of law. Nobody, not even the royalty or the Prime Minister, is above the law. Everyone is entitled to be treated as the law prescribes — nothing more, and nothing less.

It is fundamentally dictatorial and antithetical to democracy for people to be above the law. If someone were to murder or steal, it does not matter whether he is a prince or a pauper — he is wrong. It undermines everything about a democratic and constitutional state for the government to be above the laws imposed on the people it governs.

And yet, that is exactly what happened in Perak. Barisan could have waited for the Pakatan Rakyat speaker to convene the state assembly, pass a motion of no confidence in the government, and get on with business. It wouldn’t be particularly fair to the people of Perak, who voted for a Pakatan government, but at least it would be in accordance with the law.

Barisan didn’t give two hoots about the law. It unilaterally decided that the Sultan could dismiss the mentri besar, and used this to impose its authority over the state. The fact is that the Perak state assembly still has not passed a vote of no confidence in the Pakatan state government, leaving the question of who governs the state in limbo.

All this could be avoided if Barisan stuck to the law. But Barisan is so used to being unquestionably the one in power that it thinks it is above the law. You have a smoking gun like the V.K. Lingam video, and still the government has the gumption to say “There’s not enough proof” to prosecute those the video implicates. Barisan can grill Teoh Beng Hock so hard about RM2,400 worth of alleged corruption that he falls to his death, but it can’t even get to the bottom of the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone disaster. Barisan is so drunk with power that it knowingly nominates a man which its very own Umno decided was too corrupt to hold office to represent it in Negri Sembilan. Barisan just does not care about the law.

We can sit all day and argue about the constitutionality of crossovers, but Barisan can’t even get the simple process of changing the government in Perak right — and worse, it doesn’t care. Instead of being sensitive to their position as an unelected and less-than-legitimate government, Barisan in Perak swaggers as if it won power in a landslide vote. It runs so roughshod over the majority who voted for Pakatan that it can have the speaker violently stripped of his robes, the elected Pakatan state representatives roughed up, and the tree which symbolises the will of the majority of Perakians uprooted. Barisan is so arrogant that it cannot even try to win the hearts of the people it wants to govern.

For all of Pakatan’s foibles, there is absolutely no way I can reward the arrogance and injustice which Barisan represents and upholds. Barisan may well be laying the groundwork for the takeover of my state government next. If it does, I very much look forward to us Selangor folk giving arrogant Barisan the boot for a second time in the next general election, for until Barisan changes its ways, all I can say is: good riddance to bad, bad rubbish!

-- John Lee is a third-year student of economics at Dartmouth College in the United States. He has been thinking aloud since 2005 at infernalramblings.com.

POLITICAL SECRETARY TO SELANGOR MENTERI BESAR

PRESS STATEMENT OCT 29, 2009

The State Government is aware of the mounting complaints from the people of Port Klang over the non-performance of assemblyman Badrul Hisham Abdullah.

Since he was issued a showcause letter dated August 20, 2008, badrul Hisham has made no efforts improve his work. Despite stating his willingness to meet state and party leaders, he continues to be evasive in meeting state and party leaders. He has also refused to answer calls or SMS and has not re-open his service centre for the people in Port Klang.

Consequently, the Menteri Besar of Selangor Tan Sri Abdul Khalid today had made a recommendation to the Parti Keadilan Rakyat supreme council for Badrul Hisham to resign as assemblyman. The menteri besar will also be sending a delegation to reiterate the matter to the assemblyman personally.

The state government cannot tolerate incompetent land irresponsible leaders as they will seriously undermine its efforts to improve the rakyat economic and social lives.

YB NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD

POLITICAL SECRETARY TO SELANGOR MENTERI BESAR

PAS, look at the big picture

By Tohkong Mosjid (Harakah)

Honestly PAS, ask yourself, did you pay any attention to the outsiders' critics before TGNA's outburst? Perhaps some of you did, but I believe most of you discard those comments the next minute after you read it.

Some of you may be asking, why, why choose this moment for the outburst? As if there is not enough outsider condemnation of us every day after Bagan Pinang, now we have to deal with our own internal ramblings? But, is this a bad moment, a bad timing for such outburst? NO. Not at all.

This is exactly the perfect time that you will actually pay some attention to what people has to say because your arrogance was greatly shaken after your embarrassing lost in Bagan Pinang. If TGNA's outburst came after Permatang Pasir's victory, you guys would probably have openly asked for his retraction or resignation from party.

Understanding Nik Aziz's outburst

For those of you in PAS who find TGNA's latest outburst disgusting -- please ask yourself this question:

Who feels the most pain when a parent is forced to cane their own son? The parent? Or the son?

As a parent ourselves, we know pretty well that each stroke of rotan that strikes our son's buttock feels like a knife cutting through our heart -- just like the saying, "Hit on your flesh, pain in my heart." Unfortunately, most of the time, we have to accept the fact that our beloved son will not able to understand that the physical pain that he has to endure is way less than the emotional pain we have to suffer for caning him.

But, as a parent, we have to stay strong and do the right thing for our children even though it is painful for us to do so. Punishing or scolding our own child is always for the better good with a hope that our children will learn from their mistakes and excel in their life even when we are no longer around.

We certainly wish that our children will understand our pains and sacrifices later in life; but we really wouldn't mind if they don't, as long as they are on the right path to have an excellent life in the future.

I believe this is what TGNA as the 'parent of PAS' is feeling at the moment. To him, PAS's current leaders are his children, he wants them to be on right path to achieve what he could not over so many years -- for PAS to replace Barisan Nasional as the federal government.

Very likely that TGNA senses that PAS leaders (his children) are not paying attention to what people is grumbling about them on the ground. As he said it himself, "I hate people condemning my party and my president", just like how any parent will feel when they have to listen to teachers complaining away about their children in school.

We, as parents prefer ourselves to be the person punishing our own children rather than seeing our children being punished by others in the society. The same applies to TGNA. In order to wake 'his children' up, TGNA would rather reprimand PAS's leaders himself rather than seeing his party gets a rude awakening by losing the next election terribly.

At his age, I pity him because he was forced to take on the tough role and endures the immense emotional pain as being the bad person; to voice up against his own party top leaders. He knows his children are going to hate him for this outburst, but like what any parent would do -- he would rather sacrifice himself for the sake of saving his children's future.

So PAS, are you hurt now? I hope I am not too cruel to say that I hope that the 'pain' is now painful enough for you to finally accept some realities about the bad perception that you are suffering were due to your own doings.

The wrong message of Islam by PAS

A lot of PAS's leaders are actually ustaz. Ustaz is a teacher - someone who is supposed to be highly respectable, reputable and reliable in the society. But why PAS has yet to be the most respectable, reputable and reliable party that rakyat Malaysia can count on despite having so many teachers around?

Islam aims at making all individuals peace-loving to the ultimate extent. That is why Muslims are enjoined to greet one another by saying "Assalam-o-Alaikum" that is, peace be upon you. According to another saying of the Prophet, the best Islam is to greet everyone you come across, whether or not you are acquainted with the person. (Fathul-Bari 1/103).

In order to preserve the peace established by nature, from disruption, two important injunctions have been laid down by Islam. One at the individual level, stresses the exercise of patience, and the other, at the social level, forbids taking the offensive.

With that clear-cut objective of Islam, Islam supposes to be the religion everyone respect and feel comfortable with, because it brings peace, and peace is everyone's utmost priority in life. With so many ustazs in PAS, why hasn't this message being sent out successfully?

Why hasn't people feel comfortable about the message of Islam PAS is trying to send? Was it because PAS has been harping on the wrong issues thus sending the wrong signals about their version of Islam to us?

Did PAS realize that the message of Islam that we are getting from them were mainly about concerts, beers, interest of certain group of people and holier than thou attitude by imposing morale rights on others? Perhaps that was not the intended message PAS is trying to send, but can you blame us for not receiving the right messages?

Discipline your way of thinking -- think about the big picture

To some PAS leaders, "banning" seems to be the answer for a certain social disease. Is it really so? Lets take a look at an example below:

Assuming that a lot of students in your school are visiting cyber-cafes after school-hours very often. It is an unhealthy habit because it wastes their time and their parents hard-earned money unnecessarily and with the wrong friends' influence, there's a very high chance they will get involved in smoking, drugs, sex and gambling.

As a teacher, what will you do to curb those social ills?

a. Perhaps you think of writing a letter to the local authorities to close down those cyber-cafes. But, how long do you think the idea of banning those legal cyber-cafes will work? Certainly not very long! By banning those legal cyber-cafes without educating your students, soon your students will still find their way to visit those illegal ones which make things even worse in the end.

b. Or you choose to educate them about their responsibilities as a student and a filial child to their parents -- to let them know that they are hurting their parents' pocket and heart by visiting cyber-cafes?

c. Or perhaps you lead the way to keep your students occupied after school hours to let them realize that there are better things to do rather than visiting cyber-cafes?

It is rather obvious, (b) and (c) is the more effective way for curbing social ills rather than the "banning" method in (a). By adopting (b) and (c), at the end of the day, your students will have more self-discipline and maturity to avoid cyber-cafes because they know they can gain so much more doing other things in their free time.

Banning those cyber-cafes will not stop your students from looking for them. The only way to make them stop looking for cyber-cafes is through education (b) and leading by example (c).

Yes, in the end, most likely those cyber-cafes will still exist but it doesn't matter anymore as your students are being educated to avoid them anyway. And the best prize is (by God's willing), hopefully those cyber-cafes will cease operating because there are not enough customers to maintain their businesses. Isn't this the best solution to this scenario and the best way to teach your students?

Using the analogy above, instead of asking for beers to be banned in convenient stores, PAS should strive for the day the convenient stores stop selling beers on their own due to poor sales because the people realizes that it is a thing they can live better without. Likewise, instead of banning concerts, PAS should strive for the day, they no longer need to worry about its people getting influenced easily by hedonism culture from the West while watching concert, if that's their real concern about Western artist's concerts.

Yes PAS, I know it is rather hard to change the way you think. To change the way you think after so many years takes a lot of discipline on your mind.

But being discipline is not suppose to be an issue for you, because God has trained you to be discipline since young -- on the day you started praying to him. To pray 5 times a day without miss requires the greatest discipline from one's heart. You are well-trained to be the most discipline person, and now you just need to use that discipline to train your thoughts to start looking at the bigger picture ....

There's no denying 'changing the way you think' takes a lot of patience to get it to succeed. But do keep in mind that patience pays in the end according to Islam. The Qur'an says: Surely the patient will be paid their wages in full without measure. (39:10) -- which is why Islam repeatedly enjoins Muslims to tread the path of patience.

PAS, once you are able to change the way you think, you will find that instead of focusing those petty things to show your Islamic credentials -- you will start to aim for the day where all Malaysians feeling comfortable, peaceful, satisfy and safe under your Islamic leadership and caring governing style -- The day where people find every PAS leader capable of being their model and example for their children to follow -- The day where people find PAS as the reliable protector of all Malaysians, the most trustworthy uncorrupted political party to vote for -- which is the highest recognition from the rakyat of your Islamic credentials.

When the day comes, do you think we will have any objection when you say beer or concert is bad for us?

--------------------
Penulis adalah seorang pemuda bukan Muslim yang berayah-angkatkan seorang ustaz.

Indonesia a cut above Malaysia

By Sara Schonhardt

JAKARTA - Similarities in culture, language and religious customs should make Indonesia and Malaysia good neighbors. But long-running spats over everything from territorial boundaries to cultural ownership of culinary dishes, dances, instruments and even Malaysia's national anthem have over the years hampered ties.

The staking of claims over each other's culture came to a colorful head this Friday when the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized batik, a wax-resistant dyeing technique, as part of Indonesia's distinct cultural heritage. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for a party to celebrate the announcement and asked all Indonesians to wear their best batik garbs.

The Indonesian government expects UNESCO's recognition to add a measure of protection to batik, despite the lack of any legally binding measures. By claiming the recognition, Indonesia agrees to take measures to promote and safeguard the tradition of batik-making, though the distinction does not impose any intellectual property rights over the technique. But it will nonetheless likely come as a snub to Malaysia, which also claims cultural ownership over the patterning method.

Batik is a way of hand-painting wax lines on cloth that is then dyed, explained designer and collector Josephine "Obin" Komara, who has collected batik clothes since the 1970s. "If you're talking about batik made in that way, it is only in Indonesia."

The motifs and colors on the cloth mean different things to different cultures. Indonesian batik typically incorporates folklore and flowers, also a common element in Malaysian batik, given their cultural similarities. In the past, patterns have also reflected one's social status. At present, Indonesia's 240 million people typically wear Western fashions, with batik worn more by government employees or for formal occasions.

A similar cultural flareup between Malaysia and Indonesia broke out in 2007 over the use of an Indonesian folk song, "Rasa Sayange", in a Malaysian tourism advertisement. That dispute sparked a resurgent nationalism among Indonesians, driving a newfound embrace for cultural items such as batik, and moving designers such as Edward Hutabarat to embark on a batik revival that saw a spike in local sales of the fabric.

The revival also saw synthetic batik flood in from China. Although definitions of batik now include cloth that is patterned using a machine, traditional batik is handmade, unlike the mass-market cloth Indonesia imports. With more synthetic batik on the market, vendors at Tanah Abang, Jakarta's largest textile market, have found they could only compete by producing their own machine-made batik, which they also sell to buyers in Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia.

Hera, a 30-year-old vendor wearing a sparkly black t-shirt and jeans, said she doesn't believe cultural protection of batik will do much to boost sales. "Business has been slow," she said. "Protection will only matter if people start buying."

Some designers say UNESCO's recognition comes too late to give Indonesia a market advantage in commercializing the tradition. "Indonesia has been really careless about claiming its heritage," said Sanchia Hamidjaja, 26, who designs leather bags with a trim and lining made from a rare and vibrant hand-drawn batik whose origins are ironically Chinese.

One man in a run-down section of Tanah Abang market believes the problem is not about batik, but rather stems from a lack of government support. "The government just doesn't protect small businesses," he said, explaining that while safeguarding batik is important, it won't help small businesses compete in an increasingly crowded market.

Sibling rivalry
Nor will it do much for regional goodwill. Politicians and academics often compare the relationship between Malaysia and Indonesia to that of two brothers always fighting over possessions. Since the batik spat began in August, Malaysia has claimed a host of shared cultural traditions as its own, including gamelan, a percussion instrument, and laksa, a spicy noodle soup.

These came in addition to the pendet, an Indonesian Balinese dance that sparked a dispute when it appeared in a promotional video for Malaysian tourism aired by the US-based Discovery Channel. "This was the last straw," said Yuli Ismartano, editor of Tempo Interaktif, a weekly news magazine. She said because of the Hindu traditions that make Bali so culturally distinct there was no mistaking that the dance originated in Malaysia. But the origins of many other art forms found throughout Southeast Asia, including batik, are more difficult to pinpoint.

The latest dispute over batik has provoked a spate of harsh newspaper editorials in Indonesia, setting off local protests. In early September, a group named the People's Democracy Defense set up identification checkpoints outside the Malaysian Embassy in Jakarta in an effort to screen for Malaysians, though what they would have done to them is unclear because they showed up empty handed. Members of the same group also have launched "sweeps" against the roughly 10,000 Malaysians now living, studying or working in Indonesia.

Indonesians and Malaysians can be fiercely nationalistic when comes to the other. During the 1960s, independence hero and then Indonesian president Sukarno's ultra-nationalism resulted in a campaign of Konfrontasi, or undeclared war with Malaysia, over the then-contested, now split, territory of Borneo. That led to the famous declaration "Ganyang Malaysia" ("Crush Malaysia"), which has appeared on protest banners over the past month near certain government offices.

For their part, many Malaysians tend to look down their noses at Indonesians as poorer and less sophisticated. The bilateral issue important to many Malaysians concerns migrant labor and minimum wage laws for Indonesians, who are valued as an abundant and cheap work source who understands the local language, Bahasa.

On points of contention between the two countries, Ibrahim Suffin, program director at the Merdeka Center, an opinion research firm based in Kuala Lumpur, said Malaysia has taken a more "capitalistic" view. Indonesia has take a more nationalistic one, driving grassroots support for cultural ownership of batik, said Chitra Aziza Subiyakto, a creative buyer at Alun Alun, a Jakarta department store that sells Indonesian cultural products.

Activists and collectors say UNESCO designation will improve international recognition and help educate Indonesian consumers about the need to preserve the country's heritage. "We can't deny globalization and the fact that there is a segment in the market that is always branded," said Tina Sutanto, marketing head for Alun Alun. She calls the UN's recognition "shock therapy" and hopes it will help revive the batik-making industry.

According to an estimate by Indonesia's Industry Ministry, foreign-made batik accounted for 10%, or Rp 290 billion (US$31 million) of the Rp2.9 trillion domestic market in 2008. At places like Alun Alun, local batik retails from anywhere between Rp200,000 and Rp2 million, compared to imported batik from China, which sells for about half that price.

Improving preservation efforts, education and respect is the main purpose of UNESCO's so-called Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which it defines as the "practices, expressions, knowledge and skills, that communities ... recognize as part of their cultural heritage." But UNESCO designation is merely a tool to ensure that states take action to protect these traditions from disappearing, said Masanori Nagaoka, program specialist for culture at Jakarta's UNESCO office.

However, it neither puts a patent on batik's production nor grants intellectual property right protection, Nagaoka said, explaining diplomatically that UNESCO's acceptance of Indonesia's application for recognition does not involve a discussion about the relationship between Indonesian and Malaysian batik.

Despite claiming batik as part of its cultural tradition, Malaysia has not submitted its own bid to UNESCO for the technique. Of the 90 items on the UN's intangible cultural heritage list, Indonesia has three - batik, wayang kulit (shadow puppet theater) and the kris, a traditional dagger. Malaysia, which has not ratified the convention, has so far only submitted a bid for Mak Yong Theater, an ancient form of theater that incorporates ritual dancing and acting.

Unlike the heated discussions circulating in Indonesia, the batik issue has not run as hot in Malaysia. Even more economically substantive territorial disputes, such as the rights to the oil-rich region of Ambalat, which both Malaysia and Indonesia claim, are seldom talked about in Malaysia, said the Merdeka Center's Ibrahim.

"The average person doesn't see Indonesia as a threat, and he recognizes that the two countries have many commonalities and shared traditions," said Ibrahim. "Malaysians don't understand why Indonesia is so sensitive about its culture."

A September 9 newspaper editorial written by Malaysian Jamal Ibrahim argued that Malaysia's comparatively higher economic progress has sparked insecurity in Indonesia. Although Malaysia is geographically a third of the size of Indonesia, which spans 17,000 islands, its gross domestic product per capita of nearly US$14,500 is four times larger than Indonesia's.

Indonesian analysts, meanwhile, say that it's their country's poor ability to market its cultural heritage that contributes to its economic underperformance. When it comes to world heritage sites, the UN body likes to use the threat of delisting as an incentive to get governments to temper development plans in favor of preservation.

Whether UNESCO recognition of Indonesian batik acts as incentive for Indonesians to more fully embrace and protect their traditions is unclear. UNESCO, of course, has no authority to ensure that batik and its heritage is protected. But that doesn't matter to people like batik collector Obin. "It makes up what Indonesia is," she said. "Not claiming it would be like disowning your mother."

Sara Schonhardt is a freelance writer based in Jakarta, Indonesia. She has lived and worked in Southeast Asia for six years and has a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University.

The Role of the Opposition in a Liberal Democracy

Speech by Anwar Ibrahim at the 12th Dudley Senanayake Memorial Lecture in Sri Lanka on 16th October, 2009


Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is indeed a great honour for me to be here this evening on the occasion of the 12th Dudley Senanayake Memorial Lecture. At the same time, I stand before you humbled by the task at hand. So, let me begin by first paying tribute to the memory of Premier Dudley Senanayake. In this regard, I think I can do no better than to laud his political ideals, ideals which still resonate with us, indeed with anyone who believes in freedom and democracy.

May I be as bold as to consider Dudley a Liberal Social Democrat, that is, more ‘Liberal’ than ‘Social.’ Nevertheless, there is no question that he was a de facto social democrat in as much as he espoused the principles of social justice and put them into practice. That would include affirmative action for the poor and the marginalized and promoting land ownership and housing for the needy. His economics heralded an era of transformation and his phenomenal contribution to agriculture is legendary. As for his predominantly liberal bent in politics, that would be reflected in our discourse this evening.

Who's The Real Traitor?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The subject at hand may appear to some as having been flogged to death in as much as the landscape of liberal democracy is considered to be well traversed and the role of the opposition in such a system is self-evident.

Be that as it may, at the risk of being regarded as trying to reinvent the wheel, let me attempt to map out the province of liberal democracy and reiterate the role of the opposition in such a democracy. Let me begin with the doctrine that regards three central values as being foundational for a liberal democracy, and these are liberty, social pluralism and political constitutionalism. These values as we know are also central to liberalism itself but in the context of the discourse on democracy, our concern lies more with fundamental freedoms and the practice of constitutional government.

From Dicey we have the traditional conception of constitutionalism, which places the rule of law as being pivotal. According to him, “...the rule of law is as valuable a principle today as it has ever been. For it means that the courts can see to it that powers of officials, and official bodies of persons entrusted with government, are not exceeded and are not abused, and that the rights of citizens are determined in accordance with the law enacted and unenacted.”1

That would appear to be much less a definition than an indictment against executive abuse. By most accounts, the rule of law stipulates that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand. This would make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances, and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.2 That is why the rider by Dicey is so central because the coercive powers referred to must be based on laws that meet the criterion of justness.

In other words, the rule of law requires the application of moral standards to legislative output. And this is because every individual possesses rights founded on justice which are inviolable. The positivity of law is not sufficient to establish its lawfulness. If laws are unjust then the rule of law itself is in jeopardy.3

The rule of law therefore means the exercise of publicly justifiable power. Whether or not it is justifiable, that is the question the opposition must ask and answer. Herein lies a pivotal role of the opposition in a liberal democracy which is to be the voice of public reason and ensure that the “exercise of public political power is fully proper” and it can only be so if and “when it is exercised in accordance with a constitution the principles and ideals of which are endorsed by common human reason”. 4

Preventive detention laws are a classic instance of the exercise of political power not in accordance with constitutional principles. They offend against human dignity and violate our fundamental rights. Yet such laws and such powers continue to be used arbitrarily even in liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The constitutional principles endorsed by human reason to safeguard our liberties are then violated with impunity by the powers that be. The use of such oppressive laws for whatever reason, let alone for the purpose of silencing political dissent, makes a mockery of the institution of liberal democracy. Clearly, it is incumbent on the opposition to challenge the use of such powers and to work relentlessly to have such laws abolished. In this regard, as the leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of Malaysia, I daresay that we are doing precisely that by campaigning for the abolition of the Internal Security Act.

In a nutshell therefore, the rule of law is the use of law to curb the abuse of law-making power. Upon this principle, power and authority are therefore predicated. It is a powerful weapon, both in legal and political argument, which can be employed judicially in the interpretation of constitutional principles so as to check excesses of the legislative and executive arms of government. Of course, the principle does not warrant that every trivial issue be accorded the process of being litigated all the way to the highest appellate court. Even the administration of justice is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

A 'translator gadget' powered by Google Translate

And that leads us to the position of the judiciary in a democracy. Without a doubt what comes to mind in an instant is the paramount importance of not mixing justice with politics, that is to say, the judiciary must remain independent. Under no circumstances should it be under the control or influence of the Legislature, let alone the Executive. There is a saying that when the law is subjugated to the chicanery of politics, that is, where the judges are subservient to the political masters, the administration of justice becomes farcical and perverse. We have seen what happened in Pakistan not too long ago. We see it happening in sham democracies masquerading as liberal democracies. And of course we see it being played out ad nauseam from where I come.

The opposition must therefore play the role of ensuring the separation of these powers. It is their duty to see the existence of a transparent court system and a process of accountability. No doubt, this is easier said than done. This is because in reality leaders of the opposition are the very people who will be the victims of the use of judicial high-handedness. They will be the first to be prosecuted for political reasons and they will be condemned even before the trials begin.

Instead of being the ultimate guardians of our liberty from executive tyranny, the judiciary is then transformed into principals in the destruction of the very process it was entrusted to protect. Indeed, the undermining of judicial independence by political interference has negative repercussions not only on society at large but on the nation as a whole. Very often the inability to assert independence seems to be inversely proportional to the degree of integrity.

Therefore there is no overstating the role of the opposition in reminding judges of the legitimate expectations of the people as to their competency, dedication and impartiality. In resolving disputes between the people and the government, judges must act impartially. They administer justice, according to law, not according to the dictates of political masters. The rule of law means citizens can enjoy the fruits of liberty and other freedoms without being molested by the arbitrary use of political power. Police officers may not stop and search individuals just so that they may prevent them from attending rallies organized by an opposition party. If they do so, the people can expect the courts to invoke the rule of law to strike down such acts. The rule of law therefore will be seen in proportion to the effectiveness of the judiciary’s deliberations against executive power.

Another crucial criterion for constitutional government is that the discretion of law enforcement agencies must not be allowed to pervert the cause of justice.5 The office of the Public Prosecutor, the police and the anti-corruption agency, all these bodies, play essential roles in the preservation of the rule of law, failing which they are easily used to pervert the law. As absolute power corrupts absolutely, the arrogance of power left unchecked renders these agencies absolutely impermeable to public opinion and criticism. Once again, the role of the opposition as the conscience of the people in this regard is of paramount importance if democracy is to mean anything.

The very root of this problem goes to the question of accountability. We have seen how civilisations collapse from within as a result of corruption and moral decadence, and a disintegration of the institutions of accountability.6 Thomas Jefferson time and again warned against the abuse of unlimited powers by elected despots and foretold that there would come a time “when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.”7 In our time these same sentiments were expressed with greater vigour and tenacity by the great freedom fighters, from Simon Bolivar to Sun Yat Sen, and from Nehru, from Dudley and from Mandela.

This links us back to our earlier postulation about liberal democracy and that is that political liberty is the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. However, we must not forget that at the heart of this political liberalism lies the need for a social contract that enables such liberty. Such a contract, needless to say, must be rooted in a deal that legitimises power and holds accountable all those who exercise it. In this regard, the opposition must demand transparency in all government actions and dealings, leave no stone unturned in its quest for a fair and free media and constantly guard against the rise of despotism and tyranny. The latter as we know go hand in hand with abuse of power and corruption, that being the scourge of most developing countries and emerging economies even without the Corruption Index telling us so.

Certainly there are no simple answers to fighting corruption but the role of the opposition in pushing for transparency and freedom of information laws would certainly be indispensible if we are to make any progress in this regard. Corruption and poverty which engenders great disparities of income distribution must be seen holistically. Here I am again reminded of Dudley’s achievement in being among the first of the Asian leaders to focus on poverty eradication, which today still remains low in the order of priorities. By giving more attention to the agricultural sector and making available greater access to financial resources, as Dudley did, economic growth will get a major boost.

Liberal democracy is all well and good on paper but where hungry mouths cry out to be fed, our discourse will crystallise only into mere historical accounts of intellectual kite-flying and self-serving proclamations of pious platitudes.

That is why talk of a liberal democracy is meaningless without the state institutionalising social safety net programs such as social security or social insurance. As one of the central values of such a democracy as I had stated earlier, social pluralism must warrant that the government of the day take a holistic approach to integrate all aspects of life within a just and equitable system.

In this regard, apart from fighting poverty and redressing other social inequities, we should never lose sight of the importance of supporting strong families, education, and protecting the environment. The paramount aim must be the attainment of a system which allows for a more equitable distribution of wealth, without which it is indeed a mockery to speak of freedom and democracy, whatever hardcore libertarians may tell us.

Thank you.

Non-Muslims to have wing in PAS

PAS plans to turn the PAS supporters club, which also accepts non-Muslims as its members, into a party wing to further strengthen the party.

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang said the support from non-Muslims for the party appeared to be on the rise and this was proven by their eagerness in helping the party machinery in facing several by-elections previously.

“We have succeeded in breaking the barrier that separated us from the non-Muslims. We have not only reached a stage where we cooperated with the non-Muslim parties, but also non-Muslim individuals,” he said.

Who's The Real Traitor?

He said this to reporters after opening the 13th Terengganu PAS Leadership Conference at the PAS headquarters, Kubang Lembik, Manir, near here today.

The conference was also attended by Terengganu PAS commissioner Datuk Harun

Taib and PAS national secretary Datuk Mustafa Ali. — Bernama

Anwar makes last-ditch effort for Bagan Pinang win

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

PORT DICKSON, Oct 10 — Making his first appearance in Bagan Pinang last night, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim gave everything he could to try and revive Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) flagging campaign to win the by-election here.

He called his former party racists, hypocrites and used virtually all derogatory reference there is in a last-ditch effort to stop what is looking to be a likely victory for Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN), the first in all eight by-elections held in the peninsula since the general election in 2008.

The probability of BN snapping its losing streak in by-elections since the March 8 polls, however, did not deter some 1,500 hardcore "Anwaristas" from turning up at his ceramah, the biggest turnout for the coalition's rally since the campaign started last Saturday for the Oct 11 vote.

It caused massive traffic congestion to the usually quiet semi-rural residential area where the ceramah was held at. People from all races, men, women and children, began showing up as early as 8pm despite knowing that the PKR de facto leader was only scheduled to arrive 1½ hours later.

As time went, the density of the crowd was almost to the point of absurdity. The queue was five minutes just to walk five steps forward, and the cars with plate numbers from all over the country parked by the side of the narrow street made it more difficult for PR workers-cum-traffic marshals to help reduce the congestion.

But it all seemed worth it for them as upon Anwar's arrival on the stump, the charismatic leader, through a mixture of humour and fierceness, brought palpable energy to the crowd. In just seconds, the slightly dull ambience transformed into a BN-hating frenzy.

"Who is the traitor to the Malays? Long have the have-nots suffered at the hands of the few rich elite in the form of Umno politicians," said Anwar, followed by thunderous applause from the angered crowd.

"The poor Malays are robbed in broad daylight, government contracts are awarded to crony companies, we see poor Malays, Chinese, Indian everywhere throughout all BN governed states, and they call me a traitor?" added Anwar.

His ceramah lasted for about half an hour. It was followed by other PR heavyweights like Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Nik Aziz Nik Mat and PKR vice-president Azmin Ali.

Anwar will continue his campaign for PR today starting with a programme with the Indian community here in the evening.

The sacked deputy prime minister has been the subject of Umno racial attacks ever since the Bagan Pinang campaign started. On nomination day itself, books accusing him of selling out the Malays were distributed freely. In BN ceramahs, the same song has been rewound and played again and again.

PR, on the other hand, has been preying on its rival's tainted past. Former Umno vice-president and Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar Tan Sri Isa Samad, who is facing PAS state commissioner Zulkelfy Ahmad, was suspended by the party after he was found guilty of money politics.

But the opposition's focus on Isa's past has not given PR the desired effect. And even if it did, PR will still have difficulty bagging the majority of the 4,000 postal votes which have been traditionally considered BN's “vote bank" and it is uncertain if the Anwar factor can do much to change things.

Bagan Pinang, which falls under the Teluk Kemang parliamentary constituency represented by PKR's Datuk Kamarul Salleh Abbas, is also known to be a traditional Umno stronghold.

In March last year, BN's Azman Mohammad Nor defeated Ramli Ismail of PAS by 2,333 votes. His death last Sept 4 paved the way for the country's ninth by-election in less than two years after the general election.

Altantuya story retold

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s four-day visit to Paris has invoked memories of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu’s brutal murder.

Altantuya was the alleged the translator for a Malaysian company – owned by Razak Baginda, a close confidante of Najib – that secured the purchase of two French-made Scorpene submarines.

Naturally, this was the first thing that came to the minds of the French press when Najib arrived for his four-day visit on Oct 4.

To their dismay, Najib did not address them. Instead, the press corps turned to Batu MP Tian Chua and Selayang MP William Leong, who were in Paris to coincide with the premier’s visit.

Speaking to a crowd of about 300 people during a ceramah at Batu 3, Jalan Pantai in Port Dickson, as part of Bagan Pinang by-election campaign last night, Chua said the French media was mainly interested in one thing.

“The French press didn’t ask about our political system or opportunities for their investors. They only want to know about what has happened to the Altantuya case,” said Chua, who rushed to Bagan Pinang hours after arriving at KLIA yesterday evening.

French facination with Altantuya

To the disappointment of the crowd and a handful of journalists present, Chua chose not to elaborate on information he had gathered in Paris, stating that more details will surface in the future.

However, Chua questioned the purpose of Najib’s visit to France, claiming that the trip was not on the official invitation of the French government.

To stress his point, Chua said that although Najib met his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, the duo did not announce any bilateral agreements nor did they hold the customary joint press conference.

“We don’t know what else he did there. According to the French journalists, Rosmah (Mansor, Najib’s wife) did a lot of shopping,” Chua.

Speaking to reporters later, Chua said the purpose of his visit to Paris was to brief NGOs and the press about French-Malaysian arms deal and to provide updates on the Altantuya case.

“Almost everyone wants to know about Altantuya’s murder trial and issues with the Malaysian judiciary,” he said.

‘Najib did not meet French press’

He claims that he and Leong were approached to inform the French public on how Parliament debated the arms deal and the Altantuya case.

He said he had prepared Parliament Hansard papers and this was shared with the French press.

“The media come to us because they could not get Najib. He did not have any public interaction with the media. There is no way they can even put forward a question,” he adds.

Chua said he can only speculate on what Najib did in between his speech at Unesco and the two visits to top French government officials.

“However, he would have to go there to in order to follow up with DCN over the delivery of another submarine,” he said