The 13th General Election And Its Aftermath by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

It is a shame that eight days after the 13^th General Election, there are some Opposition leaders who continue to denounce the result as a “massive fraud.”

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s scurrilous allegation about 40,000 Bangladeshis and other foreigners being air-lifted to vote in the election has been exposed as a monstrous lie. Opposition parties such as the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) have not been able to produce a single foreigner who had voted in the election!

In fact, it is Opposition vigilantes who have harassed and humiliated legitimate Malaysian voters who they claim looked like Bangladeshis. If this isn’t vicious racial profiling, what is? 

Opposition leaders and their supporters know that if they have any evidence of electoral fraud, they can always petition the Courts for remedy. A cursory look at the record of our Election Courts will show that they have been fair in their decisions.

It is wrong of leaders like Anwar and Lim Kit Siang to whip up mass passions on the outcome of a general election which both local and ASEAN observers have assessed as free of fraud. There is a lurking danger in this sort of mobilisation. Since the vast majority of attendees at the rallies organised by them come from a certain community, they could easily give rise to ethnic tensions.

These rallies also have implications for our national sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that Anwar has the backing of some powerful interests in the West. The overtly biased reporting in many Western media channels on the election and the post-election scenario testify to this.  By keeping alive in the media, challenges to an election result which did not go in their favour, these interests are seeking to undermine the legitimately elected government of the day and install their proxy in power. The larger aim is to pursue the US’s geopolitical agenda in Asia, specifically in relation to China, with the help of this proxy, as has been analysed by various commentators such as Tony Cartalucci. (see Global Research 9 May, 2013). Malaysians should be fully aware of the game that is unfolding before us.           

           

 There are other important facets of the 13^th General Election which we should reflect upon.

• UMNO remains the most formidable political actor in the country. It increased its parliamentary representation to 88 from 79 in 2008 and its representation in the state assemblies to 242 from 239 five years ago.
• The MCA, Gerakan, PPP, and SUPP continue to decline. Would this lead to their demise? Should the Barisan Nasional  itself be re-structured? What sort of role can UMNO play in this?
• Opposition parties command substantial support among the populace. Their growing strength means that a two-third majority in Parliament for the BN is a thing of the past. The emerging situation calls for greater mutual respect between the BN and the Opposition.
•  Since Merdeka there has been both Malay and non-Malay opposition to the ruling coalition. There is rural as well as urban opposition. That pattern repeated itself in the 2013 Election.
• Three out of thirteen state governments are in the hands of the opposition parties. Given this scenario which may well continue into the future, it is imperative that the centre and the states cooperate closely for the well-being of the people.  The BN and the Pakatan Rakyat should be committed to ensuring the success of federalism as a mode of governance. 
• What is unique  about the 13^th General Election is the almost unanimous rejection of the BN by Chinese Malaysian voters and their complete endorsement  of Pakatan, especially the DAP. It is estimated that 90% of the Chinese who voted chose the Opposition.  The driving force behind their choice was the desire to “Ubah”( change)  --- to get rid of the UMNO led BN.
• What explains this rejection? Is it because many Chinese --- like the non-Chinese voters --- perceived the BN as corrupt and guilty of wrongdoings? Is it because they, like other Malaysians, were yearning for good governance?
• While integrity and governance were important considerations, they do not tell the whole story. If good governance was uppermost in the minds of the Chinese voters, why did they reject Dato Seri Muhammad Ali Rastam in Melaka and Dato Seri Abdul Ghani Othman in Johor? There is a deeper reason for their en masse vote against the BN.
• From the very beginning of the Malaysian journey, a lot of Chinese have felt that they are discriminated against, that they are marginalised, that they are “second-class” citizens. It explains why achieving equality with the Malays has been their overriding political goal --- a goal which they sought in the 13^th General Election through “ubah.”
•  This goal galvanised into a powerful emotion in 2013 for a number of reasons. 1) The DAP’s stunning victories in Perak and Selangor in 2008 which indicated that they could control power in Malay majority states. 2) The leadership provided by a Malay politician --- Anwar Ibrahim --- who was prepared to criticise “Malay supremacy”, pledge to end the NEP and eliminate “racial discrimination.”  3)  The enlargement of democratic space through the abolition of the ISA and other restrictive ordinances and the enactment of new laws such as the Peaceful Assembly Act which has emboldened the Chinese community to act as seen in their participation in Bersih 3 and Perhimpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat. 4) The emergence of a host of new Chinese civil society groups focussed upon democracy and change and 5) The skilful exploitation of the new media by the proponents of  Ubah to create a mass emotional wave within the community.
• The critical question is:  are the Chinese justified in seeing themselves as a marginalised community? Is it true that the Chinese are the victims of inequality and injustice?  If we examined the real situation of the Chinese in almost every sphere of society what is the picture that emerges? Who dominates the upper stratum of the economy? Which community is the most significant component in the middle stratum of the economy? Given the cultural background of the land, isn’t the Chinese language and culture overwhelmingly pervasive in Malaysia --- a situation which has few parallels anywhere else in the world?  Even in politics, isn’t Chinese participation remarkable, considering that Malaysia evolved from Malay Sultanates?  Is it fair to describe a community with such a powerful role in society as“marginalised” and “unequal”?     
•  How can we correct this widespread misconception that an entire community labours under? Are Chinese politicians, community leaders, business elites, social activists, academics and others with influence prepared to tell the truth to the community? Are they prepared to explain the background and the context of this nation to them for principles such as equality can only be understood if they are grounded in reality?  Are they prepared to make the Chinese aware that in reality the people who were actually unequal in the economic sense at the time of Merdeka were the Malays, 64% of whom lived below the poverty-line? Since their leaders were prepared to confer citizenship on a million Chinese and Indians on incredibly liberal terms, the Special Position of the Malays and later the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak was incorporated into the Constitution in order to safeguard their economic interests.  
• Are Chinese and Indian opinion makers willing to admit that all said and done Special position and the New Economic Policy (NEP) that grew out of it have contributed immensely to the nation’s well-being? Without the accelerated development of the Malays which the NEP was largely responsible for, a strong Malay middle-class with significant representation in almost all professions, and in the upper echelons of commerce and industry would not have emerged in less than a generation. It is this Malay middle-class which has stabilised ethnic relations.  It is because a once impoverished people enjoys an appreciable  degree of equity and justice today that the Malays continue to place their faith in a market economy and parliamentary democracy which in turn have benefitted everyone, including the Chinese.
• By acknowledging the positive aspects of the NEP, one is not denying that in its implementation there have been accesses and abuses. In a number of instances, opportunities for non-Malays in education and the economy have been unjustly restricted. Well-heeled Malays and other Bumiputras have also sometimes taken advantage of what is essentially an affirmative action policy meant for the poor and deprived, to advance their own interests.
• In the last four years Prime Minister Mohd Najib has sought to address some of these issues. Non-Malay recipients of Federal Government scholarships have reached an all-time high. There is a concerted effort to increase the number of non-Malay public servants and non-Malay personnel in the police and the armed forces. All 1Malaysia ventures are blind to ethnicity and religion. Even in strengthening Malay entrepreneurship, new approaches that discourage rent-seeking are being tried out.

These and other worthwhile efforts should continue, the negative Chinese electoral response notwithstanding. They should continue because it is a question of justice and fairness. Who knows they may persuade a small segment of the community to do some soul-searching.

It is this soul-searching within the influential stratum of the Chinese community that is the greatest need of the hour ---- a serious, sincere reflection on prevailing realities and the Chinese position; on its understanding of equality in the context of the larger nation; and on its future in a society whose very survival rests upon multi-ethnic cooperation. 

An Open Letter to The Malaysian Voter: Heading Towards A Catastrophe? - By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

Dear fellow Malaysian,

Peace.

I am writing this Open Letter because I am deeply concerned about two trends within the electorate which may have an adverse impact upon the future of our nation. The first is a trend associated with a segment of the Malay electorate, both rural and urban. The second is a trend associated with a segment of the non-Malay communities. If these two trends are enthroned through the 13^th General Election on the 5^th of May, 2013, it could be catastrophic for our people.

The Malay Electorate.

Some Malays, disillusioned with elite corruption and the widening gap between the have-a-lot and the have-a-little, regard a hudud-oriented Islamic State as the solution. They should ask themselves the following questions.

One, is there any such State in the contemporary world that serves as a model worthy of emulation? Saudi Arabia? Sudan? Afghanistan?

Two, why is it that the vast majority of Muslim states have not opted for a hudud oriented Administration?

Three, why have the people in the world’s largest Muslim country, namely Indonesia, rejected hudud oriented parties over and over again in elections?

Four, why has Turkey whose ruling party has an Islamic root, eschewed hudud and a fiqh oriented legal system in favour of a democratic, constitutional, secular system of  governance?

Five, if the mainstay of the ruling coalition in Malaysia since 1957 was PAS and not UMNO, what would be the socio-economic situation of the Malays today? Would poverty have been reduced from 64% to 1.7%? Would there have been the phenomenal transformation of an entire people, sustained over two generations, which has resulted in a significant Malay role in education, the professions, commerce and industry, compared to what it was at the time of Merdeka?    Would the Malays have emerged as an important component of the Malaysian middle-class which has undoubtedly helped to stabilise ethnic relations and politics in the country and allowed democracy to function?

One just has to look at PAS’s 22 year rule in Kelantan to get an idea of what its version of Islam can do to a people. From its dismal failure to provide jobs for tens of thousands of well-qualified Kelantanese to its utter inability to curb rising drug addiction, Kelantan is Malaysia’s first and only failed state.  Malaysian voters should have no illusions about the type of Islamic State that PAS seeks.           

The Non-Malay Electorate.

If some Malays are under an illusion about PAS’s Islam, a lot more non-Malays, especially many middle-class Chinese and some middle-class Indians are labouring under a huge misconception about what their vote would deliver. They are convinced that it would be able to “eliminate ethnic discrimination” and bring to an end alleged “Malay supremacy.”  Since those who have been pedalling these cliches, have never really explained in detail what they mean by eliminating ethnic discrimination or Malay supremacy, non-Malays exposed to this rhetoric have drawn different conclusions.

For many, the perception is that the Pakatan Rakyat is going to set aside the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputras of Sabah and Sarawak.   This cannot be done.    The Articles in the Malaysian Constitution pertaining to places in the public services, licences, scholarships and land reserves (like some other Articles) cannot be amended or abrogated by Parliament even if the PR wins 100% of the seats. Special Position is safeguarded by the Conference of Malay Rulers.

Publicly, all three PR parties, including the DAP, have endorsed Special Position. However, at the hustings some of the DAP and PKR activists give the impression that it is discriminatory and is therefore unacceptable. This is why their leaders should be honest with their members and supporters. Tell the whole truth. Neither Special Position nor any of the other iron-clad Articles in the Constitution pertaining to citizenship, language and the Rulers will change one iota if PR comes to power.  

Since PR cannot do anything about Special Position, what sort of discrimination is it going to eliminate? Will it abolish the NEP?  In theory, the NEP does not exist anymore. It came to an end in 1990 though one of its twin objectives of restructuring society in order to reduce the identification of ethnicity with economic function continues in certain specific areas. Given the nature of this objective, it would be wrong to view it as ethnic discrimination.  Rather it is an attempt to enhance national integration.  

1Malaysia

Everything considered, the actual flaws with the NEP are related to its implementation --- its excesses and its abuses. These should be rectified. In the last four years, Prime Minister Mohd Najib has made a concerted attempt to do so. Federal scholarships for students are based largely on academic merit; there is a serious endeavour to increase the number of Chinese and Indian public servants; and their mobility in the public services has improved through some high profile appointments. At the same time, all 1Malaysia ventures --- from its retail trade outlets to its affordable housing programme --- are non-ethnic. 1Malaysia in its concrete manifestation is an all-embracing, inclusive idea. Najib is also paying close attention to the needs of different ethnic and sub-ethnic communities and engaging them at the social and cultural level as part and parcel of his 1Malaysia drive.

There is a lucid message he is attempting to put across. There must be understanding and empathy among us, whatever our religious or cultural differences.   We must respect one another.

Respecting one another means that we should never ever manipulate each other. This is what happened in the recent DAP symbol episode. Though there was no question at all about whether the DAP could use its own rocket symbol, in the high drama that the leadership staged it opted to use PAS’s symbol, rather than the PKR symbol on the Peninsula. Wouldn’t it have been more logical for the DAP to use PKR’s symbol since the DAP wants PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim, to be the Prime Minister if PR won the General Election?  Why did it prefer the symbol of a party whose goal of a hudud oriented Islamic state it vehemently opposes?  Is it because Pas has much more Malay support on the Peninsula than PKR and the DAP was hoping to capitalise on its support? Isn’t this rank opportunism?

Isn’t this what the PAS-DAP-PKR grouping is all about?  An opportunistic grouping hell-bent on power but opposed to each other. If an illusion on the one hand, and a misconception, on the other, makes the grouping a catastrophe, its opportunism renders it an even greater catastrophe.

THINK CAREFULLY!   VOTE  WISELY!!

               

With warm regards,

Chandra Muzaffar.

29 April 2013.    

Politicizing Crime - Dave Avran

Pic credit: Mior Azfar Mior Karulbaidam

It is indeed tragic that Irene Ong Ai Siam was killed in an attempted robbery which horribly turned into a murder. Four suspects have been arrested in connection with the incident at Bukit Gasing. The four, aged between 16 and 18, were detained by police at Flat Sri Medan and Flat Bukit Gasing Indah within two days of the incident.

Following the murder, the Police have announced that a mobile beat base will be stationed in Bukit Gasing from today Saturday 27^th April to ensure safety. The mobile beat base would operate for six hours every day from 7am to 10am and from 4pm to 7pm. It will also operate on weekends and public holidays.

In collaboration with residents associations, the police have also created a volunteer group comprising joggers in the area to mentor those who have just taken up the activity.

Now comes the even more tragic part. Instead of allowing the grieving family space to deal with their loss, we have some people with vested interests who have swooped to take advantage of this sad incident to put the grieving family into the national spotlight to further their own agenda.  

Read about it here.

    

After 56 years as a nation, one would have thought that Malaysians would have learnt our lessons and learnt to live together. As we seek more democratic freedoms, we must be prepared to give and take without politicians and their agents resorting to the peddling of hate.

This is a general election where the call for change must be through the ballot box and not through the politicizing of unfortunate victims of crime.

The Spanker accepts that it is a valid election tactic to stoke the emotions of the rakyat so that they will vote for you but those doing the instigation must also know when to pull their punches so that things do not go overboard.

Politicians, well known for their oratory capabilities, owe it to the country to make sure that in their politicking, they also condemn such acts of crime and senseless violence which are simply not the Malaysian way.

Many politicians on both sides of the divide are really of no help as many only want to pursue their own agendas by hijacking the current red hot issue of crime as a free ride to popularity, given the fast looming general elections.

Bashing the Government, its various agencies and the cops is easy peasy but public apathy has also been identified as one of the reasons why criminals have become more brazen in committing crimes. Fighting crime isn’t the prerogative of the police alone.

There is no doubt that the responsibility for fighting crime rests squarely on the shoulders of the PDRM. That’s what they’re paid for right? The truth of the matter is that there are simply not enough cops to cover every single area.

Read more on this article

Is Bishop Paul Tan being insensitive and callous? - The STAR

MALAYSIANS should know that a sizeable number of Christians in this country would disassociate themselves from the outrageously insensitive and callous statements recently made by Bishop Paul Tan toMalaysiakini.

This Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Malacca-Johor had complained to the online media that holding elections on a Sunday, the traditional Christian worship day, reflected a violation by the Government of Christian rights.

The bishop’s self-righteous stand is flawed in so many respects that it brings disrepute and ridicule to his office and opens himself to criticism as being a blatantly partisan man of the cloth.

To understand the extent of his “transgressions”, let us start at the top.

First, he displays his ignorance when he accused the Government of ignoring the needs of Christians by deciding to hold the general election on a Sunday.

Everybody knows that the decision to hold the elections on a Sunday was made by the Election Commission (EC) and not the Government.

The EC is not the Government and the Government is not the EC.

Second, he says “Sunday is a holy day where Christians must go to church and worship God”.

Bishop Tan must know that nowhere in the Bible do the words “go to church” appear.

Neither is there any compulsion in the Bible to do so.

Instead, there are many references in the Bible about the early Christians getting together for worship on a Sabbath (a Saturday).

Therefore, when the bishop said “Christians must go to Church” on Sundays, was he being truthful?

Third, Bishop Tan says in the past general elections were held on Saturdays, not on Sundays.

The truth is that there were three occasions when general elections were held on Sundays – on Aug 3, 1986, Oct 21, 1990 and March 21, 2004.

Therefore, when the bishop made his comment, was he ignorant?

Fourth, doesn’t the bishop know that Sunday is a working day in Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu and holding elections on that day would inconvenience the people in those states?

Therefore, when the bishop talked about inconveniencing Christians, was he being insensitive to others?

Fifth, the bishop referred to the 1Malaysia slogan which he said “has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance”.

Isn’t that an exaggeration?

Surely, to any independent observer, it is obvious that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has given sum and substance to the slogan many times over.

Therefore, when the bishop talked about breaches of the slogan, was he being cavalier with the truth?

Bishop Tan is obstinate in the face of stark realities.

He says that there are many priests in his diocese who have to return to their original residence where they have registered as voters.

A Christian can, nay is encouraged, to pray anywhere, everywhere and at any time.

Read more on this article

Royal role in appointing the PM by Shad Saleem Faruqi - The STAR

IN the aftermath of a general election, the most critical and possibly controversial issue is the appointment of the Prime Minister. The Constitution provides three guidelines:

> The PM must not be a citizen by naturalisation or registration: Article 43(7).

> He must be a member of the Dewan Rakyat: Article 43(2). This appears non-controversial. However, life being larger than the law, novel situations may arise. In the United Kingdom in 1963, the Conservatives won the election but their leader, Lord Home, belonged to the Upper House. The Queen appointed him as the PM but only on the condition that Lord Home resign his peerage, engineer a by-election and be elected to the House of Commons. In Selangor, in the 80s, a similar situation was thrown up when a vacancy arose in the post of the Mentri Besar and Datuk Abu Hassan, a federal minister, was appointed MB even before he contested and won a seat in the Selangor legislative assembly.

> The PM-designate must, in the judgment of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be “likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House”. This wording leads some people to believe that the monarch has unlimited and subjective discretion in the matter. Actually, the constitutional position is that if a party or coalition commands the confidence of an absolute majority (112/222) of the members of the Dewan Rakyat, the King has no choice but to choose its leader as the PM.

In conferring the mantle of leadership on someone, the King is not obliged by law to take into consideration the advice of the previous PM, the candidate’s support in the Dewan Negara and the percentage of the popular vote obtained by his party. It is not relevant how many states the PM-designate’s party won or lost at the GE. It is the number of supporting MPs in the Dewan Rakyat that matters.

The race, religion or region of the nominee is not mandated by law and is a matter of constitutional conventions. This is in contrast with the constitutions of the nine Malay states with Malay Rulers which are explicit that unless the Ruler makes an exception, the MB must be a Malay/Muslim.

What are the possible scenarios after the next GE? The first is that the ruling coalition may win a two-thirds or an absolute majority in the Dewan Rakyat, in which case the King’s role in appointing the PM is merely ceremonial.

Contrary to what is believed by some, a two-thirds majority is not necessary to form a government and to pass legislation. A two-thirds majority is relevant only for constitutional amendments.

A complication that can arise is if, for whatever reason, e.g. death or resignation, the ruling coalition is deadlocked on the choice of its leader. In such a situation, the King may follow Australian precedents and appoint a short-term caretaker PM from a minority party to helm the affairs of the state while the ruling party makes up its mind.

A second possibility is that the opposition may win with an absolute majority in the Dewan Rakyat. In such a situation, the caretaker PM will resign and the King will appoint the opposition leader as the new PM. A smooth transition of power will take place.

A complication may be if the winning opposition coalition is deadlocked on who its leader should be. In such a case, the King may allow the incumbent PM to continue temporarily till the opposition resolves its leadership issue. Alternatively, the King may pick someone from a third party to head a temporary caretaker government.

Read more on this article

Voting For Harmony by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

It is a truism that the survival and success of our nation depends upon our ability to sustain and enhance our inter-ethnic harmony. This is why the question of how the Barisan Nasional (BN) or the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will manage ethnic relations in the country in the coming years is of critical importance to the voter in the 5 May General Election.

For a society whose multi-religious and multi-cultural texture is one of the most complex in the world, Malaysia has done remarkably well in preserving a degree of inter-ethnic harmony which is the envy of the rest of the human family. An objective criterion testifies to this. Over 55 years there has been a minimum of communal violence. There has been only one major riot with communal overtones that resulted in the loss of lives. That the riot of 13 May 1969 was contained within a specific city, that law and order was restored within weeks and democratic rule reinstated in 21 months, is incontrovertible proof of the Government’s ability to deal with an ethnic challenge.

The BN government and its predecessor, the Alliance, have proven their credentials in a number of other less significant fracases. The 1967 disturbance in Penang; the 1978 Kerling incident; and the 2001 Kampong Medan episode would be some examples. The BN has also defused ethnic tensions arising from certain issues such as the 1978 Merdeka University controversy, and the 2010 sporadic attacks on churches, mosques and a gurdwara in the wake of a Court decision on the use of the term ‘Allah’. Culprits responsible for the one cow head and five pig head incidents in recent years have also been punished by the law.

It is an irrefutable fact that the BN has the experience and the expertise in dealing with ethnic challenges. The PR has yet to be tested largely because when ethnic issues impinge upon security, they come within the purview of the Federal Government. Its management of four state governments has not equipped the PR with the skills and knowledge to negotiate the complex multi-ethnic terrain that is Malaysia.

PR supporters sometimes point to the inter-ethnic harmony in Kelantan as proof of its ability to maintain good relations among the different communities. Inter-harmony in Kelantan has very little to do with the Pas led government per se. Even when the BN was in power in Kota Baru from 1978 to 1990, relations between the majority Malay community and the Chinese and Siamese minorities were amicable. Kelantan has a long and distinguished record of inter-ethnic conviviality which goes beyond parties and politics. The small size of the minorities--- 5% of the population --- and their readiness to integrate into the larger Malay cultural ethos, the accommodative attitude of the majority, and an indigenous structure of governance which was not totally subverted by colonial rule, have all contributed to this.

In fact, current trends seem to suggest that conviviality among the communities in Kelantan may be under some strain as a result of the politics represented by PAS and its partner, the DAP. Some of the restrictions and controls imposed in the name of PAS’s notion of ‘Islamic morality’ are beginning to create a certain degree of uneasiness among younger non-Muslim Kelantanese. Similarly, the rise of Chinese ethnocentrism at the national level, fuelled to a large extent by the DAP, is seeping into the consciousness of a segment of Chinese youths in Kelantan, and separating them from the Malay majority.

This is the real danger of enthroning PAS and DAP in Putrajaya. If they rule Malaysia, their respective ideological orientations will widen even further the chasm that divides Malaysian communities. PAS’s superficial approach to Muslim identity reflected in its negative outlook on the rights and roles of women; the interaction between the sexes; and what constitutes wholesome entertainment, coupled with its obsession with prohibitions and punishments, will not only drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims but also polarise Muslims themselves. The DAP, on the other hand, which is already alienated from the Malay majority because of some of its chauvinistic stances will trigger a backlash from the latter if it pursues policies on the economy or education motivated by its lopsided view of equality.

It is not just their individual policies that are inimical to national unity. The DAP is vehemently opposed to PAS’s Islamic state which remains the Islamic party’s real goal even as it continues to flip-flop over its ‘negara kebajikan’. The DAP’s mission of a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ which in reality demonstrates very little empathy for the defining attributes of the land and its identity --- Bahasa Melayu; Islam and the Malay Rulers --- is a quest which Pas rejects totally though it has not been vocal about it since 2008. This huge gap that separates the two parties in the Pakatan defies resolution. The third partner in the PR, the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), has made no attempt to reconcile this ideological split between the two parties. This is why the PR is, for all intents and purposes, an inchoate, disparate inter-party grouping which is utterly incapable of bringing the various Malaysian communities together.

Malaysians should ask themselves if it is wise to hand the reins of power to such a grouping especially at a time when religion is emerging as the fundamental fault-line in our society. This is a pertinent question to raise for while PAS remains wedded to a narrow identity based dogma, the DAP is increasingly becoming the conduit for strident Christian voices that are less than sensitive to the prevailing Muslim majority landscape. How can any sane, sensible person expect these two parties to help forge unity in the years ahead?

The Indian problem is a Malaysian concern

Article was taken from The STAR - New approach to old concerns by By DR DENISON JAYASOORIA. 

Since 2008, a different style of leadership one which reaches out to the community and views its concerns as national concerns has emerged.

IN a pre-election rally at the PWTC five years ago, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak asked the Indian community to decide on their future if it would be with the Barisan Nasional or outside. The community sent a message on March 8, 2008 that it would be outside the Barisan and voted in large numbers for Pakatan Rakyat.

In spite of this rejection, Barisan which managed to retain the Federal Government, began a series of initiatives to win the hearts and minds of the Indian community over the next five years.

That day, Najib spoke about birth certificates and identification cards, Tamil school education, civil service employment opportunities, better access to scholarships, micro credit, youth training opportunities, places of worship and local training of temple priests. It was a wide range of issues and promises he highlighted and made.

It is fair to state that with regards to the Indian community, he has kept his word.

Where have they been successful?

In 2008, a Cabinet committee on Indian issues was established with Najib chairing it, starting while he was Deputy Prime Minister and later as Prime Minister. A Special Implementation Task Force was established for the first time at the PM's Department with full-time staff attached to thePemandu team. Indian concerns were now being regarded not as community concerns but as national concerns with the PM having a specific preview to them directly.

One must say that the direct approach of reaching out to various sections, including sub-ethnic and splinter political groups, reflect the inclusive nature of Najib's approach. His walk-abouts, participation at Thaipusam and cultural events as well as approachable nature won many hearts for him and his administration.

While his critics claim he was merely seeking to win votes, this approach has been sustained over five years and we are seeing the impact. No longer would a political party be an ethnic gate-keeper. Now, the ordinary people, cultural groups, sub-ethnic communities and religious groups have direct contact, access and dealings with the PM and his office.

Some say this is divide-and-rule but what has emerged is a different style of leadership one of reaching out directly and viewing community concerns as national concerns in addressing the struggles of the Indian community, especially those of displaced plantation workers who have been badly neglected in the policy and delivery process.

Over the years, three major areas have become the focus of attention.

Tamil school development: Prof N. S. Rajendran of UPSI was appointed to undertake a comprehensive study on improving the quality of teaching and learning. Huge sums of money were allocated towards improving the infrastructure of Tamil schools.

However, there are still many schools, especially in rural areas, with inadequate facilities. This is where the policies must be comprehensive and ensure that all streams of education are treated equally with adequate finances and resources. No child in whatever stream should be left behind but must be viewed as an asset of the nation with the ability to contribute to a high income society and not be a dependent of the state

click here to read more on this article

What Was Wrong With Obama’s Speech In Jerusalem By Richard Falk

It was master-crafted as an ingratiating speech by the world’s most important leader and the government that has most consistently championed Israel’s cause over the decades. Enthusiastically received by the audience of Israeli youth, and especially by liberal Jews around the world. Despite the venue, President Obama’s words in Jerusalem on March 21st seemed primarily intended to clear the air somewhat in Washington. Obama may now have a slightly better chance to succeed in his second legacy-building presidential term despite a deeply polarized U.S. Congress, and a struggling American economy if assessed from the perspective of workers’ distress rather than on the basis of robust corporate profits.

As for the speech itself, it did possess several redeeming features. It did acknowledge that alongside Israeli security concerns “Palestinian people’s right of self-determination, their right to justice must also be recognized.” This affirmation was followed by the strongest assertion of all: “..put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes.” To consider the realities of the conflict through Palestinian eyes is to confront the ugly realities of prolonged occupation, annexationist settlement projects, an unlawful separation wall, generations confined to the misery of refugee camps and exile, second-class citizenship in Israel, ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem, and a myriad of regulations that make the daily life of Palestinians a narrative of humiliation and frustration. Of course, Obama did not dare to do this. None of these realities were specified, being left to the imagination of his audience of Israeli youth, but at least the general injunction to see the conflict through the eyes of the other pointed the way toward empathy and reconciliation.

Obama also encouraged in a helpful way Israeli citizen activism on behalf of a just peace based on two states for two peoples. A bit strangely he urged that “for the moment, put aside the plans and process” by which this goal might be achieved, and “instead..build trust between people.” Is this not an odd bit of advice? It seems a stretch to stress trust when the structures and practice of occupation are for the Palestinians unremittingly cruel, exploitative, and whittle away day after day at the attainability of a viable Palestinian state. But this farfetched entreaty was coupled with a more plausible plea: “I can promise you this: Political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.” There is some genuine hope to be found in these inspirational words, but to what end given the present situation.

In my opinion the speech was deeply flawed in three fundamental respects:

    >> by speaking only to Israeli youth, and not arranging a parallel talk in Ramallah to Palestinian youth, the role of the United States as ‘dishonest broker’ was brazenly confirmed; it also signaled that the White House was more interested in appealing to the folks in Washington than to those Palestinians trapped in the West Bank and Gaza, an interpretation reinforced by laying a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl but refusing to do so at the tomb of Yasir Arafat. This disparity of concern was further exhibited when Obama spoke of the children of Sderot in southern Israel, “the same age as my own daughters, who went to bed at night fearful that a rocket would land in their bedroom simply because of who they are and where they live.” To make such an observation without even mentioning the trauma-laden life of children on the other side of the border in Gaza who have been living for years under conditions of blockade, violent incursions, and total vulnerability year after year is to subscribe fully to the one-sided Israeli narrative as to the insecurity being experienced by the two peoples.

    >> by speaking about the possibility of peace based on the two state consensus, the old ideas, without mentioning developments that have made more and more people skeptical about Israeli intentions is to lend credence to what seems more and more to be a delusionary approach to resolving the conflict. Coupling this with Obama’s perverse injunction to the leaders of the Middle East that seems willfully oblivious to the present set of circumstances makes the whole appeal seem out of touch: “Now’s the time for the Arab world to take steps towards normalizing relations with Israel.” How can now be the time, when just days earlier Benjamin Netanyahu announced the formation of the most right-wing, pro-settler government in the history of Israel, selecting a cabinet that is deeply dedicated to settlement expansion and resistant to the very idea of a genuine Palestinian state? It should never be forgotten that when the Palestinian Liberation Organization announced back in 1988 that it was prepared to make a sustained peace with Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders. By doing this, the Palestinians were making an extraordinary territorial concession that has never been reciprocated, and operationally repudiated by continuous settlement building. The move meant accepting a state limited to 22% of historic Palestine, or less than half of what the UN had proposed in its 1947 partition plan contained in GA Resolution 181, which at the time was seen as grossly unfair to the Palestinians and a plan put forward without taking account of the wishes of the resident population. To expect the Palestinians to be willing now to accept significantly less land than enclosed by these 1967 borders to reach a resolution of the conflict seems highly unreasonable, and probably not sustainable if it should be imprudently accepted by the Palestinian Authority.

    >> by endorsing the formula two states for two peoples was consigning the Palestinian minority in Israel to permanent second-class citizenship without even being worthy of mention as a human rights challenge facing the democratic Israel that Obama was celebrating. As David Bromwich has pointed out [“Tribalism in the Jerusalem speech,”] http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/tribalism-jerusalem-speech.html Obama was also endorsing a tribalist view of statehood that seem inconsistent with a globalizing world, and with secularist assumptions that a legitimate state should never be exclusivist in either its religious or ethnic character. Obama went out of his to affirm the core Zionist idea of a statist homeland where all Jews can most fully embrace their Jewishness: “Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own.” And with embedded irony no mention was made of the absence of any Palestinian right of return even for those who were coerced into fleeing from homes and villages that had been family residences for countless generations.

Such a regressive approach to identity and statehood was also by implication attributed to the Palestinians, also affirmed as a a lesser entitlement. But this is highly misleading, a false symmetry. The Palestinians have no guiding ethno-religious ideology that is comparable to Zionism. Their quest has been to recover rights under international law in the lands of their habitual residence, above all, the exercise of their inalienable right of self-determination in such a manner as to roll back the wider claims of settler colonialism that have been so grandiosely integral to the Greater Israel vision and practice of the Netanyahu government. And what of the 20% of the current population of Israel that lives under a legal regime that discriminates against them and almost by definition is a permanent consignment to second-class citizenship. Indeed, Obama’s speech was also an affront to many Israeli post-Zionists and secularists who do not affirm the idea of living under in a hyper-nationalist state with pretensions of religious endowments.

In my view, there are two conclusions to be drawn. (1) Until the rhetoric of seeing the realities of the situation through Palestinian eyes is matched by a consideration of the specifics, there is created a misleading impression that both sides hold equally the keys to peace, and both being at fault to the same extent for being unwilling to use them. (2) It is a cruel distraction to urge a resumption of negotiations when Israel clearly lacks the political will to establish a viable and independent sovereign Palestinian state within 1967 borders and in circumstances in which the West Bank has been altered by continuous settlement expansion, settler only roads, the separation wall, and all the signs are suggesting that there is more of the same to come. Making matters even worse, Israel is taking many steps to ensure that Jerusalem never becomes the capital of whatever Palestinian entity eventually emerges, which is a severe affront not only to Palestinians and Arabs, but to the 1.4 billion Muslims the world over.

In retrospect, worse than speech was the visit itself. Obama should never have undertaken such the visit without an accompanying willingness to treat the Palestinian reality with at least equal dignity to that of the Israeli reality and without some indication of how to imagine a just peace based on two states for two peoples given the outrageous continuing Israeli encroachments on occupied Palestinian territory that give every indication of permanence, not to mention the non-representation and collective punishment of the Gazan population of 1.5 million. Obama made no mention of the wave of recent Palestinian hunger strikes or the degree to which Palestinians have shifted their tactics of resistance away from a reliance on armed struggle. It is perverse to heap praise on the oppressive occupier, ignore nonviolent tactics of Palestinian resistance and the surge of global solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, and then hypocritically call on both peoples to move forward toward peace by building relations of trust with one another. On what planet has Mr. Obama been living?

Richard Falk is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. An international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years, since 2002 Falk has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Death of a Child and the Promises of Peace Dialogue by Chaiwat Satha-Anand

Death of a Child and the Promises of Peace Dialogue

Chaiwat Satha-Anand

Chairperson, Strategic Nonviolence Commission, Thailand Research Fund

Professor, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University

On a hot summer afternoon, nothing is better than an ice-cream. When you are nine, the summer ice-cream your mom bought for you when she took you to a fair or something like that attained beautiful meaning.

Nisofian Nisani was in front of the ice-cream shop on Suwanmongkol Road in downtown Pattani when the 5 kg bomb exploded and took away his young life back to the Mercy of God on March 21, 2013 at 1.30 p.m. Fourteen others including his mother were also wounded in the violence that has claimed more than 5,000 lives and physically wounded more than 10,000 people in the past 9 years in southern Thailand, marking this deadly conflict as one of the most mysteriously ferocious in the world today.

The death of this boy at this time assumes special significance since this was the first time an attack on civilians has occurred after the signing of the “General Consensus on Peace Dialogue Process” in Kuala Lumpur on February 28, 2013 and just a week before the follow-up meeting on March 28. The death of this child points to what needs to be talked about in the coming peace dialogue. In addition, this violence, and/or similar incidents that might happen in the near future, would serve as acid tests of the strength of the ensuring peace process.

The appointment of Lt.Gen.Paradorn Pattanatabut, the Secretary General of the National Security Council to sign the document on behalf of the Thai government and tasked with the creation of environment conducive to peace promotion, reflects for the first time a clear policy direction in pursuit of peace dialogue with the insurgents. This policy direction is a result of several factors which include Thaksin’s strong determination to do something about this problem, the Thai-Malaysian governmental collaboration, and perhaps most important – years of hard works by some security officials at different levels, military and civilian, who have engaged various insurgents in some kinds of “talks” without such a unified policy for so many years.

It goes without saying that those who would come to the Kuala Lumpur table on March 28 will be there with different reasons and motivations. There might even be those who believe that in order to engage in “peace dialogue”, all one needs is to exercise strong pressure-read coercion-on the parties involved to make it work. But I would argue that for peace process such as this to work, there is a dire need to understand “peace dialogue” for what it is, what it can or cannot do, what then should be “talked about”, and finally what may be needed to sustain such a peace process.   

The reality of peace dialogue

Peace dialogue is not peace negotiation. The end-result of peace negotiation is usually a peace agreement (or a set of), while for peace dialogue it is- as the signed document suggested-the creation of an environment conducive to peace in the Deep South of Thailand. A most crucial feature of such an environment is trust between the parties which is difficult to cultivate. If forced, a meeting can indeed take place, but often without the trust that would sustain the effort in the long run. Exactly 500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote in his incomparable The Prince that “…like all other things in nature that are born and grow quickly, cannot have roots and branches, so that the first adverse weather destroys them…” (Chapter 7)

It is important to understand that of the conflicts which came to an end in the past 20 years, 80.9% were through peace agreement. Today, 40% of all armed conflicts are open to dialogues of some forms, while about 60% needs external mediation-facilitation.  By the end of 2011, 19.5% of the dialogues were going well and 43.6% faced difficulties. (Escola de Cultura de Pau, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 2012)

Imagine a deadly conflict with its own life cycle, and it should not surprise anyone that among the most difficult to deal with, are four protracted conflicts –Palestine which is now 96 years old (beginning with the November 2, 1917 Balfour declaration), Kashmir - 63, Cyprus - 38, and Western Sahara -21. These are protracted and therefore difficult conflicts, because beyond security of the states involved, the underlying issues are land, identity, sacred spaces, and self governance.

Rattiya Salae, a professor of Malay language at Taksin University pointed out that this southern deadly conflict is about “ ا - ب - ت” –Arabic alphabets (Alif, Ba, Tha) for Islam, Bangsa (ethnic culture which includes language) and Tanah (land).  If such is the case, then southern violence in Thailand could also be seen as a similarly protracted deadly conflict which is difficult to deal with, other economic interests, regional competition, or illegal businesses in the area notwithstanding.

Peace dialogue is a part of peace process which is a complex modalities consisting of contacts, explorations, dialogues, negotiations and finally agreement(s). These can be subdivided into informal/formal, indirect/direct. For example, before a formal direct contact such as the one held in Kuala Lumpur last month, there should be three other stages- informal indirect contacts, formal indirect contacts, informal direct contacts. These four stages are necessary as a trust building effort, something which might be relegated to marginal importance if the process is forced. Following this modality, the coming Kuala Lumpur meeting on March 28 could be exploratory in nature. The question then is what should the meeting explore?

Conditionality of peace process

To enter into a peace process, especially in its exploratory stage, one cannot enter with preconditions, i.e. if you don’t do A or B, I will not talk to you! However, it is impossible to enter into a peace process, engaging in peace dialogues, without understanding its conditionality, i.e. that whatever is going to be talked about depends on existential conditions which is dynamic. 

I would say that the most important issue now is the cessation of violence, and not about alternative forms of governance in the area. In fact, discussing alternative forms of governance in most cases are for the purpose of ending violence in the first place. In this sense, alternative forms of governance become means of ending violence within the peace process project.

Those who wish to explore this peace process needs to talk about: geography, time, weapons, and targets. Of the more than 1,600 villages in the three southernmost provinces, only some 200 have suffered from violence. In the spirit of exploration, a few villages, say three or six from these 200 in the three provinces, could be selected as an experiment in “peace zones” where for a specified period of time, there will be no violence from both the insurgents and the Thai state.

Since it would be unrealistic to assume that BRN and their colleagues who will come to the March 28 table can really control violence on the ground, there is also a need to discuss other forms of fighting by other insurgents that will probably limit the use of violence in certain zones outside the designated “peace zones”. Perhaps the peace dialogue should also explore the possibility of inviting those who refuse to talk at this time to become “PAHLAWAN YANG TERHORMAT” or “honor fighters” in other exploratory zones. Let me call this: “honor zones” where the use of explosives are excluded, and civilian targets which include teachers, women, children, clergy (Buddhist monks, Muslim ulama/imam, Christian clergy), sacred spaces (temples, mosques, churches, etc.,), schools, as well as stores or shopping places should be considered outside the scope of violent attacks.

It should also be noted that there are at least 40 factors that could derail any peace process, such as internal divisions in an armed group, disagreement over issues on the agenda, mistrust in the facilitator, or rise in military activities, and demands for the complete cessation of violence, among other things. Peace process such as this one is no different. For example, when violence continues, many will point their fingers at the peace process and conclude that it is futile.

Peace process such as this one will be fragile. Therefore it needs a vast support from Thai society as well as a profound understanding from security agencies involved, the latter might come from inter-organizational dialogues. To mobilize both the support and understanding in the Thai context at this time is both difficult and necessary, if such derailing factors are to be effectively mitigated.

And when one is not so sure if h/she is on the right track of peace process to end violence in southern Thailand, remember the death of the child- Nisofian Nisani. 

The last letter

The Last Letter

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.