Archive of www.Malaysia-Today.net

Melayu mudah lupa

2006-06-29T08:15:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

How many of you remember KAL007. No, I am not talking about one of those James Bond movies if that is what you are thinking. Still don’t remember? I thought many of you would not.

KAL007 was the Korean Airlines flight 007 that took off from runaway 32, Merrill Field airport, in Anchorage, Alaska, at 4.30am on 31 August 1983. The Boeing 747 plane was bound for Seoul’s Kimpo airport. Aboard the flight were 240 passengers, a cabin crew of 20, a three-man flight crew, and six other Korean Airlines crew members.

Shortly after take off, the plane veered off-course into Soviet air space. At 18.62 GMT, the Russians shot the plane out of the sky and all 269 souls onboard were lost.

According to the Russians, the plane may have been a commercial flight, but it was on a clandestine military mission over Soviet territory, basically on a spying mission (maybe the '007' gave it away). Nevertheless, the Russians refused to explain what really happened and, when asked by the media, they replied that the world has a memory of only 100 days. Within 100 days, something else will happen and everyone would be distracted and forget about KAL007. So why bother to explain? Just keep quiet for 100 days and soon enough the problem would solve itself -- people would forget and stop talking about the issue.

The United States was understandably outraged over the incident, especially when it was suspected that Korean Airlines flight 007 was on a US spy mission. Anyway, after 100 days, the incident was totally forgotten and the ‘news’ no longer carried by the media.

So the Russians were right.

Then, on 3 July 1988, the Americans shot down Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf. This was of course a genuine mistake. The radar man aboard the US Navy cruiser, the USS Vincennes, mistook it for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat and sent two missiles to bring the plane down at a loss of 274 passengers and 16 crew members. At that time the Gulf was a ‘no fly zone’ so any non-commercial flights had to be shot down by the ‘policemen of the world’.

Now it was the Americans’ turn to face public outrage.

This just goes to prove one thing. Just keep quiet and the world will soon enough forget. Secondly, your ‘enemies’ eventually make the same mistake and they would have to stop criticising you when they are busy defending themselves and are trying to explain their own actions. And chances are, your enemies will not do what you did -- that is, keep quiet -- but will sing and dance in trying to wangle out of the sorry state they got themselves in.

Do I need to explain this further in relation to the present Umno crisis? If I must then you are not old enough to read this.

Malays say: Melayu mudah lupa (Malays easily forget). Well, the Russians say that the world also easily forgets, and it takes just 100 days for the world to forget. This is why, as some of you have charged, some of my articles, reports and exposes appear repetitive. I agree when you say that sometimes I repeat what I have said in the past, though maybe in a different language and against a new backdrop or scenario. But Melayu mudah lupa, so I am forced to repeat myself to constantly remind all and sundry that things are not settled yet. The issue may be old. But since the issue is still outstanding and yet to be resolved, then it stays current and I need to keep harping on the matter with no intention of trying to sound like a stuck record or giving the impression I am flogging a dead horse.

Back to Korean Airlines flight 007. If I had not related the incident above, would you have remembered it? Sad to say, only those who have lost family members aboard that flight would. And what about Iran Air flight 655? Some would remember Korean Airlines flight 007, but very few remember Iran Air flight 655. This is because the US is our friend and Russia our enemy. So we remember the wrongs our enemies did but those perpetuated by our friends are quickly forgotten.

Malaysia Today has no friends. All are enemies -- so all are game as far as Malaysia Today is concerned. Malaysia Today, as the Malays would say, tidak pileh bulu (we do not discriminate or favour). We carry anything that is of interest to the public without fear or favour.

Malaysia Today believes in a free media and freedom of the media. Under such a concept we cannot choose what to carry based on what hurts our enemies and helps our friends. We carry anything that may hurt either, as long as it is in the public interest. And that is why we try not to have any friends as one normally becomes biased when it involves one’s friends.

Many cannot understand why Malaysia Today organised a talk for ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on Saturday, 24 June 2006. Mahathir is the ‘enemy’. It was he who signed the papers to detain me under the Internal Security Act. And my ‘crime’ warranting my detention was opposing the powers-that-be, the head of that power elite then being Mahathir himself.

Many find it even stranger that I would host Mahathir to a Malaysia Today event considering my background as the Director of the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC). The FAC was bitterly opposed to Mahathir and we fought tooth and nail for Anwar Ibrahim’s freedom. That should make Malaysia Today bitterly anti-Mahathir and fanatically pro-Anwar.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not how a free media works. A free media means without fear or favour, and no two ways about it. And if anyone of you cannot grasp this then you are not ready yet for a free media.

Malaysia Today respects freedom of speech and will defend the right of anyone to say their piece. To quote an old cliché, we may not agree with what you say, but we will defend to the death your right to say it.

It is very easy to defend the rights of your friends as you love your friends. But it is very difficult to defend the rights of your enemies as you hate your enemies. Mahathir was named as the Top Ten Enemies of the Press when he was Prime Minister. Today, Malaysia Today offers Mahathir a place to voice out. Probably only Christians can understand this concept of love thy enemies. Malaysia Today would like to ‘teach’ Mahathir the concept of free speech, something he did not tolerate when he was in power. And, in the same process, we hope those presently in power can also understand what it means. This is more important actually.

In March 2001, I was arrested under the Sedition Act for upholding free speech. The police also raided my house and confiscated my computer. I was detained again in April 2001 under the Internal Security Act for the same ‘crime’. These were all under Mahathir’s watch.

One year ago, in June 2005, I was called in to Bukit Aman, also under the Sedition Act, for what I wrote on the Negeri Sembilan Royal Family. They again confiscated all the computers in my house. Earlier, in December 2004, the Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, made a statement on TV that I can be arrested under the Internal Security Act for my ‘crime’ of insulting Islam. Both these incidents were under Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s tenure as prime minister.

Yes, Abdullah is no different from all the other prime ministers before him, down to the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. Dissent, free speech, criticism, opposing views, and anything at all not favourable to the government are not tolerated. And those upholding such ‘western’ values will suffer retaliation, persecution and probably prosecution as well. And if they can’t prosecute you then they will resort to detention without trial.

On Monday, all the chief editors of the mainstream media were summoned to Putrajaya to be told that there is to be a total media blackout on Mahathir. The media is to censor all statements by Mahathir criticising the government. Only statements criticising Mahathir can be featured. This makes Malaysia Today even more determined to feature Mahathir. The more they clamp down on Mahathir, the more Malaysia Today wants to cover him. And this has nothing to do with whether we support him or otherwise. It is all about a free media and freedom of the media.

Mahathir must be allowed to speak. Mahathir must be allowed to criticise the government. And those who criticise Mahathir in turn must also be given equal air time. Let it be a two-way street. However, since the mainstream media and TV stations already carry ample anti-Mahathir material, then Malaysia Today need not perform this job. But when they blackout Mahathir from the mainstream media, then Malaysia Today will have to take up the cause of that man who at one time was named Enemy of the Press.

Ironical isn’t it? Today, only your enemies want to take up your cause while your friends have become your worst critics. Yes, that is Malaysia Today. We practice a free media and freedom of the media to a fault. And will all those who do not understand or accept this concept please leave the room and go play in the corner with the small boys.

To know you is to love you

2006-06-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Malays say, if you love your wife then leave her, and if you love your children then beat them. In Bahasa Malaysia this would be: kalau saying isteri ditinggal-tinggalkan dan kalau saya anak dipukul-pukulkan. Not sure whether my Malay grammar is correct or not but I am sure you catch my drift nevertheless. I suppose the English concept to this would be ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’ and ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’. Yes, sometimes familiarisation does breed contempt and the occasional ‘space’ would certainly make you miss the one you love. After all, love can be suffocating at times, if you know what I mean. But make sure the ‘absence’ is not a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’.

Since we are reminiscing about old sayings, we might as well go all the way. They also say: to know you is to love you. Malays would say: tak kenal maka tak cinta.

Kind of contradictory isn’t it? You need to know someone to love that person. But then, if you crowd each other too much, then you get on each other’s nerves and climb the wall. So, to strengthen that love, you must endure a period of separation once in awhile. And you need to beat, chide or take to task that person you love as a sign of love.

Never mind though. These are all old sayings anyway and old in Malaysia is not relevant. Today, cars become ‘old models’ even before the warranty period expires, and it reaches ‘no value’ before you can finish paying off the monthly instalments on it. Cell phones or hand phones become obsolete as soon as you walk out from the shop and are still in your car driving home. Such is the ‘throw away’ society that we have become.

And when do politicians become old, obsolete or expired? When they touch 80? When they celebrate their 70th birthday? By the time they no longer know how to spell their own name? Well, none of the above actually. Politicians become old, obsolete or expired when they no longer hold office. When you are in office it does not matter what age you are. You can be 39 (the age when Khairy Jamaluddin ‘got into office’) or 79 (roughly the age when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad left office). As long as you hold office you are very much relevant. People bow when you walk pass. They kiss your hand. And if they are Malay, they will clasp their hands over their testicles when they address or talk to those in power. (I think it is called pegang peler in Bahasa Malaysia, the act of putting your hands over your family jewels when you are talking to someone important).

The Chinese say it is like riding a tiger. When you are astride a tiger you are very powerful and very few people dare face you unless in an act of respect. But once you get tired and decide to get off the tiger, then you are eaten alive in an instant. The bottom line is, once you are astride a tiger, you must never get off. You need to remain riding that tiger until you die. In short, you must die standing, not die sleeping. If you decide to die sleeping, then you will die with your eyes wide open. And Malays believe that those who die with their eyes open are those who have left this world with an unaccomplished mission.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, the First Prime Minister and Father of Independence (Bapa Merdeka), learnt this the hard way. So did Hussein Onn, the Third Prime Minister. Ghafar Baba too suffered this, twice in his career. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was not spared this either back in 1987. In fact, many Malaysian politicians would qualify for membership to this Hall of Un-fame. The list would certainly be endless and is not exclusive to only Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers.

Well, today, Dr Mahathir is rapidly discovering what it is like to be a political ‘has been’. Would you want to visit Dr Mahathir today and kiss his hand like you did when he was the Prime Minister? Would you declare Dr Mahathir the Father of Modern Malaysia like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the Father of Modern Turkey? The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) has in fact labelled Dr Mahathir as Malaysia’s Kemal Ataturk. But this was done not as a sign of respect but to suggest that Dr Mahathir has ‘destroyed’ Islam like what Ataturk did in Turkey more than 80 years ago.

Malaysians in general and Malays in particular flock to those in power and sing their praises, when they are still in power. This, as what Dr Mahathir once said about a decade ago, is the ‘herd mentality’. Cattle, or lembu in Bahasa Malaysia, do this. That is why ten cowboys can control thousands of lembu. They only need to control the head of the lembu and guide it where they want it to go and the thousands of other lembu would just follow the leader of the lembu. Tunku Abdul Rahman also said this. Just pegang kepala (control the head), said the Tunku, and the ekor (tail) would follow.

I suppose this is how the Malays became Muslims. Once the Ruler converted to Islam, the entire population followed suit, though they did not fully understand what Islam was all about; and until today many still do not. It is therefore very easy to control the herd or lembu. Just make sure the head follows you and the thousands of others would be with you.

Okay, who is the ‘head’ we are talking about here? Of course this would be the President of Umno, a.k.a the Prime Minister of Malaysia. If he is with you, then the other 190 of the 191 Ketua Bahagian (division heads) would also be with you. And if the 191 Ketua Bahagian are with you, then the Ahli Jawatankuasa Bahagian (division committee members) would be with you as well. And if all the Ahli Jawatankuasa Bahagian stand by your side, then the 3.5 million Umno members would throw their lot behind you. And if the entire Umno is solidly behind you, then the whole of Barisan Nasional would sing your praises.

Sigh.....that is how the herd mentality works. Dr Mahathir himself has told us about how it works. And today Dr Mahathir is learning how accurate he was ten years ago in describing the scenario.

Recently, in a dialogue in Penang, Anwar Ibrahim was asked why Raja Petra and Malaysia Today are so critical of him. Anwar replied, “He criticises me 1%, so that means he still supports me 99%.” So there is no harm in Malaysia Today criticising him, argued Anwar. After all, Malaysia Today is independent and we should respect the independence of the media and the right to free speech. This also demonstrates what would happen if the opposition were to come to power, explained Anwar. The opposition would allow space for criticism and dissent and would respect the right to free speech and opposing views.

I suppose if Dr Mahathir was asked that same question he would reply, “Raja Petra criticises me 99%, so that means he still supports me 1%.” And Dr Mahathir, at least today, would agree with Anwar on the right to free speech, independence of the media, etc. like what was argued by Anwar in Penang.

Yes, Anwar and Dr Mahathir must both learn that there is no such thing as 100% support. Neither will we oppose them 100%. We will disagree with them even if we support them. And we will agree with them even if we do not support them. But we will agree or disagree with them based on issues, not on personalities or for the fact that we support or do not support them.

I disagreed with Anwar when he was in government. I was one of his strongest critics and he knows this. But I supported him in 1998 when I felt an injustice had been done to him. I was one of Dr Mahathir’s opponents back in the late 1980s, ten years before Anwar was sacked and while Anwar was still ‘carrying Mahathir’s balls’. Today, Dr Mahathir is no longer Prime Minister and I do not wish to kick a deflated ball like those very brave Umno souls who will kick a person only when he is down and never while he is on top.

Do I like Dr Mahathir? Why not I put it another way? Do I need to like Dr Mahathir? Are we concerned about the singer or the song? I don’t care who the singer is as long as the song is music to my ears. Most times I do not even know who the singer is though the song that singer sings is one of my favourites.

In that same context, if Anwar sings a song I like, I will listen. But if the song is shit, then I tune off. And if Dr Mahathir sings a song I like, I will also listen. And the same goes if I don’t like what comes out of his mouth; I will close my ears. Whether I like Anwar and dislike Dr Mahathir, or vice versa, is of no consequence to me.

Well, lately, Dr Mahathir has been singing many right tunes. I really don’t want to repeat all that I have written in The Corridors of Power, The Khairy Chronicles, Loony Malaysia, and Monday Morning Blues. I am sure you know what I am talking about. What Dr Mahathir says makes sense and is music to my ears. So I listen. And if Anwar sings equally beautiful tunes, I will listen as well. But I will never listen to Anwar because I like him or close my ears to Dr Mahathir because I dislike him. It is the song, not the singer, that counts.

It is not what you know but who you know

2006-06-12T07:40:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Scomi Group Bhd is an investment holding company with subsidiaries involved in the oil and gas support services. As at 2nd March 2006, Scomi has a total of 995.2 million shares of RM0.10 each with an authorised share capital of RM300 million and paid up share capital of RM99.52 million.

Scomi Group’s core business is in the oil and gas industry, offering the following products and services:

• drilling fluids and related engineering services for drilling operations;
• provision of drilling waste management solutions;
• distribution of products & services;
• supply of industrial & production chemicals &amp; production enhancement;
• marine vessel;
• engineering business;

Scomi’s business operations are conducted through its main subsidiary and associate companies:

• Kota Minerals & Chemicals Sdn Bhd
• KMC Oiltools Bermuda Limited
• Scomi Marine Bhd
• Scomi Engineering Bhd

Registered office:

Suite 5.03, 5th Floor
Wisma Chase Perdana
Off Jalan Semantan
Damansara Heights
50490 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Top Shareholders (with shareholding)

1) Kaspadu Sdn Bhd – Direct 209,815,055 (21.33%) and Indirect 155,121,970 (15.77%) held through Onstream Marine Sdn Bhd
2) Onstream Marine Sdn Bhd - 155,121,970 - 15.77%
3) Shah Hakim @ Shahzanim bin Zain - Direct 1,250,000 (0.13%) and Indirect 364,937,025 (37.1%) held through Kaspadu Sdn Bhd
4) Kamaludin bin Abdullah - 364,937,025 (37.1%) held through Kaspadu Sdn Bhd
5) Employee Provident Fund Board - 49,796,600 (5.06%)

Directors (shareholding)

1) Tan Sri Datuk Asmat bin Kamaludin - Chairman (400,000)
2) Tan Sri Nik Mohamed bin Nik Yaacob
3) Datuk Hamzah bin Bakar
4) Datuk Haron bin Siraj (120,000)
5) Dato’ Mohammed Azlan bin Hashim
6) Dato’ Mohamed Azman bin Yahya (400,000)
7) Foong Choong Hong (160,000)
8) Mukhnizam bin Mahmud (85,800)
9) Shah Hakim @ Shahzanim bin Zain (1,250,000)

Kaspadu Sdn Bhd (Scomi’s main shareholder)

Company number: 259131V
Date of incorporation: 9 March 1993
Authorised capital: RM100,000.00
Paid up capital: RM100,000.00

Directors:

Mukhnizam bin Mahmud
Shah Hakim @ Shahzanim bin Zain
Hilmy Zaini bin Zainal
Kamaluddin bin Abdullah

Shareholders (number of shares of RM100 each):

Nazimah binti Syed Majid (27,500)
Kamaluddin bin Abdullah (36,250)
Shah Hakim @ Shahzamin bin Zain (36,250)

Financial Highlights (as at 31 December 2002):

Fixed Assets: RM20,494,464.00
Total Investments: RM1,283,384.00
Current Assets: RM97,213,927.00
Other Assets: RM7,150,228.00
Total Assets: RM64,802,835.00
Share Premium and Reserves: RM939,307.00
Unappropriated Profits: RM6,239,009.00
Minority Interest: RM30,130,589.00
Long Term Deferred Liabilities: RM27,393,930.00
Current Liabilities: RM61,339,168.00

Operating Revenue: RM158,554,242.00
Profit Before Taxation: RM18,749,144.00
Profit Carried Forward: RM6,239,009.00

25 February 2005: Scomi earnings surge 340%

Scomi Group Bhd’s earnings surged 340% to RM61.50 million for the year ended Dec 31, 2004, with the oil and gas (O&G) division contributing 97% of the net profit. The previous year's net profit was RM14.02 million.

Announcing the results on Feb 25, the company said revenue jumped 263% to RM590.45 million, with the bulk from O&G, compared with RM162.47 million a year ago. Earnings per share was 6.95 sen.

“The O&G division had benefited from the increase in exploration, development and production activities in the oil and gas industry,” it said in a statement.

Scomi said the acquisition of a 77.7% interest in KMC Oiltools Bermuda Ltd (Oiltools) contributed positively to the revenue and profits.

“Although only two quarters of Oiltools’ results were consolidated, approximately 44% and 39% of the group’s revenue and profits, respectively, were contributed by Oiltools,” it said.

The company said the O&G division’s drilling fluids unit had secured new businesses in 2004. They were the supply of drilling fluids to Murphy Oil Sarawak and synthetic-based mud to Sarawak Shell Bhd and Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd.

For the fourth quarter, Scomi recorded a net profit of RM21.42 million, which was more than the RM14.02 million for the entire financial year of 2003. For the quarter, revenue jumped to RM213.20 million compared with RM58.11 million.

Scomi said the higher net profit was also due to certain non-taxable foreign sourced income, low tax rate for foreign subsidiaries and also credits arising from the acquisition of the remaining 50% of KMC Oiltools’ stake in Shetland Oiltools Ltd.

24 January 2006: Scomi lands RM1.5 billion contracts

Scomi Group Bhd's unit has secured contracts that are expected to generate some US$400 million (RM1.5 billion) in revenue through the provision of drilling fluids materials, equipment and services.

Its unit, Kota Minerals and Chemicals Sdn Bhd (KMC), had received the letters of awards from Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, Sarawak Shell Bhd, Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd, ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Malaysia Inc and Nippon Oil Exploration (M) Ltd.

“Based on the number of wells indicated in the joint tender document, the company estimates the revenue to be generated from the contracts to be about US$400 million (RM1.5 billion),” it said in a statement on Jan 24.

KMC received the last letter of award on Jan 19, it said. The contracts were expected to be for four years with an option to the tender parties to extend for another two years, it added.

Scomi said KMC was finalising the terms and conditions of the contracts to be signed with the tender parties.

24 February 2006: Scomi breaches RM1b revenue mark

Scomi Group Bhd's revenue crossed the RM1 billion mark in the year ended Dec 31, 2005, rising 81% to RM1.07 billion from RM590.46 million.

Its net profit soared 146% to RM151.69 million from RM61.49 million previously, on the back of strong contributions from its international commitments.

Basic earnings per share rose to 15.59 sen from 6.95 sen.

Scomi is involved in the oil and gas industry and has five core competencies: oilfield services, engineering, offshore marine, distribution, and product enhancement. Of the five areas of competencies, oilfield services was the largest contributor to turnover.

International markets contributed 73% to revenue with Asia Pacific the largest contributor. The company operates in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and North and West Africa.

Other contributors were from the disposal gain of Scomi’s manufacturing business to Scomi Engineering Bhd and a lower effective tax rate derived from certain non-taxable foreign sourced income and low tax rate for foreign subsidies.

Scomi expects to focus on organic growth and balance sheet management. It is expected to evaluate its options to increase yields from its assets like its vessels and drilling waste management equipment.

In a statement on Feb 24, Scomi Oilfield Services president Chris Pianca said: “The exponential growth of our turnover year-on-year is testimony to our strong foundation. With our global presence in 34 countries and cross selling of our products, we are well positioned to take advantage of the expected increase in drilling activities worldwide.

“Although the price of oil remains high, the impact to drilling activities is gradual. The oil and gas industry is seeing a significant increase in the infrastructure set up such as rig and vessel constructions. This will result in an increase in drilling activities at a later stage that will positively impact our business,” he added.

28 March 2006: Scomi Engineering wins another major order

Scomi Engineering Bhd's Singapore machine shop unit, OMS Oilfield Services Pte Ltd, has received another major order from Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) for the supply of large diameter casing pipes and connectors.

In a statement on March 28, Scomi Engineering said the order, which is targeted for delivery in the second and third quarters, could contribute about RM35 million to revenue.

It said this was the fourth straight successful order for the material from Saudi Aramco since OMS penetrated the market a few years ago. For the 2005 financial year, the machine shop unit contributed 73% to the turnover of Scomi Engineering.

“We will continue to aggressively market our services and to extend our market presence in the Asia Pacific and Middle East regions,” said Scomi Engineering's senior vice president, Hilmy Zaini.

14 April 2006: Scomi Marine gets Tenaga coal shipments job

Scomi Marine Bhd has received a letter of intent from TNB Fuel Services Sdn Bhd for a coal shipment contract for three years from Oct 1, with an option to extend for another two years, the company said.

Scomi Marine told Bursa Malaysia on April 14 that under the contract, it would be required to transport 500,000 tonnes (with 20% variation) of coal from Australia, Indonesia and South Africa yearly.

It said TNB Fuel Services would determine the actual quantity of coal to be transported and from which country upon finalisation of the contract.

Scomi Marine is involved in the marine logistics business of the energy sector. It said the contract was in line with its plans to expand its coal transportation business, involving inter-country marine logistics services.

28 April 2006: Scomi acquires 51% of MTrans for RM30 million

Scomi Engineering Bhd is acquiring a 51% stake in MTrans Transportation Systems Sdn Bhd for RM30 million to provide it a platform to be a key player in urban transportation.

Scomi Engineering had on April 28 signed an agreement with Kiara Kilau Sdn Bhd, which owns 100% stake in MTrans, to acquire the 51% stake. MTrans owns bus manufacturer MTRans Bus Sdn Bhd and MTRans Technology Bhd, which specialises in monorail systems and technology.

Scomi Engineering senior vice president Hilmy Zaini said the strategic acquisition is in line with its focus on energy and logistics engineering.

“With its range of core competencies, MTrans will enhance Scomi Engineering’s capability in the fabrication, assembly and fittings of special-purpose vehicles, particularly buses,” he added.

Scomi Engineering is involved in the fabrication of special purpose vehicles such as petroleum tankers, ambulance, fire engine, defence vehicles.

The acquisition will enhance Scomi Engineering’s current logistics engineering capabilities by diversifying the range of products that Scomi Engineering would be able to offer.

MTrans owns a 22-acre factory in Rawang Industrial Zone. The facility will be an addition to Scomi Engineering’s current infrastructure in the logistics engineering business and increase Scomi Engineering’s overall manufacturing capacities.

“With its proven technology in cost-effective fuel emission systems, particularly in urban bus projects, MTrans has established a presence in Hong Kong and Bangladesh and is looking at other Asian and Middle Eastern markets,” Hilmy said.

He added that the acquisition of MTrans would enable Scomi Engineering to bid and secure urban bus projects anywhere in the world.

11 May 2006: Scomi secures another RM80m order from Saudi Arabia

Scomi Group Bhd subsidiary Scomi Engineering Bhd has received another major order from Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) valued at RM80 million for the supply of Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG).

In a statement on May 10, Scomi said the order was awarded to Scomi Engineering’s Singapore machine shop unit, OMS Oilfield Services Pte Ltd.

It said the order was the single largest order received todate since OMS penetrated the market in 2003.

Scomi said the expected contribution to Scomi Engineering's turnover of about RM80 million would be realised in the fourth quarter of this year and the first quarter of 2007.

It said the contract value was more than doubled the previous one awarded by Saudi Aramco last March. "The total value of all contracts awarded by Saudi Aramco to OMS for this year has increased to about RM115 million."

Tengku Razaleigh: the last Malay gentleman

2006-06-05T07:40:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Those aligned to Anwar Ibrahim feel I am very harsh towards him. Those aligned to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad also feel I am very harsh towards him. Those aligned to Najib Tun Razak feel I am very harsh towards him as well. And of course, when it comes to Khairy Jamaluddin, he himself feels I am just too brutal.

Those from the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) cringe whenever I write about their party. But they do not really make a big case out of it. They just whisper into my ear that maybe I am being a bit unfair in what I write. Some even tell me, “Fair comment and comments which our leaders should take note of!” Those from the Democratic Action (DAP) say they do not mind that I criticise their party. I do not know whether they are just being diplomatic and are trying to give an impression that they are truly democratic and respect freedom of speech, but I am inclined to take what they say at face value. The Peoples’ Justice Party (keADILan) however does not hold its punches. Its Information Chief has issued a press statement ‘disowning’ me and distancing the party from Malaysia Today. And of course we need not even mention Umno or Barisan Nasional that have been the brunt of my attacks for many long years, long before Anwar was ousted from power and in the days when he was still being touted as the next Prime Minister of Malaysia -- though in my writings in Harakah back in 1996 and 1997 I did say that this would never happen, and also gave my reasons on why I said so.

Some say I am not consistent. They do not know whether I am coming or going. One day I swing one way and, another, the other. They feel that maybe it is because I am a loose cannon -- and a loose cannon is called a loose cannon because it rolls all over the deck, shoots in all directions, and sometimes shoots its own ship as well. A loose cannon is loose only because it is not tied down and would roll in tandem with the roll of the ship.

Nevertheless, whether I am viewed as inconsistent, or a loose cannon, one thing you can be sure of, I am consistently shooting and everyone sooner or later gets shot. That is my consistency. But then there are some who have been spared my attacks -- those I have great respect for and look up to, though many others may not share my view on them.

And who are these people?

There are many -- Fadzil Noor, Hadi Awang, Nik Aziz, Mustaffa Ali, Husam Musa, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Ibrahim Ali, Shahrir Samad, Lim Guan Eng, Ronnie Liu, Dr Siti Mariah, Dr Lo’ Lo’ Ghazali, Dr Hatta Ramli, and many, many more. This list is in fact endless. However, not necessarily in order of priority, today I would just like to talk about Tengku Tan Sri Razaleigh Hamzah. Tengku Razaleigh is one of the few remaining Malay gentlemen as far as I am concerned. And Tengku Razaleigh, as far as I am concerned, became Prime Minister in 1987 but was prevented from taking office due to a brilliant coup launched by the Dr Mahathir Team A camp.

Many say that Tengku Razaleigh has no pendirian (principles). They say he left Umno to form the opposition Semangat 46, then closed the party and rejoined Umno when he realised he was going nowhere as an opposition leader. He rejoined Umno because all he wanted was power and this can only be acquired in Umno, not in the opposition.

Well, first of all, Tengku Razaleigh did not leave Umno. Umno left him. To be exact, Umno was deregistered or closed down and a new party was formed, also called Umno, or rather Umno Baru. It is just coincidental (or maybe intentional) that the new party was also called Umno. It could have been called anything, but the fact that it was called Umno confused many who thought that Umno Baru was still Umno. It is not.

When the new party was formed, Tengku Razaleigh and his group were not ‘invited’ to join it. They were left out in the cold, so Tengku Razaleigh had no choice but to also form another party as a platform to continue with what he was trying to achieve. And he called this party Semangat 46 or ‘the spirit of 1946’ because he still maintained the spirit of Umno which was formed in 1946. If he could not retain the party, he would at least retain the reason or spirit behind why the party was formed in 1946.

Tengku Razaleigh never intended to make it big in the opposition. But now that he was heading what was an opposition party meant he had to work with the other opposition parties. And he knew, as an opposition, he would never achieve what he set out to do. But the opposition was all he had at that moment of time so he had to make the best of it under the circumstances. Dr Mahathir did this too when he spent almost three years outside Umno soon after the 13 May 1969 race riots. And Anwar is doing this now as well. But whether it is Tengku Razaleigh, Dr Mahathir or Anwar, all their roots are in Umno and Umno would be eventually where they have to return to. Tengku Razaleigh did. Dr Mahathir did. And, come a point of time, Anwar too will have to do the same.

So Tengku Razaleigh, just like Dr Mahathir before him, after a stint in the opposition, rejoined Umno. That was what it was all about. The name ‘Semangat 46’ was a tell all. Semangat 46 was all about the spirit of Umno. In fact, the ‘Semangat 46’ name was not the first choice. This name was chosen only because the name ‘Umno Malaysia’ was rejected by the Registrar of Societies. And the Registrar rejected the name to allow Umno Baru to use the name, which was submitted for registration later, after they rejected the ‘Umno Malaysia’ name.

It would have been foolish of anyone in thinking that Tengku Razaleigh was committed to the opposition and had no aspirations to return to Umno. PAS knew this, and that is why they kept Tengku Razaleigh and Semangat 46 at arm’s length. They knew that the PAS-Semangat 46 relationship was not a marriage but a mere flirtation and a temporary affair. And that is why the relationship was merely cordial at best, and suspicious at worse, and did not last.

Did Tengku Razaleigh rejoin Umno because of the fallout with PAS? Did Tengku Razaleigh rejoin Umno because he saw he had no future in the opposition? And did Tengku Razaleigh rejoin Umno because all he wanted was power? If he did, then he could have negotiated better terms for his return to Umno.

There were already murmurings that Anwar had started to make his move on Dr Mahathir and that the Prime Minister was going to make his countermove to thwart the attempt to oust him. In fact, many thought that Dr Mahathir brought Tengku Razaleigh back to Umno so that he could remove or neutralise Anwar and replace his deputy with Tengku Razaleigh. Tengku Razaleigh could have placed himself in the position to replace Anwar as the number two once Dr Mahathir makes his move. But Tengku Razaleigh did not and instead the job went to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi -- so all the assumptions about Tengku Razaleigh were misplaced.

When Tengku Razaleigh decided to take on Abdullah for the Umno Presidency -- he in fact received enough support to qualify -- all the divisions were instructed to not give Tengku Razaleigh any nominations. Those that remained stubborn were nipped in the bud. For example, one Kelantan division chief who persisted in nominating Tengku Razaleigh for president received a bankruptcy notice at midnight on the eve of his division meeting. No court delivers a bankruptcy notice at midnight. But this time it did because there was going to be a division meeting the next morning and they wanted to disqualify the division chief from attending the meeting whereby he would nominate Tengku Razaleigh for president.

Tengku Razaleigh was robbed of his nominations to contest the Umno presidency, as he was robbed of the presidency almost two decades before that. But he did not protest. He did not kick up a fuss. He did not go into a rage and tear Umno to pieces. He took it in his stride like a gentleman. Winning or losing is not important. How you play the game is. Others can play the dirty game. But he will not bring himself down to their same level by also playing dirty.

And that is why today I wanted to talk about Tengku Tan Sri Razaleigh Hamzah, one of the few remaining Malay gentlemen, probably the most misunderstood Malaysian politician. Maybe another time I will talk about some of the others and why I place them on my list of people I respect. If you were to ask me today who I think should be the Prime Minister of Malaysia, I think you know what that answer will be.

Selling religion for money

2006-05-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

One of the religious leaders (mufti) of a certain state in Malaysia has condemned men who allow their wives to become the breadwinner of the family while they, the husbands, stay home as househusbands. According to him, the accepted order of nature is that the wives should stay home as housewives while the men should go out to earn the money to support their families.

If a man allows his wife to become the breadwinner of the family while he stays home to look after the children and do the housework then the marriage is not blessed, argued this religious leader, the head honcho of religion in that state. Considering this decree (fatwah) comes from the top religious man in the state who also doubles as the adviser to the Sultan, the head of religion of any state in Malaysia, this is certainly most serious indeed.

In short, that spouses’ marriage would not be blessed by God and expect that marriage to suffer. Anything that God does not bless would certainly be headed for doom and only no good would come out of it.

In a survey done a short while ago, which was featured in Malaysia Today, it was found that many professional women do not want to get married because of the problem of finding husbands at par with them. How accurate this survey may be is not known because the methodology was not explained and we do not know how representative the respondents were of the broad cross-section of Malaysian society, or whether the respondents were from a close-knit group.

If a woman is highly qualified and is earning a sizeable salary, then she would have to seek a husband even higher qualified and in an income bracket above her. But how many men in this category are available and eligible for marriage? Those of this station in life would most likely already be married with children as well. The only unattached men available for marriage would be those younger than the woman. But then they would be juniors and in the lower rung of their careers. It would be very difficult to find one of the bosses who is still unmarried unless of course he is divorced, which means then he would be ‘second-hand’. Most men would feel intimidated of marrying above their station anyway and very few would want a wife who is more qualified than him and is the main breadwinner of the family -- while he brings in pittance that hardly supports him, let alone his entire family.

Career women would not want to marry too early in life, especially if their career comes first and they would like to focus on their career and not get bogged down by a family just yet. But once they are finished building up their career and are ready to settle down, they would have gained some years and most of those within their age group would already be married. They would then have to lower the age group to find available bachelors, but in terms of career they would all be her juniors and earning a fraction of what she is.

The option therefore would be to become somebody’s second wife, look for a divorcee or widower, marry a younger man who is beneath her station, or stay single and never get married. Not much of a choice is it?

We must remember that if the woman is a professional while her husband has no qualifications, it would be better for the woman to work while the man stays home rather than vice versa. What he earns is probably just double the cost of the maid they need to employ if both go out to work. Then there is the cost for him to go to work, which takes away the balance of his salary. In short, after paying the cost of the maid and his cost to go to work, there is no real take home pay to speak about. He spends what he earns just to earn it, with no spare. It is better he just stays home and let the wife earn the salary. At least one parent is looking after the kids and sending them to school instead of transferring this task to the maid and school bus. And one never really knows how well the maid is going to raise those kids anyway.

Saudi Arabia has an almost similar problem, but with a twist. In Saudi Arabia, the cost of a bride could run into millions so many Saudi men can’t afford to marry Saudi women. I found it most puzzling that most Saudi men have dark complexions while their wives are fair-skinned until it was explained to me that the women are not Saudis but Egyptians. Saudi men cannot afford the prohibitive cost of Saudi wives so they marry Egyptian women instead, who are much cheaper.

This of course creates a social problem as the Saudi women remain unmarried and by the time they reach 30 they are ‘over the hill’ and too old to find a husband. Which Saudi man would want to pay millions for a 30-year old woman when he can get an 18-year old fair-skinned Egyptian woman for next to nothing? So these 30-year old Saudi women have to settle for a spinster’s life. But then they have needs too, and the only way they are going to satisfy these needs is to have sex in the back seat of a stretched limousine with a man they pick up at one of the shopping centres.

The Saudi government tried arresting this problem by offering young Saudi men interest-free government loans to those who need a couple of million to finance their marriage. That was the only way Saudi men could afford a Saudi wife. If not then they would opt for Egyptian wives and the Saudi women would have to remain unmarried and seek sex in the back seat of a darkened-screen stretch-limousine.

Our Malaysian muftis should be a bit careful about coming out with decrees. If Malaysian men take them seriously and refuse to marry women (or divorce their wives) who are above their station in life, then professional and high-salaried Malaysian women would remain spinsters (or become divorcees) and have no chance of getting a husband. Men of their station or above them are hard to come by, as most would already be taken. And the available ones are all beneath their station.

Anyway, whether the men stay home and become househusbands while the wife takes over the role of breadwinner is not really that big an issue. If our religious leaders are really concerned about the state of affairs in this country there are bigger and more important issues they can address. I have yet to hear any mufti pass a decree that the Malaysian government is un-Islamic in many things that it does. For example, how many muftis have spoken out against the Internal Security Act (ISA)?

Islam is very clear about this. No one can be punished for a crime he or she has not committed yet. The ISA is a preventive law. It is used to detain people before they commit a crime. Not even God punishes you for intent until and unless the deed is actually carried out. In Islam, deed must go with intent. Deed without intent is not valid, as is intent without deed.

If you accidentally hit someone with your car and kill him or her, but there was no intent to do so, then it was purely a traffic accident. If you intentionally hit someone with your car and end up killing him or her, then it is murder. If you intended to hit someone with your car out of anger or whatever, but never actually did it in the end, then no crime has been committed. Under the rules of the ISA you can be detained just for fantasizing. Well, if you take all my fantasies as crimes, I would be under detention for the rest of my life -- and, boy, what fantasies I do have (can’t share them with you though as I am sure some of Malaysia Today’s readers are below the age of 18).

If the muftis are really concerned about Islam then they should take the government to task on the many un-Islamic things that it is perpetuating. There are many, but the one example of the ISA mentioned above is enough. That alone can be an issue they take up. The ISA is un-Islamic and we are supposed to have as our head of government an ulamak (religious scholar), Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, while Malaysia is supposed to be an Islamic country. Well, I have news for you: Malaysia is as Islamic as I am a virgin.

The trouble with muftis is that they are salaried by the government. They preach religion for money. That is their real ‘guiding light’, money, not religion. Islam says that anyone who ‘sells’ their religion for money is not to be believed or followed. Until and unless the muftis resign and preach religion for the love of God instead of for the love of money we can just cast aside whatever they say.

Two years ago, the mufti of the Federal Territory called me jahil (ignorant). But he is the one working for the government, not me. He may be more learned than me, that I do not deny, but he has sold Islam for money. If he is really for Islam, then he would speak out against the transgressions and excesses of the government even at the risk of losing his job. But he will not. He wants to protect his job and the salary that comes with it. He is not fighting for Islam. He is fighting to protect his job and the salary and comforts that come with it. To these types of so-called religious people I have only one thing to say to them: bullshit!

I challenge any one of these muftis to resign from their posts and declare they are doing so because the government is un-Islamic. The day they do that will be the day I seek them out to learn from them. And, until that day comes, I look upon these muftis as charlatans and snake oil merchants. And I will answer to God and not men for saying this.

Politics is about the attainment of power

2006-05-22T23:39:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hello.....brother.....that is not how the political game is played. Gratitude for past deeds has no place in politics. It is what you can do now and contribute to the future that counts. This is not a sign of ingratitude. It is what one would call real-politics.

Abim faction may quit Keadilan
Malaysiakini – Friday, 23 November 2001

The Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (Abim) faction in Keadilan may quit the party if their presence is no longer welcome and are seen as ‘troublemakers’, said the movement’s president Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman today.

“They (the Abim members) have informed me of their intention to quit the party but I told them to stay put until we decide on the next course of action,” he added.

Even Abim’s alignment with Keadilan will have to be reconsidered after the ‘ferocious attacks’ levelled against the Abim faction by other factions within the party, stressed Ahmad.

The Abim and non-Abim factionalism in the party was widespread and erupted during the Keadilan annual general meeting early this month which also saw the party’s inaugural elections.

Certain factions had labelled the Abim faction as “power-hungry individuals who wanted to take control of Keadilan”.

Ahmad said Abim members were “almost totally rejected” because they did not support the proposed Keadilan-PRM merger and Abim itself was subjected to heavy criticism.

The proposed merger has been agreed in principle by delegates from both parties which had separate meetings to vote on this matter.

However, the merger is put on hold following Keadilan’s failure to obtain the required two-third majority to amend its constitution. The party is expected to call for a special meeting for a vote on this matter later next year.

“I think we should consider everything. The wall is too thick to penetrate now. And based on their (non-Abim faction) response in the media, I don’t see a future for Abim members in Keadilan,” he told malaysiakini.

According to the Abim leader, the ball is now in Keadilan’s court. “If they are still arrogant and not magnanimous, I think everyone can predict the next course of action”.

Following the AGM, four Abim-linked members were offered places in the supreme council by party president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

However, the quartet - Mohd Anuar Tahir, Dr Muhammad Nur Manuty, Ruslan Kassim and Mustafa Kamil Ayub - rejected the offer.

“When the four former Abim members turned down the appointments as supreme council members, it was made in a good faith in order to give the newly elected leaders the opportunity to lead the party into a brighter future.”

“It also helps to prove that they (Abim faction) are not power greedy. And I personally support their decision,” said Ahmad.

He also revealed that he turned down an invitation to discuss the current situation with Keadilan leaders.

“I refused because the moment I am seen with Wan Azizah, it could be interpreted as interfering in Keadilan affairs. I do not want to be dragged into this mess.”

“I don’t want to influence them because I still want Abim to maintain its non-partisanship,” he said.

However, he said, a thorough analysis of the events before and after the Keadilan elections will be conducted.

“Unless and until the new party leadership is prepared to accept the reality there are factions in Keadilan, it will be difficult to mend the strained relationship between Abim members and other factions in the party,” he said.

Ahmad said Keadilan is very close to the heart of Abim members because the movement was the prime mover in the formation of the party.

“Abim was the first to organise the reformasi campaign after the dismissal of Anwar Ibrahim (jailed ex-deputy premier), the formation of Adil and eventually Keadilan, when most of the present party leaders were abroad,” he said.

Abim faction’s opposition to Keadilan-PRM merger plan triggers party split
Malaysiakini – Friday, 23 November 2001

Stiff opposition to the proposed merger with PRM is the main cause for the fissure between Keadilan’s Islamic Youth Movement (Abim)-affiliated leaders and other party leaders.

Abim president Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman said his movement’s disagreement with the merger was politicised by other ‘factions’ in Keadilan to sideline Abim-linked leaders in the recent party elections.

“The results in the elections, where almost all leaders linked to us had been defeated, makes it possible for them to ditch Abim’s opposition to the proposed merger,” Ahmad Azam told malaysiakini.

In the party’s inaugural elections held on Nov 10 and 11, almost all Abim-affiliated candidates for the top posts were defeated by other candidates who were in favour of the merger.

The non-Abim faction consists of a loose grouping of former Umno members and individuals from the NGOs including the Jemaah Islah Malaysia.

According to Ahmad Azam, the animosity between the pro-Abim faction and the rest started when negotiations on the merger between the two parties began early last year.

“Abim members felt that the opposition front (BA) component parties can continue to work together and complement each other in the present set-up.”

The opposition pact was formed by Keadilan, PAS, DAP and PRM before the 1999 general elections. However, DAP pulled out of the coalition in September over its dissatisfaction over PAS’ stand on the Islamic state.

Ahmad Azam added that, however, the other ‘factions’ in the party started politicising Abim’s opposition to the merger to gain support for the proposed plan.

“We were said to have the intentions of ‘Abimising’ Keadilan. Our people in the party were said to be interested in Islamising Keadilan. Words were spread that we saw the rest, especially the PRM members, as being lesser Muslims,” he said.

“All these are untrue. In fact, our opposition to the merger was purely on tactical reasons. It is more effective to complement each other within the BA.”

He added there will also be problems relating to the party posts if the merger took place.

“Questions of seniority will be an issue. Newcomers to Keadilan (from PRM) will be made leaders. Our members will not be happy about it. We (Abim) were involved in the formation of Keadilan from the beginning, but these people become leaders.”

Ahmad Azam also said that Abim was wary of PRM’s history as a socialist party.

He added that Keadilan had started with a clean slate and should not let the ‘red’ history of PRM be a burden.

“This can drag down Keadilan and we don’t want to see that happen,” he said.

He added that the pro-merger Keadilan leaders had failed to convince party members of the benefits of the merger.

“They are for it just because Anwar Ibrahim is in favour of the merger. Why can’t we disagree with what Anwar wants, even if we agree that he had been victimised by the government?”

“In the end, it has become Abim versus the rest. That is the problem and it is unrepairable,” said Ahmad Azam.

Meanwhile, party sources told malaysiakini that Abim opposed the merger plans to maintain its influence and control over Keadilan. According to a source, Abim was worried that the entry of PRM might dilute its clout within the party.

“The previous Abim-affiliated leaders in the party had used their positions to consolidate Abim’s influence in the party, as well as the number of Abim-backed delegates that attended party meetings,” said a highly placed Keadilan leader.

He said that it would take some time before the present leadership would call for an emergency general meeting to revisit the merger issue.

“As we see it, we still have about 42 divisions that are pending approval from the Registrar of Societies. Only after that has been done, can we call for a special meeting to vote on the constitutional aspects of the merger. This may take up to a year,” said the source.

The party held a special meeting in June where its delegates agreed in principle to the merger but narrowly failed to obtain the two-third majority needed to amend its constitution for the merger. For its part, PRM delegates had agreed for the merger in their annual congress in July.

Keadilan will need to obtain the support from at least two-thirds of its party delegates before the merger can proceed.

Not only Keadilan, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also frightened of ABIM. He was so frightened of ABIM that he allowed Anwar Ibrahim, its President, to join Umno. The purpose of allowing Anwar to join Umno was merely to neutralise ABIM. If Anwar could be taken out of ABIM, then the Islamic youth movement would be robbed of Anwar’s leadership and it would eventually become crippled. Furthermore, if Anwar was not allowed into Umno, then he would most definitely join PAS, which would be worse.

Dr Mahathir, being the political animal that he was, and still is, was proven right. Of course, the idea of Anwar joining Umno was not mooted by Dr Mahathir. It was Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who came up with the idea. At first Dr Mahathir was not agreeable to the idea. However, Tengku Razaleigh managed to convince Dr Mahathir on the rational of bringing Anwar into Umno and he eventually relented and agreed to it.

One overriding factor for Dr Mahathir agreeing to the idea of Anwar joining Umno was the fact that ABIM’s deputy president, who was also the PAS deputy president, was laying the ground for Anwar to take over the PAS presidency after Asri Muda’s resignation. The late Fadzil Nor could have taken over the presidency, but he preferred leaving the post vacant to enable Anwar to eventually take over. As a stopgap measure, Fadzil allowed Yusof Rawa to hold the post as a caretaker while awaiting Anwar to make up his mind when he would like to take over the presidency of the party.

But Anwar did not take over the PAS presidency as what Fadzil had hoped. Though extremely disappointed with Anwar’s decision to instead join Umno, Fadzil knew that Anwar wanted to become Prime Minister and this could never be achieved through PAS. It has to be through Umno. In that sense Fadzil forgave Anwar and still maintained a good relationship with his comrade from the enemy camp.

When Anwar was sacked from Umno and the government in September 1998, Fadzil and the ABIM crowd were amongst the first to rush to Anwar’s side. The setting up of ADIL, the forerunner to Parti Keadilan Nasional, was also initiated by ABIM and Fadzil, as what the Malaysiakini report above said.

One thing, however, that the idealistic ABIM crowd overlooked is that politics is about the attainment of power. When you are sitting on the sidelines as a conscientious objector, you can afford to be idealistic. You are after all only criticising the excesses, abuses and transgressions of the powers-that-be. However, once you are in the thick of the political game, then you have to play the game -- and all’s fair in love, war and politics. Enemies become friends and friends become enemies. An enemy of your enemy becomes your friend, even if the former is also your enemy, but as long as the latter is a bigger enemy. An enemy of your friend also becomes your enemy, even if the former is also your friend, but as long the latter can serve your political interests. That is the political game. And you must learn to treat all political friends as potential enemies and keep them close where you can watch over them -- plus keep your political enemies even closer so that you can monitor them and neutralise their every move.

That is what Dr Mahathir did to Anwar, a very clever move indeed. However, somehow, that is what Dr Mahathir did NOT do to Team B. Instead, Dr Mahathir got rid of Team B by deregistering Umno and forming a new party in February 1988 where he excluded his enemies from the new party. That was a gross mistake. He gave Tengku Razaleigh and the remnants of Team B no choice but to create a new party, Semangat 46, which eventually teamed up with PAS to knock Umno out of Kelantan. Umno never recaptured Kelantan even after Semangat 46 wound up and most of its members joined Umno -- and it would probably never again retake Kelantan far into the future.

Anwar used ABIM to frighten the daylights out of Dr Mahathir. He used it again in his climb up the Umno ladder. But once he got what he wanted, power, he neutralised ABIM so that it would no longer be a threatening force. ABIM practically became a pro-government movement and a pale comparison of its former self. That was when JIM was formed, to take over where ABIM left off. ABIM was seen as selling off and betraying the Islamic cause. JIM was going to continue the Islamic struggle started by ABIM but later abandoned once Anwar had climbed the Umno ladder.

ABIM may have been instrumental in the formation of Parti Keadilan Nasional, as claimed by Azam. It may also have been the initiator of and brains behind the Reformasi Movement. But that was in 1998. By 1999, the party had already faced its first general election and did reasonably well for a seven-month old party. But the party now needed to move on and certain structural changes were necessary. And ABIM did not fit into this new plan and, again, ABIM needed to be cast aside, like it had been many times before. ABIM was the small picture. Anwar now had to look at the bigger picture and ABIM was just one cog in the wheel, it was no longer the big wheel. This ABIM could not understand. They felt that Anwar owed the movement a lot and he should at least show some gratitude.

Hello.....brother.....that is not how the political game is played. Gratitude for past deeds has no place in politics. It is what you can do now and contribute to the future that counts. This is not a sign of ingratitude. It is what one would call real-politics.

The one-time deputy president of Keadilan, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, used to talk about politik baru (new politics). That is what the party is all about, he argued, to introduce new politics to Malaysia -- clean politics.

I disagreed with him and told him so, much to his chagrin. It is people like you we want to change, he said. It is because of people like you that Malaysian politics has become so dirty, he told me.

You cannot become a politician and try to change the way the political game is played, I told Dr Chandra. Politics is a dirty game. The best politicians are Machiavellian, I explained. That is why Dr Mahathir is a good politician and Tengku Razaleigh is a bad politician. Tengku Razaleigh is too principled. He will never become prime minister. As much as I dislike Dr Mahathir, I admire him for his political acumen. Dr Mahathir is where he is, and will remain where he is, because he is Machiavellian. Anwar too is Machiavellian, I told Dr Chandra. Maybe you have not realised it, but he is. And Anwar will have to become even more Machiavellian if he wants to make a comeback. And if ‘comeback’ to Anwar means to become Prime Minister, then it has to be in Umno, not in the opposition. And Anwar will have to use the opposition, like he did ABIM in the 1970s, to frighten Umno so that they bring him back just to neutralise the opposition, like what Dr Mahathir did with ABIM in the early 1980s.

Dr Chandra was totally disgusted with me. Anuar Tahir, the party’ secretary-general who was present in this discussion, also shook his head in disbelief. Well, I told the both of them, if you want to become politicians, then this is how the game is played. So, if you cannot stomach the game, then get out of politics. Politics is dirty. In politics you use people. There is no such thing as clean politics or politik baru. There is only the old and well-tested dirty politics -- the politics of winning, the politics of attaining power, the politics of using anything and anyone to achieve what you aspire, even money and offering positions if necessary.

Dr Chandra eventually did get out of politics, as did Anuar and many of the other ABIM activists. They realised that politics is not about idealism. Politics is about the ends justifying the means. Politics is about using anything and anyone available to get what you want. And that is why Tengku Razaleigh will never become prime minister, not until he can grasp the fundamentals of politics and is prepared to play the game; the dirty political game.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is seen as a clean man, a man of religion. But Abdullah is very rapidly learning the political game. He knows he cannot be clean or hold to his religious principles. He has Dr Mahathir gunning for him. He has Tengku Razaleigh who still aspires to become prime minister. He has Anwar hoping to make a comeback through Umno. He has Najib Tun Razak who plans to become his successor in the not too distant future. With all these threats hanging over his head, Abdullah has to be more Machiavellian than Dr Mahathir, Tengku Razaleigh, Najib and Anwar combined.

And he is. Abdullah is sending out signals that he is presently thinking about who will be the candidates for the next general election expected as early as next year. He is personally signing RM2 million in ‘development expenditure’ to each and every Barisan Nasional Member of Parliament. He is paying 10% of this RM2 million in advance for the MPs to use as they wish. He is building up a sizeable and formidable war chest through his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin. Khairy is not the only front-man though. The RM5 billion PORR project is being executed through Yayasan Bumiputra Pulau Pinang Berhad, which he is heading.

By 2008, when the next party election is due, Abdullah will have in his war chest billions of Ringgit with which to fight against any onslaught from Dr Mahathir, Najib, Tengku Razaleigh or Anwar. Sure, the others have billions as well. But the others have no control over the RM200 billion RMK9 development fund. And the others cannot decide on the candidates in the next general election.

Abdullah is not as stupid as he looks. He may be a novice in the political game, but he is learning fast, and he has his very capable son-in-law to help him learn the ropes in super-speed mode. Some say that Khairy is moving too fast and this may result in his downfall. The veterans will not like a young man in a hurry. Well, Anwar was once where Khairy is today. Anwar too moved too fast and made many enemies along the way. But Anwar skilfully eliminated or bought off his enemies. As long as Anwar had the support of the prime minister he was okay. It is when he moved against the prime minister that he fell.

Khairy certainly has the support of the prime minister, so why should he not be okay as well? And I doubt Khairy will make a move against his own father-in-law as long as he can reap benefits from supporting him. But the instant Abdullah Badawi heads for a fall, Khairy would certainly move on. One must never swim near a sinking ship as one can get sucked down as well. Yes, Khairy will not betray his father-in-law as long as the man stays on top. But once he wavers or falls, then Khairy will be one of the wolves that will pick at the carcass, as is the nature of wolves.

Have no misunderstanding about this. I do not hate Khairy. I actually admire him. He is today what Anwar was more than twenty years before this. I suspect even Anwar admires Khairy as he sees much of himself in that young upstart. But I am of course opposed to Khairy because I am anti-establishment. I would oppose Anwar the same way I oppose Abdullah and Khairy, and Dr Mahathir before this, if Anwar was prime minister today.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we must oppose those who hold absolute power to ensure they are not absolutely corrupted. That, in a nutshell, is what I am and will continue to be. And I will never become a politician. To become a politician I will have to do what good politicians do, and that is mostly bad things. So, the bottom line is, good politicians must become bad people. Good people become bad politicians.

ABIM cannot understand this. They thought they were sold out by Anwar. They thought that Anwar betrayed them. They thought that Anwar used them. But of course he did. But that is what all good politicians do. And if Anwar can continue doing this, then there is yet some hope that Anwar will become prime minister one day.

Do I support Anwar as prime minister? Of course not! I do not support Dr Mahathir, Tengku Razaleigh, Khairy, Najib or Abdullah as prime minister as well. This is nothing personal against Anwar, or any of the others. I actually love Anwar, Tengku Razaleigh and Najib. I have never met Khairy or Abdullah so it is impossible to love someone you have never met. And Dr Mahathir has his good and bad points -- I just have not decided yet whether there is more good than bad in him, or the other way around.

What then is my beef? Simple! The prime minister is elected by 2,300 Umno delegates at the general assembly. Those who control the 191 Umno divisions control the 2,300 delegates. So he therefore becomes the prime minister. And only the prime minister is able to control the 191 Umno divisions and the 2,300 delegates. In short, only the prime minister has any chance of becoming prime minister. All the others can only try and fail trying.

Imagine 2,300 people deciding the fate of 26-27 million Malaysians. This is scary. There is something terribly wrong with such a system. Dr Mahathir proved this. And so is Abdullah proving it now as well. We need a system where more Malaysians can decide who becomes prime minister. This should not be left to just 2,300 Umno delegates who can be bought with a mere RM1,000 a head.

The general elections are rigged, so this system no longer works. But what system do we then change to? I really don’t know. Maybe we can limit the tenure of the prime minister to just two terms. Then the Anti-Corruption Agency should come under Parliament and the head of the ACA is appointed by Parliament. This would make the ACA independent and able to take action against the lawmakers, including the prime minister. Short of that I really don’t know what to suggest.

In the meantime, watch the ongoing power struggle in Malaysia. Much conniving and money changing hands will be seen over the next year or so. And the man left standing will be he who plays the game best. And all’s fair in love, war and politics. There will be no dirty politics, only real-politics. And the next prime minister, whoever it may be, will be he who outwits the others and outbids everyone with the best price. And the next prime minister will have to be the dirtiest player in the game; there are no two ways about it.

posted 11:39 AM

BBC: The final line of resistance

2006-05-22T06:43:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I remember back in the old days when there were three opposition fronts or lines of resistance. The first was of course the opposition parties. Next was Umno Youth, a party within a party. Finally we had the Back Benchers’ Club or BBC, the grouping of ruling party Parliamentarians who were not holding any cabinet or ministerial position.

The opposition then was very feisty. In the May 1969 general election, it actually gave the ruling party, the Alliance Party -- a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC -- a run for its money. Some states fell to the opposition outright while those that the ruling party retained it did so with a simple majority and no longer had its two-thirds majority in the state assembly.

Yes, those were the good old days. Then the Second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, formed a new coalition called Barisan Nasional and the opposition parties, including the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), joined this ruling coalition. PAS of course left about three years later after it discovered it was duped and, since it had now joined the ruling government, had to without protest support government policies whether they agreed with them or not.

PAS found out the hard way it could not be part of the government yet at the same time oppose the government. It had to support government policies even if they went against the Islamic party’s principles. You could of course argue and debate behind closed doors. But publicly you had to speak as one voice and not give even the slightest hint that you disagree with what the government is doing.

PAS eventually left the ruling coalition to go back to becoming an opposition party again, where it belongs.

Nevertheless, whether the opposition is weak or strong, there was still another level of resistance within the lead partner of the ruling coalition, and that is Umno Youth. Umno Youth, for all intents and purposes, was a party within a party. Most of the Prime Ministers in fact started their rise to the top through Umno Youth. And they made it to the top because of what Umno Youth was, a pressure group within Umno and a force by itself. In fact, Umno used to be very wary of Umno Youth because, if it took the opposite view to the parent party, then there would be problems. Umno was always very careful about this and would take Umno Youth’s views in mind before doing certain things lest the youth movement voice out opposition to whatever it is that Umno or the government did.

But that eventually changed. The days when Umno Youth was feared, was a party within a party, and was a pressure group to Umno and the government came to pass. Many of the leaders of today are sons of those who led Umno Youth in its days of glory. Sadly, however, none of today’s leaders share the same qualities as their fathers before them. Umno Youth is certainly no longer a pressure group or party within a party. It does not check and balance what Umno and the government does. It just echoes whatever the government says and nods its head in silent approval.

Another potent force was the Parliament Back Benchers’ Club. Ministers and their ministries would be put before the firing squad and made to answer embarrassing questions on their ministries’ performance as well as its policies. Sometimes, the Members of Parliament from the BBC would be more vocal than the opposition MPs. All the opposition MPS had to do was just sit back, relax, and enjoy the spectacle of the government MPs in the BBC whacking the government.

In short, Malaysia once had three opposition fronts or lines of resistance. First there were the opposition parties. Next, the youth movement in the ruling party (and this included MCA and MIC Youth as well, which once upon a time were as militant as their Umno Youth counterparts). Finally, we had the BBC in Parliament which would be the watchdog for the voters who voted them into office and gave them their job.

Sad to say, that is all now in the past. Malaysia Today has already spoken about the lethargic and pathetic opposition, so we need not go into too many details about this matter. Umno Youth is not even a reflection of what it used to be. Nothing can be done about all this though as it would take a long time to strengthen the opposition or change the present lembik (limp) culture of Umno Youth. But as far as the BBC is concerned, there is still hope and it is not too late to restore it to its old self.

The recent resignation of Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad as BBC’s chairman is a bit of a setback. Shahrir has always carried the image of a maverick or loose cannon and was certainly most suited to head the third line of resistance to the government. But he did mellow slightly over the years. Whether it was because of age or he felt that as the BBC Chairman he should not be seen too much as ‘anti-government’ is not that clear. But we would have thought that the BBC would be the best platform for him to speak out like he used to in the days before he became its chairman.

I suppose the recent episode where he opposed his fellow MPs opposition to the opposition could have been the reason he mellowed and did not whack the government too much. And this was a relatively minor issue mind you. Imagine what would happen if he took on a more controversial issue? Shahrir eventually had to resign. But even if he did not they would have thrown him out anyway, according to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

MPs may not vote according to their conscience, said Umno. They must support government policy. And they must automatically oppose anything the opposition proposes. Maybe the opposition leader, Lim Kit Siang, should table a resolution in Parliament calling for Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic state. Then all the government MPs would stand up to oppose it and ask that Malaysia be retained as a Secular state. Would this not solve DAP’s problems once and for all? And any government MP who supports Lim’s call to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state would be sacked or suspended. Good isn’t it? Lim can get the government backbenchers to oppose the Islamic state just so that they can oppose DAP.

Next month, BBC will be choosing its new chairman. In the running are Deputy Chairman, Raja Ahmad Zainuddin Raja Omar, Pahang MP Sarit Jusoh, and the sacked Umno Vice President, Isa Samad. All these candidates are totally unsuited for the post. We do not want a bodek (apple polisher) BBC Chairman, and certainly not one as tainted as those three. We want someone who can be the ears, eyes and voice of the voters. It will be a long time before the opposition can again be a strong force in Parliament. Umno Youth has been castrated and has become a eunuch. Our last bastion is the BBC. Let us hope they appoint a new chairman worthy of the job and someone who can restore the BBC to what it used to be, a government within a government.

Turning over a new leaf

2006-05-15T07:15:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Referring to Anwar Ibrahim, Zainur Zakaria (one of Anwar’s lawyers) said the ex-deputy premier had also claimed to have been helpless to make changes while in government.

“But look, you were there (in government) for 16 years. Then, what were you doing all those years? What did you actually do when you claimed you couldn’t do anything?”

“(Former deputy premier) Musa Hitam resigned on a matter of principle because he couldn’t agree with Mahathir. If Anwar doesn’t agree with Mahathir, why didn’t he resign?”

The option to quit, he said, could be taken by any member of the cabinet if they disagree with a decision.

Malaysiakini - Wednesday, 26 April 2006

Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister, Tan Sri Dr George Chan Hong Nam, Wednesday, hit out at Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) for bringing up the petroleum royalty given to Sarawak as an issue in the state election, polling for which is set for May 20.

He said he could not understand why PKR was raising the issue now when its adviser, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, had rejected a request for a bigger petroleum royalty for Sarawak when he was the finance minister before his expulsion from the Cabinet.

“When he (Anwar) was the finance minister, I myself asked for an increment in the petroleum royalty but he didn't give. Why is his party talking about it now?”

“I asked for more development for Sarawak because we don't have enough (development) and he also did not want to give (allocations). Why is PKR talking about it now? Why didn't he give us more when he was in power? Now he is no more in power, he can talk,” Chan told reporters after a meet-the-people session at the Krokop Market, here.

Chan, who is the BN candidate for Piasau, was responding to a statement by PKR President Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who is Anwar's wife, at a ceramah (talk) yesterday.

Chan, who is president of the Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP), said PKR had no right to manipulate and misrepresent the issue to the people as it was Anwar who had rejected Sarawak’s request for the oil royalty increment.

Bernama - Wednesday, 10 May 2006

The news reports above are just two of many examples of criticism levelled at Anwar Ibrahim. Some of course question Anwar’s sincerity and ask whether he has really reformed or turned over a new leaf. Some feel he has not really changed much from the days when he was in power and his present stance is just a charade to play to the gallery. They feel that Anwar, being the political animal that he is, is catering to the taste buds of the voters and telling them what they would like to hear. Nevertheless, this is what most good politicians do anyway and we probably should not hold this against Anwar.

One thing Anwar should not do, though, is to ignore these criticisms. This has been earlier raised in The Corridors of Power where it was pointed out that Anwar faces a credibility problem of crisis proportions. The common cold one can ignore, as it will go away by itself. But ignoring allegations such as those above, plus much more, will not go down well with the voters who have long memories plus the assistance of the Internet to constantly remind them what Anwar said and did in the days when he was in power.

For example, Anwar gave a talk at an education seminar recently and he stressed on mother-tongue education. But the Chinese educationists remember when Anwar was once Education Minister. Why did he not do everything he is saying today when he was the Minister and had the power to do so then? Anwar has no answers and his only response is to apologise for his error of judgment. Well, at least Anwar admits his mistakes and begs forgiveness. But the damage has been done. Will the Chinese voters be able to forgive him for this irreparable and irreversible damage to Chinese education?

Even if you want to argue that Anwar may have been the Education Minister but then he really did not have much power to change any government policy as this is a Cabinet decision and no one in the Cabinet is able to contradict or oppose the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who had an iron grip on the country. Well, what about when Anwar was not yet in the government and was still only a student leader? Many remember Anwar leading the University Malaya students in demonstrations to oppose the English Language in an effort to install Bahasa Malaysia as the country’s first and official language. English became the second language and, today, the present generation of Malaysians have a very poor command of English. Now, the government realises that in the era of globalisation this is a handicap in getting good jobs.

This makes it very difficult for Anwar to raise issues as invariably every issue that he raises can be pointed back to him. When he slams the government’s education policies, it is pointed out that he was once part of the problem. When he criticises the government’s economic policies, people remember when he was the Finance Minister and the damage the Ministry did with him at the helm. When he talks about corruption and cronyism, many can rattle away names of Anwar’s friends who made it big in the days he was in power.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Unfortunately, Anwar too has sinned so he should refrain from this stone throwing exercise. Anwar needs to instead come clean and admit the many mistakes he made while in government. As Zainur Zakaria said, you can’t say that you were powerless and blame it all on Mahathir. If you really did not agree with Mahathir, you should have resigned and spoken out then -- not speak now after Mahathir had thrown you out. What would happen if Mahathir had not thrown you out? Or what would happen if Mahathir had resigned and allowed you to take over as Prime Minister? Would you then speak the way you are speaking today? Or would you continue with all the bad policies that you inherited from Mahathir?

Malaysia has many laws which even Anwar does not agree with and today speaks out against. Malaysia is highly regulated and tightly controlled in every aspect. Civil liberties and fundamental rights are violated at will. Many laws in fact violate the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. But we did not hear Anwar speaking out against these laws when he was in power. Anwar in fact used some of these laws himself to curtail the opposition. What gives him the moral right to oppose these laws today?

This does not mean Anwar should therefore support these laws today. Bad laws are bad laws and should be opposed, especially if they violate the Constitution. But Anwar cannot remain silent and pretend he did not go along with all these transgressions when he was in power. He cannot criticise and act as if he has been criticising these transgressions all his life. He did not when he was in power. He is only doing that now that he is out of power.

Anwar would gain more credibility if he confesses his mistakes and repents. Everyone makes mistakes and the avenue to repentance is always open (jalan ke taubat sentiasa terbuka). But to pretend you made no mistakes while pointing out the mistakes of others will just allow people to point out what you did when you were in power, which is the same thing you are today criticising others of doing.

It is not difficult to reveal the mistakes of others. It is the big man who admits his own mistakes, which is more difficult. And you cannot repent unless you admit your mistakes. And until you do admit them, then no would believe you are repentant but that you are still the same old Anwar Ibrahim.

Umno's bullshit!

2006-05-08T09:16:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

All Umno Youth members have been urged to fly the Umno flag to mark the party’s 60th anniversary on May 11, said the news report in one of the mainstream newspapers.

Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin was reported to have said that the party’s youth movement was organising a campaign to encourage its members to fly the flag until May 18. “This campaign is a symbol of our unity and our love for Umno and, for the younger generation, this is a symbol of our appreciation for the party’s never ending struggle for the religion, race and the country,” he said at the launch of the campaign at Putra World Trade Centre last week.

Some states, he said, have come out with interesting ways to participate in the campaign including a proposal by Pahang Umno Youth to carry Umno flags on boats and going downstream along the Pahang River. For individuals, he said, it would be enough for them to fly the party flag at their residences and offices during the campaign period.

“In doing so, they are encouraged to be creative and to ensure that their efforts are visible,” he added. Apart from the campaign, he said, the movement was also organising a contest to name the party flag, which until today has no official name.

This competition is open to all Malaysians. The winner will be judged not only on the name suggested, but also on the rationale behind the name. Those interested in taking part in the competition can send their suggestions through SMS to 017-267 0337 or by fax at 03-4044 2199 or through e-mail at bendera_umno@pemuda.com.my . The closing date is May 18.

First of all, Umno is not 60 years old. The Umno that was registered on 11 May 1946 ‘died’ just short of its 42nd birthday. This newly registered Umno that was registered after the court deregistered Umno on 4 February 1988, the ‘son’ of the old Umno, is therefore only 18 years old. It may share the same surname, but it is still the second generation Umno and a separate legal entity. Secondly, Umno, which is only 18 years old, should have celebrated its birthday in February, three months ago, not on 11 May.

We must remember that those who fought and struggled for the original Umno, such as many veterans including those who had become Prime Ministers of this country, refused to join Umno Baru (the name of the new Umno) and eventually all died without ever becoming members of the new party. To these people, they would not be rejoining Umno but joining a new party. These people such as Umno Youth Leader Hishammuddin’s father and Bapa Merdeka (Father of Independence) shunned Umno Baru and regarded it as an imitation or cheap copy of the original Umno that was wound out just so that certain enemies of the Prime Minister could be ousted from the party. For all intents and purposes, the deregistering of the old Umno and registration of the new party was an exercise in ‘backdoor sacking’.

We must remember, the Umno veterans, which included Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Musa Hitam, and Tunku Abdul Rahman, attempted to register Umno Malaysia as soon as the court deregistered Umno. Their application was however rejected on grounds that the ‘Umno’ name was already taken and therefore no longer available. One week after Umno Malaysia’s application was rejected the Registrar of Societies approved the registration of Umno Baru. Umno Baru’s application was submitted after Umno Malaysia was rejected, and not before. Therefore the rejection of Umno Malaysia on grounds that the name was no longer available was a farce. Umno Baru’s application was submitted later, only after Umno Malaysia had been rejected.

One important point to note here would be: Umno Baru had to submit an application to join Barisan Nasional. The Barisan Nasional meeting convened in February 1988 at the PWTC to consider Umno Baru’s application was chaired by MCA. Barisan Nasional sat to debate an application for membership from a new party. Therefore Umno Baru was considered a new party and not the same old Umno.

Next, Khairy talks about Umno’s struggle for religion, race and country, in that order. Umno struggles for bangsa, agama and negara. This means race, religion and country, in that order. Since when was Umno’s Constitution changed where religion is the first objective, followed by race and country? It is actually race first, followed by religion and country.

You may argue that this is a minor thing. It is not! This clearly spells out what the party’s struggle is all about and what its objectives are in order of priority. Umno never amended it, how is Khairy able to change it? Khairy is trying to outdo PAS in giving the impression that Umno’s first objective is religion. It is not! It is race, and that is why Umno upholds Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy a la Apartheid).

This is what Article 3 of Umno’s Constitution says:

FASAL 3: ASAS DAN TUJUAN

UMNO adalah sebuah parti politik yang berjuang mendukung cita-cita kebangsaan Melayu demi mengekalkan maruh dan martabat bangsa, agama dan negara.

The next thing they tell you is that Umno fought for Merdeka or independence for Malaya. This is not true. In all the meetings the Umno leaders of the 1940s and 1950s had with the British they never once pursued the issue of independence. Even when they opposed the creation of the Malayan Union in 1946 the issue of independence was never raised. It was others who fought for independence and they were all rounded up by the British and thrown into jail. Some were hanged for treason. Some disappeared and were found dead later. It was only after the British felt that keeping Malaya as a colony was proving too expensive and the danger of the country falling to the Communists was becoming too dicey that they agreed to independence. Only after the British had made up their minds to grant Malaya independence did Umno talk about it.

It was a fait accompli which Umno hijacked and claimed as its struggle. It is like someone claiming to have cooked the food after the meal has been served on the table, whereas this person never entered the kitchen even once.

Okay, let’s move on. Musa Hitam, the Deputy Prime Minister who opposed Dr Mahathir and subsequently resigned to team up with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to form ‘Team B’, once said that when a football is deflated, do not kick it. Not only will it not roll far, but you will hurt yourself as well. He was referring to the constant attacks he was subjected to after he had fallen from grace.

When Rahim Thambi Chik was forced to resign as Umno’s Youth Leader due to a sex scandal with an under-aged girl, he too was attacked by the acting Youth Leader, Zahid Hamidi. Mat Sabu, the PAS warlord, ridiculed Umno Youth. When we slam Rahim, Umno Youth comes to his defence, said Mat Sabu. Now that Rahim is out of power, Umno Youth slams him. PAS does not want to slam someone who is out of power. We will do so only when he is in power and abuses this power or commits a crime. Now that he is out of power, why bother to slam him? Only gutless Umno Youth would slam someone who is out of power but not dare say anything when he is in power.

That sums up what is going on in Malaysia today. When Dr Mahathir was in power, everyone sings his praises. Now that he is no longer in power, all the ‘brave souls’ speak up. Why did they not slam Dr Mahathir when he was Prime Minister, like how we in the opposition did? Why only now slam him when you feel he is powerless to retaliate?

Malaysia Today does not slam people out of office. Maybe once upon a time we too were critical of Dr Mahathir. You can read many of our commentaries before the emergence of Malaysia Today, which was published in the Free Anwar Campaign website. But now that he is no longer in office we do not target him for criticism. We do not kick a man when he is down. We challenge him when he is all powerful and mighty. And we do it openly, not using pseudonyms and throwing stones while hiding our hands.

Umno has chosen to go to war with Dr Mahathir. The beautiful part about this whole thing is: these same people who, today, criticise Dr Mahathir actually think that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is an idiot. They support Pak Lah and oppose Dr Mahathir not because they think great guns of the Prime Minister. It is because they know that only Pak Lah can decide who will become candidates in the next general election expected as soon as next year.

Pak Lah is buying support. He is granting every Member of Parliament RM2 million in development funds, and 10% is being paid in advance, upfront. RM2 million is nothing. There are less than 200 Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament and they have more than RM200 billion to play around with over the next five years till 2010.

Dr Mahathir is finding his support diminishing as Pak Lah buys off all the MPs and Umno warlords. And there are many who will gladly kick a deflated ball if they are assured a seat in the next general election and a couple of millions in development funds personally approved by the Prime Minister. This goes to prove only one thing, all the Umno leaders are for sale.

If Umno Youth is really as brave as it pretends to be, then lodge a police report against Dr Mahathir and drag him to court under corruption charges. Do to Dr Mahathir what was done to Anwar. And do it now, or forever hold your peace!

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop

2006-05-01T07:35:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Mahathir's ex-aide criticises the official explanation for scrapping of the project

By Carolyn Hong
The Straits Times (Singapore) 26 April 2006

The Malaysian Foreign Ministry has issued a 17-page statement to explain the bridge saga in hopes of closing the issue, but its critics see it as proof that Kuala Lumpur has let Singapore run rings around it.

Mr Matthias Chang, a former aide of Tun Mahathir Mohamad, said yesterday that it was ‘clear evidence’ of Malaysia being outflanked and out-manoeuvred by Singapore. “What is worse, our negotiating team is at pains to justify Singapore's position, and appeal to us, the citizens, to appreciate the sensitivities of Singapore,” he said.

He was lambasting Ambassador-at-large Fuzi Razak, who issued the statement on Monday to explain why the government had to scrap the bridge project. Tan Sri Fuzi, the ministry’s former secretary-general who led Malaysia’s negotiating team, was asked by the Cabinet last week to reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's criticism of the decision.

It is not clear how much support the former prime minister has on this issue as the majority of politicians, including those from the opposition, have supported the government’s decision. In the statement, Tan Sri Fuzi detailed the sequence of events and explained the legal complications in going ahead without getting Singapore’s agreement for the project.

The Foreign Ministry also refuted the contention of former Prime Minister Mahathir that Singapore had agreed to the bridge in 2002. It explained that the agreement was revoked when Malaysia decided to stop negotiating the outstanding issues as a package. Singapore had regarded its agreement to the bridge as a concession in the full package, the Foreign Ministry said. Singapore’s position was confirmed in a diplomatic note sent in November 2004.

Mr Chang, however, did not agree. He was involved in the legal preparations for the negotiations from 2001 until the time Tun Dr Mahathir retired in October 2003. He contended that Singapore had unilaterally revoked its agreement on the pretext that Malaysia had dropped the package approach. He slammed the Malaysian negotiators for allowing Singapore to do so and, further, to negotiate on the issues of sand and airspace when the package approach had been abandoned.

“By linking airspace and a new factor (sand), Singapore has insidiously circumvented the single issue approach, and trapped Malaysia into adopting a limited package approach,” he said. Mr Chang also suggested that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry was holding back pertinent information, saying that the information disclosed was less than 10 per cent of the total negotiations.

Tun Dr Mahathir, who is in Britain on holiday, has not commented on this latest development. But opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said he believes that the majority of people agree that the government did the right thing by calling off the bridge project. He, however, noted that the “Mahathir group cannot be ignored”.

Barisan Nasional backbenchers club president Shahrir Samad said the people always react emotionally to issues involving Malaysia and Singapore. “Some accept the explanation, some don’t, but some don’t want to,” he said.

The Malaysia-Singapore ‘Crooked Bridge’ issue: who is lying?

Somebody is lying. Either it is Dr Mahathir or it is the Malaysian government. And it is the right of Malaysians to demand answers as to who it is that is lying.

Nevertheless, basically, most people share the view that the flip-flop or on-off manner the issue was handled reflects very badly on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration which, you could say, does not know whether it is coming or going. This also demonstrates the insecurity and poor decision-making of the Malaysian government while the Singapore government appears very cool in the way it is handling this matter.

Malaysians at large are no longer ignorant of the facts behind many issues like in the past. The Internet of course can be partly blamed for this, that is if ‘blame’ is the right word to use here. Furthermore, the government-controlled mainstream media has also been very generous in informing the Malaysian public about current developments, unlike in the past where much used to be censored or blacked-out. So Malaysians today are better-informed and have reached a level where they can analyse for themselves various issues.

Even if the mainstream media tries to hide the facts, people can still obtain them from the Internet. So it is very difficult to hide information from the public and the government has no choice but to come clean before the people find out for themselves. Also, Malaysians now look for not what is being told, but what is NOT being told. Therefore they look for the hidden messages in any government announcement. Thus the government has no choice but to reveal all before the people come to their own conclusions on what they perceive as true and false.

The ‘Crooked Bridge’ issue is proof of the power of the media and the government’s silent acknowledgement that the media can no longer be ignored. This is the significance of this issue as well as many others that have surfaced over the last two or three years since Mahathir retired.

We must remember: when Dr Mahathir was having his war of words with Singapore, the mainstream media (both in Malaysia and Singapore) published the exchanges of letters between the Malaysian and Singapore Prime Ministers. These are still available in the public domain and can be easily accessed if you search the Internet using Yahoo or Google. Malaysians still remember this quarrel between Mahathir and Singapore, which happened not too long ago.

In October 2002, Singapore already agreed that the bridge be built. Singapore also agreed that the Causeway be demolished by 2007, which is next year. Therefore the issue is a non-issue and for all intents and purposes has already been settled. Further to that, it was agreed that in the event the water pipes need to be relocated (say when or if the Causeway is demolished) Malaysia only needs to give Singapore six months notice. Singapore has no legal right to protest or oppose the relocation of the water pipes. On top of that, the cost to build the new pipeline will be entirely borne by Singapore.

All this had already been agreed in writing and settled in 2002. The statement by the Malaysian government about the ‘legal implications’, and the Singapore statement about ‘an act of war’, are therefore not valid. Malaysia has every legal right to demolish its half of the causeway, build its half of the bridge, and relocate the water pipes by giving Singapore six months notice. There is nothing Singapore can do about this. That is not the problem.

The real problem here is, after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister and Syed Hamid Albar took over the negotiations with Singapore, Singapore asked Malaysia to consider throwing in the supply of sand to Singapore plus allow the Singapore Air Force more flights over Malaysian airspace as part of the bridge package. During Mahathir’s time it was already agreed that each issue will be treated as a separate issue and will be discussed on its own merits and not as part of a package. Singapore had agreed to this. But Syed Hamid (probably with Abdullah’s blessing) agreed to Singapore’s request for sand and more flyovers to demonstrate that Malaysia is a ‘good neighbour’. In fact, it is not even clear whether the sand issue was Singapore's idea or Malaysia's idea. Did Singapore ask for it or did Malaysia suggest it?

Later, they found out that if Malaysia supplies the sand that Singapore wants, then this would raise legal implications (the ‘legal implications’ Abdullah spoke about but did not reveal what they are).

Firstly, Singapore’s land reclamation is causing serious ecological problems to Malaysia’s marine life and is affecting the livelihood of Johore’s fishermen. Secondly, the reclamation in the Tebrau Straits would make the waters too shallow/narrow and ships would not be able to navigate these waters. They would instead have to sail around Singapore. This would make the Johore port less attractive compared to the Port of Singapore. In terms of economics, Malaysia would eventually lose out to Singapore.

Now, if Malaysia decides to take this case to the international court in an attempt to stop Singapore from reclaiming land facing Malaysia (they are free to do so at the bottom part of Singapore that is not facing Malaysia as that is their right and it does not affect Malaysia) how can Malaysia have a strong case when Malaysia is supplying the sand that Singapore is using in its reclamation programme? And what would happen if it is proven that the sand supplier (or suppliers) is (are) linked to the powers-that-be, or worse, are actually members of the government? How would Malaysia explain this?

This is the ‘legal implication’ Abdullah meant but which he did not explain in detail.

In short, Malaysia blundered. We tried to ‘baik sangat’ with Singapore and later found out the mistake we made. The only way to get out of the agreement to supply sand to Singapore is to cancel the bridge. Since the supply of sand is tied to the bridge agreement, if the bridge is cancelled, then the supply of sand can also be cancelled.

But they cannot say that the issue is solely about the supply of sand. This is too sensitive an issue. What if someone starts spreading stories that the sand supplier is, Heaven forbid, related to Syed Hamid (like his brother)? Or what if someone starts spreading stories that one of the sand suppliers is a member of Abdullah's family by marriage? You know how people like creating stories. Would that not be disastrous? So, instead, they raise the issue of SAF planes flying over our airspace. This will stoke nationalist sentiments, especially in simpleminded Umno Melayus who love waving a keris over their heads and go into a frenzy. But they must hide the fact that US planes have more than 1,000 flyovers a year. People might ask: why US can and Singapore cannot? The Umno Melayus might drop the keris on their own heads in shock and disbelief.

It must be remembered that the supply of sand was never part of the bridge agreement in Mahathir’s time. It was Abdullah who agreed to it later. The bridge could have gone on without agreeing to the sand supply clause. But now that it had been agreed, they cannot get out of it unless the bridge itself is cancelled.

We must also remember, around mid-March 2006, Shahrir Samad and other Parliamentarians asked Works Minister Samy Vellu to guarantee that the bridge would be built without further delay. Samy Vellu assured Parliament that the bridge would go on and that nothing will prevent it from being built. In mid-March all the Parliamentarians wanted the bridge. Then, suddenly, three weeks later, they cancelled the bridge and all the Parliamentarians ‘sokong sebulat suara’.

This alone shows that something is wrong. The Johor Menteri Besar was not happy that the bridge was being cancelled. But he was instructed to make a public statement that he too agrees that the bridge be cancelled -- after he had enthusiastically agreed to it being built just weeks earlier.

It is clear the government does not know what it is doing. One day it makes one decision and the next it reverses this decision. Many are beginning to wonder whether the present government knows how to run this country. People no longer accept what the government says and all its explanations are taken as lame excuses. The bottom line is: the government silap and is now trying to cover its mistakes. Well, we are not allowing this to get buried that easily. We want to know who the sand suppliers are. Can we have their names please?

Actually, the bridge is not the issue. Ada pun takpe, takde pun takpe. It does not matter either way. It is the way the on-off decisions are made which is worrying. And what we read in the media seems to give this impression: that the government reverses its decision not long after making them. The government certainly runs this country in a most flip-flop fashion.

Sheesh....can Abdullah even decide what he wants for breakfast?

Old politicians never fade away

2006-04-29T08:10:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“Mahathir’s attacks fuel talk of comeback,” said Leslie Lopez in the Singapore Straits Times on 26 April 2006. Well, I got news for you Leslie. Dr Mahathir never left. He may have retired as Malaysia’s Prime Minister. But he never left. How does someone who reshaped the skyline of this country and the thinking of the people over 22 years just fade away? Old soldiers never die, they just fade away. And old politicians never fade away, they just die. And Dr Mahathir is not dead yet. And going by the track record of the longevity of Dr Mahathir’s family, you had better accept the fact he is going to be around for at least another decade or so.

But he is past 80, some may argue. In China, you do not reach the top until you are past 80. At 50 you are still considered pemuda (youth) and do not deserve the honour of sitting amongst the elders. Dr Mahathir does not smoke. He does not drink. He does not karaoke till dawn with GROs sitting on his lap. He eats sparingly and watches his weight. He hardly has any vices that you and I share. Hmm....come to think of it, what is there to live for with that kind of lifestyle? Takes all the fun out of living doesn’t it?

“Is Malaysia’s former prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, planning a political comeback?” asks Leslie. “The retired politician’s blistering attack on Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s government last week over Malaysia’s scrapping of a new bridge project to link Singapore has set tongues wagging that a return of some form is on the cards.”

“It is very clear that he is unhappy about the way Abdullah is running things and he wants to do something about it,” says Professor Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, who teaches sociology at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

“But no one is suggesting that Tun Dr Mahathir is planning a leadership grab,” argued Leslie. “The former prime minister, who underwent triple bypass surgery 15 years ago, is 80 years old and close associates say he has been advised by his doctors to take it easy because he is very susceptible to heart problems.”

“But there are concerns that Malaysia’s redoubtable strongman, who survived numerous challenges to his leadership during his 22 years in power, could give some serious political grief to Datuk Seri Abdullah in the coming months.”

“A more politically active Tun Mahathir would put Malaysia’s business elite, who have long relied on the state for business, on edge because of potential uncertainty born of a shifting power structure. It could also upset a budding rally on the Malaysian stock market, say analysts.”

“Close associates of the former premier say that Tun Mahathir’s displeasure with Datuk Seri Abdullah stems from his belief that the current administration is on a campaign to smear and systematically dismantle his legacy. For the past two years, the combative politician has chided the 30-month-old Abdullah administration for overturning some of his many economic initiatives and for not giving enough state assistance to pet projects such as national carmaker Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Bhd, or Proton.”

“The simmering dissatisfaction burst into outright hostility last week when Tun Mahathir accused his successor of caving in to Singapore’s opposition to plans to build a new bridge to replace the Causeway that links the two countries. Tun Dr Mahathir, who often crossed swords with Singapore during his 22-year tenure, said that the Malaysian government’s decision to scrap the bridge project he proposed in 1996 was tantamount to surrendering the country’s sovereignty.”

“Referring to Malaysia’s former premier Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was forced to step down after the racial riots in May 1969, and Thailand’s Mr Thaksin Shinawatra, who stepped down as premier early this month to mollify rising public anger over allegations of corruption, Tun Mahathir also warned his successor of the perils of ignoring public sentiment,” argued Leslie.

In a clear warning to Abdullah, Mahathir said, “Please remember what happened to Tunku for not listening to the people. The most recent example is Thaksin. They did not listen to people and they got into trouble.”

Mahathir’s close associates say that his sharp remarks reflected his personal attachment to the bridge project. “Mahathir intended the bridge to be a sign of nationalism and to reflect the current state of relations with Singapore,” says a senior Kuala Lumpur businessman who enjoys close relations with Mahathir.

But many Malaysians view the caustic comments as a direct political challenge to Abdullah. “To say that he (Mahathir) is unhappy is an understatement. And it would be a mistake to underestimate him,” said Anwar Ibrahim in a Straits Times interview two weeks ago. Anwar believes that his former mentor will intensify his attacks against Abdullah in the coming months. “This is just the beginning,” predicted Anwar.

Leslie shares Anwar’s prediction. “Several analysts agree that Tun Mahathir is unlikely to let up on his attacks against the Malaysian government. They believe he is likely to organise meetings with members of the ruling party, Umno, to explain his criticism of the current administration. Tun Mahathir fired his first broadside last Friday with the publication of an open letter in a widely read Umno-sponsored website detailing his version of events concerning the failed bridge project. The same letter was also distributed to Members of Parliament and senior Umno officials.”

“What is the likely upshot of it all?” asks Leslie. “Many analysts believe that the former premier’s rants will not amount to much.”

“Apart for a small group of people who have an axe to grind with Abdullah, I don't think Mahathir’s attacks, past, present or future, will have any huge conflict-generating impact,” says Prof Shamsul who explains that unseating an incumbent is extremely difficult in a political system which is largely patronage-driven.

“Before he stepped down in November 2003, Tun Mahathir had kept his supremacy within the government and Umno by generating corporate wealth through a steady flow of easy credit, privatised infrastructure projects and government contracts and licences,” explains Leslie. “Datuk Seri Abdullah, who recently unveiled a RM200 billion five-year development plan, is now in the position to dispense patronage.”

“Analysts argue that Umno politicians and business groups linked to the party are unlikely to oppose Datuk Seri Abdullah in any face-off with Tun Mahathir for fear that they could be dropped or blacklisted in the contest for contract awards under the country’s new development plans. The Prime Minister’s inner circle believes that Datuk Seri Abdullah does not intend to comment directly on Tun Mahathir’s statements out of respect for his former boss.”

“There is tremendous respect and Abdullah doesn’t want that jeopardised,” says a senior aide.

Leslie does not have accolades for Mahathir. “It is also politically astute. By refusing to be drawn into any confrontation with his former boss, he is enabling Mahathir to make himself the central issue in his campaign against the Abdullah-led administration. Mahathir’s criticisms of Abdullah have only underscored the shortcomings of his own economic policies, which featured a state-led push into heavy industries and the construction of so-called mega projects.”

“Today, Mahathir’s push into heavy industries lies in tatters. His government poured billions of dollars into cement and steel ventures that ultimately flopped. National carmaker Proton, the sole surviving vestige of Mahathir’s heavy industries programme, is also under siege from foreign competition and the dismantling of trade barriers.”

And Leslie sings Abdullah’s praises. “Abdullah’s economic plans are more conservative compared to his predecessor’s and on Monday the Premier offered the rationale for his cautious approach in economic management.”

“Never mind that I may not build great monuments or glittering cities. I am told this will be popular and will grease the wheels of our economy,” Abdullah told a gathering of business leaders in Kuala Lumpur.

Those within the business sector believe that Abdullah’s efforts to distance himself from his predecessor’s policies by curbing government spending and reviewing many of Mahathir’s large infrastructure ventures have been crucial in restoring Malaysia’s economic fundamentals.

However, while Abdullah’s position appears secure enough, there are those aligned to Mahathir who could easily exploit the strong undercurrents in Umno to weaken the Prime Minister’s grip on power. One potentially destabilising issue is the political succession.

Abdullah and Mahathir are from the same political generation and many within Umno believe the next leadership succession should take place sooner than scheduled. Many feel that Mahathir’s unhappiness with Abdullah would fit in nicely for those seeking to accelerate the succession timetable -- which would pave the way for Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to take over.

“There is a view that Abdullah should stay for only one term and there are many in the party who would like to see him politically weakened to make way for a power change,” says a senior Umno leader aligned to the Prime Minister.

Those within Abdullah’s inner circle reveal that he is aware there are some within Umno’s top leadership who may be in a hurry to see him retire. But Abdullah is determined to go for another term, they argue. The changes he wants to bring to Malaysia will take time to bear fruit and he wants to see it through.

It is clear from Leslie’s piece above that his report is slanted in favour of Abdullah and in a sense critical of Mahathir. I would not however say that his analysis of Malaysia’s current political scenario is off tangent. Leslie has certainly read things correctly and has summed up quite accurately what we should be able to see in the not too distant future. But politics is not a science. It is an art. One cannot read politics using arithmetical calculations. And surely the Anwar Ibrahim saga should have taught us that by now.

Who would have thought that Mahathir, after getting sacked from Umno, would come back as Prime Minister? Who would have thought that Musa Hitam and Ghafar Baba would not succeed Mahathir as Prime Minister? Who would have thought that Anwar would be sacked and sent to jail after Mahathir openly named him as his successor? Who would have thought that Abdullah, after opposing Mahathir (in ‘Team B’), would be Mahathir’s choice of deputy and eventually become his successor? Who would have thought that Najib would take over as deputy prime minister when Abdullah took over from Mahathir?

Yes, in politics, expect the unexpected. And if we expect Abdullah to go one more term and for Najib to take over from thereon, then expect that not to happen as well. (Of course, there are those who subscribe to the RAHMAN theory and swear that the last letter in the RAHMAN name represents Najib, so he is ‘guaranteed’ of becoming the next prime minister). But 24 hours is a long time in politics. (Anwar transformed from ‘the next prime minister’ to ‘retired politician’ in 72 hours). So, 24 months is certainly even longer. And 24 months till April 2008, when Anwar will be legally allowed to again become active in politics, is a very, very long time. (Mahathir and Abdullah were both sacked Umno politicians who became prime minister. Why therefore is it not possible for Anwar, also a sacked Umno politician, to become prime minister as well?).

If Leslie is talking about PAS politics, well and fine. PAS is about Islam and those who love Islam will put religion above all else. If Leslie is talking about keADILan politics, that too is well and fine, as the Reformists fight for equality, justice, transparency, good governance, an end to corruption, and all such ideals. But Leslie is talking about Umno politics. And Umno is a totally different animal.

The man who becomes the Umno President becomes Prime Minister, plain and simple. You can be a saint, a super-economist, and much more; in short, the best man to run this country. But if you are not the Umno President, then you are not Prime Minister. And, in Umno, money talks and bullshit walks. (And the opposition leader becomes just the opposition leader in Parliament, never the Prime Minister).

Furthermore, Abdullah’s future as prime minister must not be looked at in isolation. It has to be looked at in the context of Abdullah, Mahathir, Najib, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Anwar and Khairy Jamaluddin. These are the six key personalities in Malaysian politics today that matter.

Anwar ousted Ghafar as the deputy prime minister through the power of money. In Sabah alone, Anwar had to spend RM50 million to buy off the 25 Umno division in that state. That comes to an average of RM2 million per division. How much do you think he had to spend in Peninsular Malaysia? Short of RM250 million, Anwar would not have been able to send Ghafar into retirement.

But that was more than a decade ago. Today, because of inflation (and we must also note that some division leaders have to spend up to RM5 million just to win their division) you need at least double that.

Umno has 191 divisions. You need to control at least 120 divisions or so to be safe -- though you could do it with only 100 divisions, but that would be cutting it too fine. This would need a budget of at least RM500 million.

But that RM500 million is only to receive your nomination to challenge the Umno Presidency. You have still not won the post yet. You still need to win the votes from the roughly 2,300 delegates -- or at least from 1,300 of them. For this you need to budget another RM50 million or so.

The bottom line would be, if you want to become the Umno President and subsequently Malaysia’s Prime Minister, then put aside about RM550 million.

Who has this kind of money?

Dr Mahathir has. Najib has. Tengku Razaleigh has. Anwar has. And Abdullah-Khairy has. In short, if you need to pay for the job of Prime Minister, all the above can afford to pay for it. And Abdullah-Khairy has the advantage because they have under their control RM200 billion worth of RMK9 development expenditure which is being proportioned out to those that matter even as you read this.

This is what Leslie meant by ‘political patronage’. And while Mahathir, Najib, Tengku Razaleigh and Anwar have to dig into their pockets to fund their campaign (or vote-buying if you wish), Abdullah-Khairy only have to instruct their many nominees in the Finance Ministry to sign over government contracts to designated people. In fact, this was done even before Abdullah tabled the RMK9 document in Parliament. The government contracts had already been allocated to various people even before Parliament approved them.

You may think that RM550 million is a lot of money. RM550 million is peanuts for the job of Prime Minister. They could even afford to spend RM1 billion and garner 100% of the votes from the 191 divisions and 2,300 delegates if necessary. The general elections cost RM2.5 billion. So RM1 billion is still small potatoes. And that RM1 billion can be made back within mere months and with one stroke of the pen once you are Prime Minister.

In the first place, you may ask, how did all these people accumulate so much wealth when their salaries cannot bring them even a fraction of that if they lived and worked for 1,000 years? I don’t know how the rest did it, but Tengku Razaleigh was already wealthy long before be joined the government. As for the rest, I suppose they saved their salary over the years and only ate instant noodles for lunch and dinner.

But this is not the only issue. If Mahathir teams up with Najib to make his move on Abdullah, then Abdullah will also need a team-mate. And this team-mate could be Anwar. So we will end up with a Mahathir-Najib tag team against Abdullah-Anwar. Maybe a deal would be struck where Anwar allows Abdullah one more term after which he will take over for two terms before handing over the reins to Khairy. Where does that place Tengku Razaleigh then?

Yes, where does that place Tengku Razaleigh? Will he be the Kingmaker? Will he be the White Knight? Or will he instead be the Dark Horse? Will the Umno members get so fed up with the Mahathir-Najib vs. Abdullah-Anwar feud that they throw out the whole lot and bring Tengku Razaleigh in just to restore sanity within Umno?

As I said, 24 hours is a long time in politics. 24 months till April 2008 is even longer. And in politics expect the unexpected. Yes, where does that place Tengku Razaleigh? Hey, Mahathir might even abandon Najib in favour of Tengku Razaleigh if that is the only way to oust Abdullah. Do not rule that one out as well.

Dakwah through love

2006-04-24T07:17:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why does Malaysia Today carry so many articles on Islam? In fact, many such articles are personally written by me. Simple; because Islam cannot be separated from Malaysian politics, and the same goes for race as well. So, unless we can discuss, maturely and intelligently, issues related to Islam and Malay domination -- meaning the New Economic Policy -- then we cannot bridge the gap between Malaysians of different ethnicities and religious persuasions.

The ‘death’ of the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif (BA), is one case in point. There are of course two schools of thought with regards to this. Some say that PAS is to blame for trying, unsuccessfully, to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. Others say it is DAP’s fault for being too anti-Islamic. Nevertheless, let me quote you an old saying: He is right, dead right, but he is just as dead, if he had been wrong.

Yes, that’s right. Right or wrong does not matter here. BA is just as dead nevertheless.

Muslims want the non-Muslims to understand and respect the sentiments of Muslims. What if the Christians say that the non-Christians should understand and respect the sentiments of Christians? First of all, how would Muslims take to being called non-Christians just like we call the Christians, non-Muslims?

And should not respect work both ways? We cannot demand respect. We need to earn respect. And we will only receive respect when we give respect. This cannot and will never be a one-way street. But Malays want it to be a one-way street because ‘Malaysia is an Islamic country and Islam is Malaysia’s official religion’.

The test of one’s Islam is not in rituals and rhetoric. But that is what many believe and practice. Okay, let us say that the non-Muslims are insulting Islam as alleged and that it is our Islamic duty to defend the dignity of Islam. That is what many bloggers in Malaysia Today are doing whenever they perceive Islam as being insulted. And what do we call this act? Is it jihad?

No way Jose! One cannot regard oneself as doing jihad if all one does is post anonymous messages on the internet using pseudonyms. Jihad is a noble cause and it cannot be considered noble if you lurk behind the bushes and hide your hands behind your back after throwing stones. A true jihadist (a.k.a. mujahideen) would face the enemy openly and defiantly and not worry about the consequences. You say you are scared of the authorities. You say you are scared of detention under the Internal Security Act. You say you are scared of losing your job. You are actually scared of losing your salary and of going broke. So you do things while hiding under the bed and then call it jihad.

That is not jihad. You are scared of losing your job and salary and the comforts that come with it. You are scared of losing your freedom. You are scared of this. You are scared of that. But aren’t you these same people who are screaming and shouting that we must be scared of God? Scared of God? You are certainly not scared of God. You are scared of losing your worldly things like your job, money, freedom and so on. What kind of Muslim are you? What kind of jihadist are you? You mentuhankan harta.

Look, do not Muslims believe that everything comes from God? Do not Muslims believe that all the wealth on the face of this earth is owned by God and God just temporarily allows us to ‘borrow’ them while we are still alive? Do not Muslims believe that we are mere trustees of all this wealth who have been entrusted (amanah) by God to look after them -- and that we must use them properly and not misuse them in any way? Do not Muslims believe that we are all going to die one day and all the wealth we accumulate in our lifetime will be left behind when we go to our graves? We will bring nothing with us when we go to our graves.

So, according to our Islamic belief, all the wealth on the face of this earth is owned by God and we are but mere ‘trustees’ of God -- and God decides who He will appoint as this trustee to look after His wealth. Okay, if this is our Islamic belief, why are we then so frightened to jihad openly on the excuse that we may suffer retaliation and lose all our kesenangan (comfort)? No man, no Prime Minister, no Umno, no government can take away this wealth if God does not will it. That is the way a true jihadist should think.

So, my fellow Muslim bloggers, before you get all excited and start fighting with non-Muslims because you say they are insulting Islam and it is your Islamic duty to perform jihad by defending the dignity of our religion, stop and ask yourself whether you are really doing jihad. By all means engage the non-Muslims, do proper dakwah work, and make them understand Islam and erase all these misconceptions about Islam. But be brave and Islamic in the way you do it. If not, then do not expect the non-Muslims to respect you or Islam. As I said, respect has to be earned, not demanded through threats. You more you demand it the more you will not get it.

Let me relate my personal experience on how difficult it is to do dakwah work in Malaysia -- and I am using the word ‘dakwah’ to mean ‘information dissemination’ rather than ‘propagating’. One day, more than a decade ago, we tried placing Yusuf Ali’s English translation of the Quran in hotel rooms all over Malaysia. Since the Gideon’s Bible was placed in all the hotel rooms, why not the English translation of the Quran as well?

But the authorities would not give us permission to do so. And because of this the hotels would not accept our Qurans. The reason: they don’t want the Quran to be touched by the hands of non-Muslims as, according to these people, non-Muslims are ‘not clean’. Also, hotels are places of vice, so how can we place such a holy book in a ‘dirty’ hotel room?

Finally, we had to seek help from the Prime Minister’s Department and only after we got its support did the authorities change its stand and grant us permission.

One of the first hotels to accept our Quran was the ‘kafir’ hotels like Hotel Nikko. The ‘Muslim’ hotels owned by Pernas did not want to accept them because it was too much trouble for them to have to ‘look after’ the Quran.

I grumbled about this to an Arab friend whose wife does not wear the tudung (so you could say ‘modern’ Arab) and he laughed. “When Prophet Muhammad received the Quran, was he a Muslim at that time?” asked my friend. “And when he taught his family the Quran, were they already Muslims?”

“The Quran is not for Muslims only but for all mankind,” argued my Arab friend. “So what is wrong if non-Muslims touch the Quran? In fact, they should be encouraged to pick it up, read it, and maybe even take it home with them. Never mind whether they convert to Islam or not! The objective is to help them better understand Islam and erase whatever misconceptions they may have about Islam.”

“And so what if hotel rooms are places of vice as what the authorities say,” added my Arab friend. “First of all, it is stupid to assume hotel rooms are meant for vices. Anyway, I know of many Muslim homes that stock liquor. So what do we do? Do we go to every Muslim home in Malaysia to see whether there is liquor in it and remove the Qurans from these homes if there are?”

It is attitudes like these that invite non-Muslims to ridicule Muslims, and Islam. They cannot attack or criticise Muslims if we do not give them a reason to. So lighten up. Don’t get too disturbed by criticism. Reply if you wish and only if you are capable of doing so. Ignore it if you also wish. Don’t always assume we are right and they are wrong. It could be that our narrow-mindedness is the reason we are being criticised.

Let me share with you an e-mail I received from a Malaysia Today reader which is self-explanatory:

Assalamu Alaikum, and Hi,

I love to read your articles especially those pertaining to your past experiences and some of the views expressed by you... they are gems.... that can only come from direct experience.

Your latest on Malay and Malay-Islam is one of the best as it speaks so much of what I thought of Islam in Malaysia.

I am a Chinese converted to Islam by marriage. I have had to suffer in silence from nasty remarks of my Malay-Muslim brothers. There were times when I thought to myself that if I wanted to become a Christian, any sects, they would welcome me with open arms, offer transport for their religious classes and Sunday prayers. In Malaysia, Malays expect you to know Islam before you can be a Muslim.

I have encountered a lot of problems in conversion until a friend helped me. The Imam of a small district in Pahang was very understanding and he remarked that a lifetime may not be sufficient to study Islam. We should take a step at a time.

I am guilty of conversion because of marriage and have been "condemned" by many of my Malay-Muslim colleagues as being insincere. I do not deny this fact but humbly believe that it was the Almighty Wa Ta’ala that had decided that I become Muslim by marriage. For 20 years (I am now retired from Govt service) I was a non-practising Muslim though I did not take pork and I did fast every Ramadan. But I was not a "proper Muslim" according to the definition of Malay-Muslims. It was then that I was wandering in the "wilderness".

But God works in a mysterious way. A few years ago, I was literally compelled by my Boss to accompany his group to Saudi Arabia on a business trip and it was then that I saw the practice of sincere Muslims in the city of Makkah. And I realised how narrow-minded the Malay-Muslims in Malaysia are.

The difference between the Muslim in Makkah and the Malay-Muslim is simply this...... The Malay-Muslim takes Islam as a ritual and that every action is ritualistic. The Muslim in Makkah takes Islam as a way of life. I felt so odd that every time we pray, in between meetings, I was the odd man out to perform wudhu. The Arabs do not need to perform wudhu before every prayer provided certain conditions are fulfilled. And the most beautiful part of Muslims in Makkah is that they can pray anywhere. I remember visiting a private hospital in the Holy City where we prayed Mahgrib outside the building....some sort of a "five foot way" but much wider. And members of the public joined us in prayer. The surprise was that the Imam for the prayer was a medical specialist from the hospital.

It is this attitude that Islam is a way of life, and as Allah the Almighty, Lord of the Worlds, has observed that Islam will not bring undue difficulties to the believers.

After the trip, I got a proper perspective of Islamic practices, and although I consider myself to be jahil, I have not given up the strife to seek knowledge. And with Allah (SWT)'s guidance I shall triumph. I do not consider myself as a convert, but rather as a revert...... as Adam the first Prophet and the first man was born a Muslim. Why should we not be considered born Muslims?

I only hope that there are more Malays who have the wisdom and the perseverance as you have.

Please continue your life’s journey.... Like you I have already retired from Govt Service, and a few years older than you. I have started late in life, in the ways of God.... and as such I have more opportunities to commit "crimes" (according to the Malay-Muslims), though I shall say that God has given me more opportunities to learn from these mistakes, and the prayer "Astaghfirullah al azeem" will be more meaningfull to me than to others.

Peace.

A crisis of credibility

2006-04-22T13:45:00.001-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let there be no misunderstanding about this. Politics is about the attainment of power, plain and simple. If anyone tells you otherwise, then he or she is either a bad politician (in that he or she does not understand politics) or a good politician (in that he or she is lying through his or her teeth).

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that lying is wrong. Okay, as far as religion and morals are concerned it is wrong. But lying, or what I would call ‘telling your version of the truth’, is very much part and parcel of the political game. A good politician, meaning Machiavellian politician, must master the art of ‘lying’, or spin doctoring (that is giving the masses your version of the truth).

But then you must know how to lie. ‘Zam’ is hopeless. He is such a novice that he trips over his own lies and digs a deeper hole than the one he is trying to cover up. President Clinton is however superb. He denied all along he told Monica to lie. When cornered, he said, it is true he did not tell her to lie. Okay, maybe he told her to bend a little, but never to lie (baring in Malay). Alright, maybe it did not quite happen like that. But then you must always have a fallback when your lies are discovered.

Anyway, back to the issue of the day. Firstly, politics is about the attainment of power. It is not as many politicians will tell you: to serve the people. But this is what politicians will tell you: “I want to serve the people”. Sure, that’s what they all say. And that is what I meant by ‘lying’. Secondly, politics is about perception. It is not what you are that is important. It is how people perceive you that counts (Of course, as far as religion and morality are concerned this is not honest. And that is why religious or moral people should not become politicians; because they have to mislead and fool the people with false perceptions).

You can be the biggest slime-ball, but if people perceive you as a saint, then that is all that matters. On the other hand, if you are a saint but people perceive you as a nut, then you would not go far in politics.

Anwar is perceived as an Islamic leader. In fact, until today, many non-Muslims still fear Anwar because of his fiery Islamic past. Many still refer to him as an ‘Islamic firebrand’. Whether this is true or not is not the issue. This is not important in politics. What is important is that he carries the image of an ‘Islamic leader’, and some view him as a radical Islamic leader.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad is Machiavellian. He recognised Anwar’s strong Islamic image and he knew that if Anwar had gone to PAS and eventually took over the leadership of the party, as the late Fadzil Nor had planned, this would be bad news for Umno. So he agreed, at Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s prodding, to allow Anwar into Umno.

Mahathir’s strategy was two-pronged. Firstly, he would deny PAS Anwar’s leadership. Next, he would assist Anwar to climb the Umno ladder, first as the Youth Leader and later as one of the Vice Presidents, so that he could use or ride on Anwar (‘kudakan Anwar’, as the Malays would say) for his own political gain. But by the time Anwar became the Deputy President -- again with Mahathir’s help who instructed Shahidan Kassim to lead a revolt of Umno Parliamentarians to pass an unofficial ‘vote of no confidence’ against Ghafar Baba in Parliament -- he became too big for his shoes. He thought that his meteoric rise up the Umno ladder was because of his ‘strength’ and he decided to pitch this strength against his ‘creator’. As they say, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. And Mahathir took back what he gave Anwar, his political career, and Anwar fell flat on his face.

For his ‘service’, Shahidan was rewarded with the appointment as the Perlis Menteri Besar and the takeover of the privatised Bernas, an extremely lucrative cash cow by virtue of the rice monopoly and rice import permits it holds (now you know why rice in Malaysia costs more than in Thailand).

No one had any reservations that Mahathir made Anwar. Anwar was not a self-made man as he visualised himself to be. Somehow, only Anwar did not seem to realise this. Or maybe he thought that that was all in the past and now he is already his own man -- like the Space Shuttle that scuttles its ‘mother ship’ and moves forward on its own steam once it reaches outer space. Mahathir gave one tug of the carpet below Anwar’s feet and that was the end of him. He never saw it coming. He never even felt it coming. It is like when a Samurai warrior’s sword lands on your neck. You can actually walk a few more steps before you fall down and die. You may have lost your head but your body takes a few seconds to realise you are dead before it plays the role of the deceased.

Everyone is clear what Mahathir is. Either you love him or you hate him. Either you perceive him as the most corrupted Prime Minister in Malaysian history or you perceive him as a giant amongst men who gave pride to this nation and placed Malaysia onto the world map. No longer is Malaysia ‘near Singapore’ or ‘south of Thailand’ like how one would have to explain where Malaysia is to the uninformed westerner in the days before Mahathir took over as Prime Minister. Whether for the right or wrong reasons, Mahathir made Malaysia famous.

But what is Anwar? Is he an Islamic firebrand? Is he a moderate Muslim? Is he a liberal ‘lover of the West’? Is he an educationist? Is he a capitalist? Is he the champion of farmers, fishermen and the homeless? Is he opposed to corruption, nepotism and cronyism? Is he the biggest benefactor of cronies and in his time many became filthy rich? Is he all the above? Or is he none of the above? Yes, which is the real Anwar? Will the real Anwar please stand up!

You can hate Mahathir or you can love him. One thing you are sure though, you know what he is. The problem with Anwar is; it is very difficult to decide whether to love him or hate him because you don’t really know what he is to be able to love him or hate him.

Anwar, for all intents and purposes, is suffering a crisis of credibility. He lacks credibility. In fact, he never did have any and he became popular and achieved great heights merely because he was Mahathir’s blue-eyed boy -- no different from the Khairy Jamaluddin situation today. Many do not actually love Khairy. But they know that he is the Prime Minister’s son-in-law and the most trusted adviser, so they all want to hang onto his coattails -- though they don’t like him.

Anwar has been released from prison almost 20 months now. But he is yet to make his move. And this is affecting his credibility. What in heaven’s name is holding him back? Simple! Money! You need money to play politics in Malaysia, or anywhere in the world for that matter. But money is something Anwar does not have yet. And the reason for this is because of the crisis of credibility that he and his party, Party Keadilan Rakyat, are suffering from.

It is not that they never had money in the beginning. They did. But the sources have all dried up. Generous donors who once used to give no longer want to do so. And this is because they no longer know whether the money is being put to good use and for the intended reason or whether the money ‘leaked’ along the way and has been ‘hijacked’.

This is not a new problem or something that cropped up only recently. It has been an inherent problem since the party was formed in 1999. Much money has flowed into the pockets of the party leaders. But it stayed in their pockets and never filtered down to the ground. In the meantime, those on the ground have had to sell off their assets to finance party activities. Some had to borrow from loan sharks (ah long) to finance the last election. Many went into debt and until today are still hocked up to the eyeballs. Some are facing bankruptcy. Some used up all their life savings and pension fund (EPF) and now have to face the remaining years of their life with no guarantee of how they are going to feed their families.

The horror stories are endless. Suffice to say, many sacrificed and suffered financial ruin because of their commitment to the cause and to ensure that the party moves forward.

As Hanafiah Man, one-time keADILan Youth executive secretary and chief editor of the party newspaper, said, “I don’t mind if we are all poor and suffering. But when we at the bottom suffer while those at the top live a life of luxury, then this hurts.”

Hanafiah and the acting youth leader (during the time Ezam Mohd Nor was in the Kajang Prison), Zahid Md Arip, took the party to task on this matter during the party’s annual general meeting in Sungai Petani. They took the floor to slam the leaders for not being sincere to those at the bottom who are struggling and sacrificing for the party. They pointed at the leaders assembled onstage and warned them that the party’s youth movement will not tolerate leaders who receive money in the name of the party but use it for personal purposes. If the money was collected in the name of the party and for party purposes, then the money should be filtered down to the ground to finance party activities.

Many donors were shocked when they learnt that the party was broke. Millions had been donated to the party, they said. How can the party be broke? The telephone bill went unpaid and the telephone line got cut numerous times. The water connection also got cut because of years of unpaid bills and for about two years those working in the party headquarters had to visit the public toilet in the car park to answer the call of nature. Suppliers’ bills were not paid and some even threatened to bankrupt the party if they did not receive their payments. No printers would take party jobs unless one of the leaders personally guaranteed the debt. Invariably, the guarantor would end up paying off the debt the party could not service.

Whenever the party president, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, was confronted with this and when it was pointed out that it is public knowledge that many had donated generous sums to the party, she replied that one must differentiate between ‘personal’ donations and party donations. No doubt some people had donated some money, but this was meant for the family and not for the party.

Eventually, Hanafiah, Zahid and ten other youth leaders got so exasperated they decided to resign from the party en bloc, as did the party information chief, Ruslan Kassim. Even publicly chiding the party leaders during the annual general assembly about the mismanagement of party funds did not seem to work. They wrote off the party entirely and called it a day. Of course, the official spin is that these are traitors who were bought over by Umno. But they -- and many others who shared their view but decided to still remain in the party nevertheless -- did not see it that way. If there was any betrayal, it was the party leaders who had betrayed the members in the way they mismanaged the money donated to the party.

One day, around August 2004, one of Anwar’s lawyers called me aside and asked me, “How much money has the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) received from donors?” Not one cent, I replied. Okay, Wan Azizah did donate RM1,000 at the launch of the FAC in August 2000 and Anwar’s brother gave RM2,000 once in the five years that the FAC was in operation. Another supporter donated a notebook computer to replace the one that was confiscated by the police in March 2001. But that was about it.

“But there are those who claim to be directors of the FAC who have received a lot of donations from all over the world. Don’t tell me they did not give you anything.”

“With God as my witness, not a cent,” I replied.

“What the hell!” the lawyer said. “They are using FAC’s name to collect money. If they are not passing you any, then you might as well just close the FAC. Why let them use the FAC to make money?”

“I will close it the day Anwar walks free and not a day earlier,” I told the lawyer.

“What if Anwar remains in jail 15 years? Are you going to keep going for 15 years and allow these people to use you to make money?”

“I suppose so,” I replied.

“You are so stupid. People are using you. They are making money while you are suffering.”

I in fact already knew this even before the lawyer informed me about it. Earlier, one of the PAS leaders told me he met one of the FAC directors in the UK. He was with a Malaysian millionaire who now lives there -- a man who became a millionaire during the time Anwar was in power. The PAS leader mentioned the name of the FAC ‘director’ and the Malaysian millionaire, both whom I knew.

The so-called FAC ‘director’ is a member of Anwar’s inner circle and the man who runs Anwar’s propaganda unit plus his personal website, anwaribrahim.com.

“What were they talking about?” I asked the PAS leader without hinting that the FAC director was in no way representing FAC in that meeting with the Malaysian millionaire. “About some funding for FAC,” said the PAS leader. “That was what I managed to pick up as they did not speak openly in front of me.”

So I knew even before Anwar’s lawyer informed me about it that ‘certain people’ were collecting funds in the name of FAC. And I even knew who they and the donors were.

One day, I received a phone call from the United States asking me to confirm whether it is true that keADILan would need a lot of money to be able to win the next general election (which was held in 2004). “Of course,” I replied, quite surprised at this sudden question. “That goes without saying. But who told you this?” I asked the American chap at the other end of the line.

The American then informed me he just had a meeting with four keADILan party leaders to discuss funding for the party to face the next election. And he told me who the four were.

I was not upset about the party soliciting election funds. But the man who phoned me was a FAC contact, not a party contact (and I never asked for or received one cent from him in all the time I knew him). So clearly they were using the FAC network to collect funds for the party and I was being kept in the dark. But my FAC contact in the US would not consider any funding unless I confirmed that the four were legitimate and not fakes. I informed the American that the four are actually members of Anwar’s inner circle (not the one who met the Malaysian millionaire in the UK) and therefore extremely legitimate.

I knew only one man could have introduced these four to our US contact. And this would be my fellow FAC director in Australia. I immediately phoned Australia and asked the chap there whether he knew about the four party leaders who were now in the US to negotiate funding for the party. “Four?” he replied. “I know about the three. Who is the fourth?” I ran through the names of the four but did not question him any further on what was going on. From his reaction it was apparent that he was the one who had arranged the meeting.

These two incidences were those that were personally brought to my attention. There were of course many more such cases which were related to me through third party sources. And most know who these people are -- both donors and recipients -- but no one wants to rock the boat by talking about them. Those who know and could no longer tolerate the shenanigans quietly left the party without revealing the real reason for their resignations. And the party lost many of its leaders over the years from 1999 till recently when Datin Saidatul Badru Said Keruak also resigned.

At the last public rally (ceramah) Anwar addressed in Sungai Buloh recently, he lambasted those he said who expect money or payment before they would do any work. If you are not prepared to sacrifice but want to be paid before you will work, then we might as well all just go home and forget everything and allow the present government to rule till doomsday, argued Anwar.

Anwar just does not get it. It is not that people want to be paid before they will work for the party. They are quite prepared to struggle and sacrifice, even spend their own money for the good of the cause. What they do not want is to be made suckers. They hear about the money flowing into the party leaders’ pockets and remaining there. This is what they are fighting against, corruption. And then they find their own leaders no better than those they wish to replace. Why bother to replace them then? Might as well, as Anwar says, let them rule forever.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s future lies in it getting sufficient funding. As it stands now, that would be most difficult. Many who once gave now know that the money has been mismanaged and they no longer want to be suckers. This is the huge crisis of credibility that Anwar and his party are facing. How Anwar is going to overcome this is not known yet at this stage. Anwar is heading international agencies whose job is to ensure transparency and good governance. Charity, as they say, starts at home. Back at home, in Anwar’s own party, there is a need for transparency and good governance. How does one preach honesty when one’s own honesty is being questioned?

As what one of the party leaders said, Mao had his Gang of Four who brought about his downfall. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has his Gang of Four as well, also known as the Four-Ks (Khairy, Kamaluddin, Kalimullah and Kak Endon, now deceased), who may also bring about his downfall. And Anwar too has his own Gang of Four. And it is this Gang of Four which is causing much unhappiness and an exodus from the party. Anwar will have to choose between his Gang of Four and the future of the party. As it stands now, the Gang of Four seems to be Anwar’s favoured lot. And this could mean sayonara for Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

In search of Islam

2006-04-16T22:36:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I am 55 going on 56, so, understandably, much water has passed under the bridge in my journey through life (and much water have I retained around my belly as well.... sigh....). Both my parents died when they were 10 years younger than me today. For all intents and purposes, I have outlived my parents by ten years and I can be regarded as living on borrowed or subsidy time; or injury time as they would say in football.

I admit the first half of my life was spent in jahil (ignorant) mode (and according to some bloggers I am still jahil). This is the word Muslims use, jahil, for those ignorant about Islam. It was only half my lifetime ago that I ‘discovered’ Islam and became what you could probably call a ‘born again’ Muslim. Most Malays are born Muslims. I, you could probably say, ‘converted’. But half my lifetime ago, I reached the crossroad in my journey through life and was somehow moved to choose between continuing in a straight line to nowhere, take a left turn, or take a right turn. I chose to turn right.

I never chose to become a Muslim mind you. It is not really my fault, if you know what I mean. It was just by ‘accident’ or coincidence that I happen to have a Muslim father. It did not matter one bit to me if my father had been Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist or whatever. To me, being born a Muslim was not my choice and I was not going to allow it to dictate my life or restrict me in any way. I did not care what others thought of me and I never succumbed to peer-pressure. If I wanted to drink beer, I would do so. Okay, I did fast during the month of Ramadan -- at least 90% of the time -- but breaking fast with a glass of beer was not something I considered odd. You could say I did what my heart told me to do, and that was that. And, as you know, the heart is not always guided by the head.

I never considered myself as rejecting Islam. I accepted the fact that I was Muslim and had no problems with that. My only Islamic ‘value’ though was that religion is between God and me and no one else’s business. So I drank beer, so what? I still uttered ‘Bismillah’ when I put the glass to my lips and ‘Alhamdulillah’ when I burped. And I was not hypocritical, which to me was, and still is, very important. Whatever I did, I did openly. I did not hide my sins and act pious in front of others, while in private I was actually a devil. I was bad, but I was honest in my badness.

Living life in the fast lane was certainly exciting, especially when you are in your teens and early 20s. But by my mid- to late-20s I started to yearn to learn more about the religion I had been born into but hardly knew or practiced. My interaction with Muslims during the earlier part of my life did not spur me to get closer to Islam but in fact made me want to distance myself from them and the religion they profess.

My first boss, the man I worked for when I first left school in the early 1970s, went through a process of ‘discovering’ Islam. And what I witnessed frightened me. He would walk around with a brandy bottle in his hand, then, one day, he suddenly woke up and became ultra-religious. He carried his furniture, television set, and so on, into the garden and burnt them. His neighbour had to phone the police.

It seems chairs, tables, spoons, forks, TV sets, etc., are Western creations. Prophet Muhammad never used all these. He sat cross-legged on the floor and ate with his hands. So anything the Prophet did not do and which are creations of the Western kafir (infidel) are to be shunned. I suppose if the police had not come to take him away he probably would have burnt his car as well and gone out to buy a camel or a horse.

This ‘example’ frightened me to hell (well, probably my beer would take me there as well). I could not comprehend how I could be a proper Muslim if this is what was meant by being a ‘proper’ Muslim.

It is not that I did not attend religious classes when I was a growing kid in the early 1960s. My father, just like all good Muslim fathers, arranged for an ustaz to come over to the house three times a week to teach me how to read the Quran plus the rudiments of Islam. That was about the time the Americans and Russians sent their astronauts to outer space and later did the first moon landing.

Bullshit, said the ustaz. They never even left earth. All this is a camera trick done on a Hollywood movie set meant to fool the world. He then quoted some Arabic verses to prove that only Prophet Muhammad can travel to outer space. I found this most disturbing and it left me with a very poor impression of my religion. Either the ustaz is unschooled, narrow-minded, or there is something wrong with Islam.

Then ‘pious’ Muslims told me we must not dress like the kafir; if not then we would become kafir. Suits and western attire are the dressing of the kafir and for Muslims to dress in that manner would make them non-Muslims. We must wear robes and turbans. Only then would we become true Muslims.

Muslims dressed in green or black robes, in particular those from the Al Arqam movement, would look away when they passed in front of our house. They would not look at us because we are ‘Westerners’ and therefore not true Muslims. They would also not look a woman in her face but would look down at the ground when talking to a woman not related to them in any way. I wondered: if I too wanted to be a true Muslim, would I also have to act this way?

Some time around the early 1990s, some Al Arqam members paid me a visit and invited me to join their movement. I followed them around for awhile and even spent a night at their settlements in Perlis and Sungai Penchala. I found them most interesting, very resourceful and industrious, and not at all narrow-minded like how I first envisaged 20 years earlier. Maybe the movement transformed and became more liberal over time, I am not sure, but I found I could relate to the Al Arqam followers when I actually got to know them better. My association with Al Arqam ended when many of its leaders suffered arrest under the Internal Security Act and the government banned the movement -- much to the relief of my wife because they were trying to convince me to take a second wife.

But there was something missing. I knew there was more to Islam but I could not quite place my finger on it. The Al Arqam chaps say they are right. The government says they are wrong. The PAS chaps say the Umno chaps are kafir. The Umno chaps say the PAS chaps are extremists. Jihad is a must in Islam and Muslims who do not perform jihad are not true Muslims. And so on and so forth. I sought advice from one of the Tok Guru. I wanted to find out which is the true Islam. There seems to be so many versions I just do not know any longer what is right and what is wrong.

Hijrah (migration) and jihad are certainly what Islam requires from us, replied the Tok Guru. Hijrah merely means you migrate from a state of ignorance. Hijrah also means you migrate from a life of sin. And jihad means you go into battle; you battle with yourself. It is an internal ‘war’. Basically, jihad is a war between you and temptation, your private fight against lust, greed, pride, vanity, and other ills of the mind, superiority complex included.

Hmm....get behind me devil. Islam sounds very much like Christianity, I remarked. Of course, replied the Tok Guru. Islam’s root is from Christianity as well as Judaism. All three are peoples of the book. Okay, I can understand that, but then why are we at war with the Jews and Christians? Because of ignorance, the Tok Guru enlightened me. And that is why we should seek knowledge, so that ignorance can be eliminated.

But aren’t those leading these wars between the different religions very learned people? They are certainly not ignorant about Islam. That is politics, not religion, came the reply. Politics is the aim but religion is the blame. It makes it easier to politic when done in the name of religion. It gives the ‘cause’ a noble image and no one would question your motives. But politics is about only one thing, the attainment of power. Sadly, in such a ‘cause’, there is only one ‘sacrifice’, religion. Religion is sacrificed for worldly gains, in this case for power. And that is why Islam warns us about false prophets, summed up the Tok Guru.

Then I met some Muslim leaders from the West -- Arabs, mind you, but US citizens and leaders of US Islamic movements -- and they opened my eyes even further. They ate beef burgers from McDonalds though the cow had not been slaughtered by Muslims. Malays do not normally do this, I told them. Yes, they replied, we know, we have lived in Malaysia before, but beef is halal so please enjoy your burger. Perfume or cologne is not najis (contaminated), they said, and can be used by Muslims though it has alcohol or spirit in it. Malays would not do this because alcohol is used to make liquor and liquor is haram, I reminded them. So what, they told me. Rice is used to make Sake, malt to make beer, and grapes to make wine. Does this mean rice, malt and grapes are haram?

Hush Puppies shoes made from pig skin are not haram (I thought they were) while leather seats made from pig skin are also not najis for Muslims to sit on. Not najis? But aren’t pigs haram? No, you can’t eat pork, but this does not mean you cannot sit on a pig skin chair or wear pig skin shoes. But Malays say otherwise, I told them. Yes, we know. But Malays are jahil, replied these people who are Arabs, have memorised the entire Quran, and know what every word means.

Wow! How confusing. So, what then is allowed and what is not? I am no longer sure. Malays say this cannot and that cannot. Then you learned people say all can, only pork and liquor cannot.

Islam, they replied, is a very simple religion. Islam does not want to burden its followers. But the practitioners of Islam make the religion complex and difficult. Malays will not pray unless they have ‘clean’ clothes and can find a ‘proper’ prayer hall or mosque. We pray anywhere as long as we cannot see or smell najis at the spot we are going to pray. The important thing is you must pray as soon as it is time to do so and not delay your prayers because you feel you do not have the right clothes or proper place to pray. Malays would rather miss their prayers if they cannot find a ‘proper’ prayer hall or they have reservations about their clothes.

The trouble with most Muslims, it was explained to me, is that they purposely put obstacles in their way and make it difficult to practice Islam. Islam is not like that at all. Those who misunderstand Islam make it so.

But then this is what I have learnt from the Malay ustaz, I explained. Ah, don’t learn from Malays, they said. Malays are not the best example of good Muslims. But Malays say that they are better Muslims than even the Arabs themselves, I tried explaining further. How can the Malays be better Muslims? They were clearly quite irritated by now at my persistence. Malays are Malays first and Muslims second, they argued. That is nationalism and nationalism is haram in Islam. Until Malays can stop being Malays and become just Muslims, they can never be proper Muslims. Just remember that, they told me.

Yes, I do still remember that. And I still see Ketuanan Melayu, Takkan Melayu hilang dari dunia, and Dasar Ekonomi Baru around till today. Yes, what these people told me years ago is still current. Malays are Malays, and not Muslims. Islam is a way of life, a deen. Malays don’t practice deen. They practice ketuanan, and Islam frowns upon this and rejects it as un-Islamic.

Look, they summed up -- they probably realised I was beginning to become very confused -- follow your heart. Of course, go and learn. Learn as much as you can. But God does not expect you to do more than what you are capable of or what you know. It is better that you know just 1% of Islam, but you fulfil 100% of what you know, rather than you are very learned and know everything but you fulfil only a small part of that knowledge.

Meaning, I asked. Meaning, those who will enter Hell first are those learned Muslims who fail to fulfil their Islamic obligations. You will still go to Hell of course, they laughed, but you will go last and your punishment is for not learning and acquiring knowledge which is mandatory in Islam.

Okay, I asked, what if I learn and what I learn contradicts what others say. Which teachings do I follow? You follow the path your heart guides you, they replied. If you are sincere, then God will open your heart. If you do things for appearances or just for public display, then you are a munafiq (hypocrite) and God will close your heart. You will certainly be led down the wrong path.

Look, they explained further, at the end of the day, when you die, you will have to answer to God. No one can save you in the hereafter. So you need to follow you heart and be sincere. That is what will save you, not what others tell you. Those others will be too busy saving their own necks they will have no time for you.

True, I replied, true. So how do we know which path is the right path then? The path that your conscience tells you is the correct path, came the reply. God gave you a brain right? And God meant for you to use this brain. God also gave you a heart. And He meant for you to use this as well. So acquire knowledge as much as you can. But your reasoning, conscience, sincerity, and all that, must be your guide.

Hmm, this is certainly going to be very difficult to do in Malaysia. The Malay version of Islam is very rigid. Well, I will just have to follow my heart and my conscience as what they said. But I am sure Malays are going to look at me funny.

The mark of a true reformist

2006-04-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are just so many reformists. Almost every country has at least one. Some are still living. Most died a long time ago. Some have been reduced to legends and we no longer know whether they really existed or were mere myths. Some brought about reforms in their lifetime. Some never lived to see the fruits of their labour. Most, however, never claimed to be reformists. This label was given to them by others. You are great not because you claim greatness. You are great because others say you are. History would eventually judge you.

True reformists fight not for their own ends. They fight for a cause and for the good of society and the nation. They struggled, suffered and sacrificed but they never saw themselves as doing so. They struggled, suffered and sacrificed not thinking they were doing so. They struggled, suffered and sacrificed because that was the natural thing to do. And they struggled, suffered and sacrificed with only one thing in mind; that they were doing so for the people and not for glory, rewards or recognition.

That is the mark of a true reformist.

Most reformists were not reformists in their lifetime. Reformists are what they became after they had left this world or went into quiet retirement. Some were offered an opportunity to abandon their struggle and end their suffering. But they refused the easy way out and continued their struggle and endured the sacrifice that comes with it.

Many could have opted for the walk to freedom. But they shunned freedom. They instead endured incarceration. Some faced death unflinching and steadfast in their commitment to their cause. Incarceration is a small sacrifice in the pursuit of one’s ideals. Death was accepted as ‘norm’ and a necessary price to pay for resistance and dissent. Come hell or high-water, the cause overrides, all else has to be taken in one’s stride.

That is the mark of a true reformist.

Reformists are just too many to name. Some are remembered. Many have disappeared from our minds. And some have gone unnoticed and un-chronicled in the history books. But all were men and women of substance, integrity and honour.

A true reformist does not seek power. A true reformist shuns power. A true reformist opposes those in power. A true reformist knows that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power is not what the true reformist strives for. A true reformist strives to check power and seeks an equitable balance between those in power and those they have power over.

That is the mark of a true reformist.

How does one recognise a reformist? What makes one a reformist? Who carries the mark of a true reformist? Examples are so many, both living and dead. Let us look at just three such personalities, those familiar to Malaysians and whom Malaysians can relate to -- Jose Rizal, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. These three would be the benchmark that can be applied to all reformists. Those who meet the standards of these three can qualify to be called reformists. These three are reformists who struggled, sacrificed and suffered for their people.

There are of course many, many more such reformists from Asia, Africa, Europe and the American continent -- even closer to home like Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam, Burma, etc.-- who can qualify for membership to the Reformists’ Hall of Fame. We need not go back centuries. We just have to look at the last 100 years to find people who stood firm on their principles and refused to compromise what they fought for, even if it meant extended and continued incarceration, or even death.

Anwar Ibrahim too imagines himself as being amongst this league of freedom fighters and reformists. Would this be over-amplifying and exaggerating Anwar’s standing? Would this demean what the others did in their lifetime? Does Anwar deserve membership to this club? Has he, as they say, earned his stripes?

Reformasi in Malaysia was borrowed from Indonesia. But this does not in any way make Malaysia’s reform movement inferior. Imitation, as they say, is the best form of flattery. But Jose Rizal chose death and gave the freedom movement a martyr, which allowed it to flourish and gain strength. Gandhi went back to prison each time he was released, sometimes just hours after his release, and spent a good part of his life behind bars. And Mandela rejected many offers of freedom if the price of freedom meant he had to abandon his struggle. Anwar, however, fought for freedom every day of his incarceration and abandoned the struggle the instant he saw freedom. This separates Anwar from the rest of the reformists.

Anwar is yet to attain the status of a reformist. Anwar is just a politician, and the objective of politicians is the attainment of power. Anwar was released from prison on 2 September 2004 after six years of incarceration. Three days later he left the country and has been touring the world ever since, living and flying first class and enjoying the status of an ambassador and the pomp of royalty. In the meantime, the Reformasi movement back in Malaysia has floundered and been left for dead.

Anwar is due back next month. He was first due back last year. Will he again postpone his homecoming?

Anwar fears Reformasi. Anwar does not want to be associated with Reformasi. Anwar is distancing himself from Reformasi. The word ‘reformasi’ has not been heard from Anwar’s lips for some time now. Anwar worries that Reformasi carries a negative image and this may rub off onto him. Anwar does not want any negative perception to become an obstacle in his pursuit to become Prime Minister. So Anwar kills Reformasi.

But will Anwar again ‘adopt’ Reformasi when realisation sets in that the seat of Prime Minister is not his for the taking? Will he again shout ‘reformasi’ from the top of Damansara Hill? Let us look at what made reformists out of Jose Rizal, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and see whether Anwar can walk in their shoes.

Jose Rizal: A Biographical Sketch
By Teofiloh H. Montemayor

JOSE RIZAL, the national hero of the Philippines and pride of the Malayan race, was born on June 19, 1861, in the town of Calamba, Laguna. He was the seventh child in a family of 11 children (2 boys and 9 girls). Both his parents were educated and belonged to distinguished families.

His father, Francisco Mercado Rizal, an industrious farmer whom Rizal called "a model of fathers", came from Biñan, Laguna; while his mother, Teodora Alonzo y Quintos, a highly cultured and accomplished woman whom Rizal called "loving and prudent mother", was born in Meisic, Sta. Cruz, Manila. At the age of 3, he learned the alphabet from his mother; at 5, while learning to read and write, he already showed inclinations to be an artist. He astounded his family and relatives by his pencil drawings and sketches and by his mouldings of clay. At the age 8, he wrote a Tagalog poem, "Sa Aking Mga Kabata," the theme of which revolves on the love of one’s language.

In 1877, at the age of 16, he obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree with an average of "excellent" from the Ateneo Municipal de Manila. In the same year, he enrolled in Philosophy and Letters at the University of Santo Tomas, while at the same time took courses leading to the degree of surveyor and expert assessor at the Ateneo. He finished the latter course on March 21, 1877, and passed the Surveyor’s examination on May 21, 1878; but because of his age, 17, he was not granted license to practice the profession until December 30, 1881. In 1878, he enrolled in medicine at the University of Santo Tomas but had to stop in his studies when he felt that the Filipino students were being discriminated upon by their Dominican tutors. On May 3, 1882, he sailed for Spain where he continued his studies at the Universidad Central de Madrid. On June 21, 1884, at the age of 23, he was conferred the degree of Licentiate in Medicine and on June 19,1885, at the age of 24, he finished his course in Philosophy and Letters with a grade of "excellent".

Having travelled extensively in Europe, America and Asia, he mastered 22 languages. These include Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, English, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Malayan, Portuguese, Russian, Sanskrit, Spanish, Tagalog, and other native dialects. A versatile genius, he was an architect, artists, businessman, cartoonist, educator, economist, ethnologist, scientific farmer, historian, inventor, journalist, linguist, musician, mythologist, nationalist, naturalist, novelist, ophthalmic surgeon, poet, propagandist, psychologist, scientist, sculptor, sociologist, and theologian.

He was an expert swordsman and a good shot. In the hope of securing political and social reforms for his country and at the same time educate his countrymen, Rizal, the greatest apostle of Filipino nationalism, published, while in Europe, several works with highly nationalistic and revolutionary tendencies. In March 1887, his daring book, NOLI ME TANGERE, a satirical novel exposing the arrogance and despotism of the Spanish clergy, was published in Berlin; in 1890 he reprinted in Paris, Morga’s SUCCESSOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS with his annotations to prove that the Filipinos had a civilization worthy to be proud of even long before the Spaniards set foot on Philippine soil; on September 18, 1891, EL FILIBUSTERISMO, his second novel and a sequel to the NOLI and more revolutionary and tragic than the latter, was printed in Ghent.

Because of his fearless exposures of the injustices committed by the civil and clerical officials, Rizal provoked the animosity of those in power. This led himself, his relatives and countrymen into trouble with the Spanish officials of the country. As a consequence, he and those who had contacts with him, were shadowed; the authorities were not only finding faults but even fabricating charges to pin him down. Thus, he was imprisoned in Fort Santiago from July 6, 1892, to July 15, 1892, on a charge that anti-friar pamphlets were found in the luggage of his sister Lucia who arrive with him from Hong Kong. While a political exile in Dapitan, he engaged in agriculture, fishing and business; he maintained and operated a hospital; he conducted classes - taught his pupils the English and Spanish languages, the arts.

The sciences, vocational courses including agriculture, surveying, sculpturing, and painting, as well as the art of self defense; he did some researches and collected specimens; he entered into correspondence with renowned men of letters and sciences abroad; and with the help of his pupils, he constructed water dam and a relief map of Mindanao - both considered remarkable engineering feats. His sincerity and friendliness won for him the trust and confidence of even those assigned to guard him; his good manners and warm personality were found irresistible by women of all races with whom he had personal contacts; his intelligence and humility gained for him the respect and admiration of prominent men of other nations; while his undaunted courage and determination to uplift the welfare of his people were feared by his enemies.

When the Philippine Revolution started on August 26, 1896, his enemies lost no time in pressing him down. They were able to enlist witnesses that linked him with the revolt and these were never allowed to be confronted by him. Thus, from November 3, 1986, to the date of his execution, he was again committed to Fort Santiago. In his prison cell, he wrote an untitled poem, now known as "Ultimo Adios" which is considered a masterpiece and a living document expressing not only the hero’s great love of country but also that of all Filipinos.

After a mock trial, he was convicted of rebellion, sedition and of forming an illegal association. In the cold morning of December 30, 1896, Rizal, a man whose 35 years of life had been packed with varied activities which proved that the Filipino has capacity to equal if not excel even those who treat him as a slave, was shot at Bagumbayan Field.

Mahatma Gandhi while in South Africa

10 January 1908: Arrested for failing to register or to leave Transvaal and sentenced to two months imprisonment. On 30th January, following a compromise, he was released.

7 October 1908: While returning from Natal, as he was unable to show his registration certificate (or identity card if in Malaysia), which he had burnt, he was imprisonment with hard labour.

25 February 1909: Arrested and sentenced to three months imprisonment at Transvaal for not producing his registration certificate.

6 November 1913: Arrested after the ‘great march’ at Palm Ford, then released on bail on the 7th.

8 November 1913: Again arrested and released on bail.

9 November 1913: Arrested and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. At Volkhurst was sentenced a further three months but unexpectedly released on 18 December 1913.

Mahatma Gandhi back in India

16 April 1917: While touring Champaran was served with a notice to leave the district but was not arrested.

10 April 1919: Arrested at Palwal on his way to Amritsar and was taken back to Bombay where he was released on 11 April.

10 March 1922: Arrested near Sabarmati Ashram for writing three articles in Young India and sentenced to six years imprisonment. Released unconditionally from Yervada prison on 5 February 1924 after an operation on 12 January 1924

5 May 1930: Arrested at Karadi near Dandi for violating the Salt Law and imprisoned without trial and released unconditionally on 26 January 1931.

4 January 1932: Arrested in Bombay and taken to Yervada Jail and released on 8 May 1933 after he launched a fast.

1 August 1933: Arrested early morning at Bombay following his March towards Rass and released on 4 August at 9am but was asked to leave Yervada limits by 9.30am. He did not comply, so at 9.50am he was arrested again and sentenced to one year imprisonment. He launched a fast on 16th August and was released unconditionally on 23rd August due to serious health conditions.

9 August 1942: Arrested under Defense of India Rules in the early hours of the morning following the ‘Quit India’ resolution and was incarcerated in Agakhan Palace Jail. He was released unconditionally at 8am on 6 May 1944.

India gained independence soon after that on 15 August 1947.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela

Not long after his return to South Africa, Mandela was arrested and charged with illegal exit from the country and incitement to strike.

Since he considered the prosecution a trial of the aspirations of the African people, Mandela decided to conduct his own defence. He applied for the recusal of the magistrate on the ground that in such a prosecution a judiciary controlled entirely by whites was an interested party and therefore could not be impartial, and on the ground that he owed no duty to obey the laws of a white parliament, in which he was not represented.

Mandela prefaced this challenge with the affirmation: I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.

This is the closing remark of Nelson Mandela's 10,691-word, 20-page statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the Rivonia Trial Pretoria Supreme Court on 20 April 1964 called ‘I am Prepared to Die’:

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.

But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. While serving his sentence he was charged, in the Rivonia Trial, with sabotage. Mandela’s statements in court during these trials are classics in the history of the resistance to apartheid, and they have been an inspiration to all who have opposed it.

Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment and started his prison years in the notorious Robben Island Prison, a maximum security prison on a small island 7 kilometres off the coast near Cape Town. In April 1984, he was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town and in December 1988 he was moved the Victor Verster Prison near Paarl from where he was eventually released.

While in prison, Mandela flatly rejected offers made by his jailers for remission of sentence in exchange for accepting the bantustan policy by recognising the independence of the Transkei and agreeing to settle there. Again, in the 1980s, Mandela rejected an offer of release on condition that he renounces violence. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts. Only free men can negotiate, he replied.

Released on 11 February 1990, Mandela immediately plunged wholeheartedly into his life’s work, striving to attain the goals he and others had set out almost four decades earlier. In 1991, at the first national conference of the ANC held inside South Africa after being banned for decades, Nelson Mandela was elected President of the ANC while his lifelong friend and colleague, Oliver Tambo, became the organisation's National Chairperson.

Nelson Mandela has never wavered in his devotion to democracy, equality and learning. Despite terrible provocation, he has never answered racism with racism. His life has been an inspiration, in South Africa and throughout the world, to all who are oppressed and deprived, and to all who are opposed to oppression and deprivation.

In a life that symbolises the triumph of the human spirit over man’s inhumanity to man, Nelson Mandela accepted the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of all South Africans who suffered and sacrificed so much to bring peace to the land.

In prison, Mandela never compromised his political principles and was always a source of strength for the other prisoners. During the 1970s, he refused the offer of a remission of sentence if he recognised Transkei and settled there. In the 1980s, he again rejected PW Botha's offer of freedom if he renounced his struggle.

Apartheid legislation was gradually removed from the books and the first multi-racial elections were held in 1994. The ANC won by an overwhelming majority and has been in power ever since.

You reap what you sow

2006-04-10T04:56:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hi Raja,

My uncle has posed this question and I have tried to seek your past write-ups on this which I cannot seem to find.

1] What damage have Osama and his extremist followers done this century to the world's perception of the great man and the religion he established?

2] Why are his true followers (amongst whom I am privileged to know the best there is of humankind, including my closest nephews and nieces) so silent about the abuse perpetrated against their great religion by those who falsely claim to be its adherents and indeed its champions?

Dear Azlan Shah,

I will try, to the best of my ability, to reply to your two questions above. First, your second question. Most Muslims -- and I mean Malays when I say this because this does not necessarily apply to non-Malays -- do not like to raise what they view as confrontational questions. And your questions are certainly confrontational in various ways. Malays would rather use proverbs than call a spade a spade. I suppose this can be taken as the good traits of Malays and should not be perceived as negative. Being direct or confrontational is considered insolent (biadap) in Malay culture. Remaining silent on the other hand is considered good manners.

Now, before I go on, let us reflect on what one-time Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam said 20 years or so ago. He said it is time for Malays to become kurang ajar (rude, uncultured or insolent). And what did he mean by this? He meant that no longer must we remain silent just to be polite but should instead speak out and question those elder or senior to us (meaning the leaders).

If you were to attend the Friday congregational prayers (solat Jumaat), you will notice that the imam tells us in his sermon (kutbah) that we are not supposed to dispute Islamic teachings. Further to that, we are not supposed to argue (what we would call debating but they call argue) with the religious teacher (ustaz) or doubt what he says. The ustaz is supposed to be learned, speaks Arabic, has memorised most, if not all, the contents of the Quran, plus knows what it means when he reads it. The ustaz is also ‘licensed’ (bertauliah) to teach religion and even people like the PAS President, Ustaz Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, though he is a university graduate from the Middle East, is not licensed to preach religion in some states -- such as in Selangor -- and he can get arrested if he does.

So, if even a man like Haji Hadi cannot preach religion unless licensed to do so, can you imagine those lesser equipped than him, like me? We can go to jail if we were to teach religion. So religion is reduced to a personal matter between one and God, and everyone else will have to manage on their own, or go look for a licensed religious teacher. Malaysia is probably the only country in the world where one requires a licence before one can preach religion. And those who preach without a licence will be classified as deviants and can be taken to task for this. And those who oppose the government will find it hard getting a licence.

I have attempted in the past to set the record straight by posting articles on Islam but many of Malaysia Today’s Malay readers whacked me and told me to shut up. It is not that they are more knowledgeable than me. It is just that they feel I am most unqualified to talk about Islam and I should therefore leave this to the experts. I do not pretend to be an expert. I just go by the Islamic teaching that one must never accept anything that cannot be verified. And since I am not able to verify certain things, and these matters have raised doubts in my mind, I question them. This, my belief tells me, is what Muslims must do. But Malays are quick to label such people as murtad (apostates). So most would clam up rather than be called a murtad.

Even the Prime Minister is not exempted from this. Remember when Dr Mahathir Mohamad commented on Prophet Muhammad’s beard? Malays accused him of mocking the Prophet and said he should be put to death. Maybe Dr Mahathir was a bit out of order. He was in fact trying to say that just because one sports a beard does not mean one is pious. No doubt Prophet Muhammad too sported a beard and Islam says it is optional (sunat) for Muslims to follow the Prophet’s example. But the Prophet sported a beard, said Mahathir, because there were no Gillette shaving blades in his time.

Dr Mahathir had a good argument here but unfortunately he used the wrong anecdote. Of course they had shaving blades in the Prophet’s time, though not the Gillette brand. Arabs had been shaving their heads during the annual pilgrimage to the Kaabah long before Islam. So they must have had shaving blades even before the Prophet’s time. If not how could they have shaved their heads? What Dr Mahathir should have said is that external appearances like beards do not mean one is pious. After all, pirates of days gone by all had beards as well. Does this mean they were pious? Many did not even believe in God.

Anyway, I am not out to defend Dr Mahathir. What I am trying to demonstrate here is that even the Prime Minister is not spared contempt when he makes a wrong statement with regards to Islam, notwithstanding he meant no malice but spoke in all sincerity. This makes the common man like me wary. At the end of the day, we just throw up our arms in despair and say, “What the hell. Do what you want. I don’t care a damn.” The whole concept of amar maaruf nahi munkar is defeated. We just can’t be bothered anymore. It is safer to ignore all issues related to Islam rather than show concern and then get whacked by others who condemn you as murtad, jahil, and more. “Go learn first before talking,” is the common response you will receive. Just because your views differ, they assume you are jahil and do not know what you are talking about. They cannot accept that probably it is because you have gone deep into religion is the reason you have different views from them.

So that, Azlan, in a nutshell, is why most would rather, as you said, remain silent. And I have now also taken that stand as well. I don’t care anymore. Let Muslims do what they want. I am not bothered. I am, after all, as they say, not qualified to talk about Islam.

On your first question, I will not directly address the issue of Osama but speak generally. What is being done by Osama and, as you said, his extremist followers is the result of the US attacks on Muslim countries. Of course, the retaliation has done much damage to the image of Islam which is now viewed as militant and extreme. But then we choose to blame this on the West, the enemy of Islam, who, we say, is out to destroy Islam. This, we argue, has been written in the Quran. The kafir (infidel) will not rest until we abandon the true path and follow their misguided path, argue the religious experts.

Okay, I will not even attempt to dispute this argument. You know how sensitive it can be when we disagree with the ulamaks (religious scholars). But don’t we, especially Malays, always say that all the good comes from God while all the bad is our own doing? Countless times have I heard speeches where the speaker sums up by minta maaf (apologising) in the event he said something wrong or his words slighted anyone. The good, say the speakers, comes from God and the bad from our own weaknesses.

If this is what we believe, how come when anything bad befalls Islam we blame others for it and not accept it as our own weakness? For example, we are angry with the US and Bush for invading Iraq. Would anyone have been able to invade Iraq if the Muslim nations had remained united? Would they have been able to invade Iraq if Iraq had not given them an excuse to (like the more than one million Muslims killed by Muslims)? Can the US invade Iraq if none of the Muslim countries allow the US to use their countries as military bases -- plus fly over their air space and use their territorial waters? What I am arguing here is, the US managed to invade Iraq because the other Muslim countries allowed them to. In fact, it was not only allowed, the other Muslim countries wanted the US to invade Iraq. Then we argue that all Muslims are brothers and Muslims must not side with non-Muslims against Muslims. Which one is it now? It cannot be both. It can only be one or the other. The truth is; many Muslims see the US as their ally instead of regarding their fellow Muslims as brothers. So why are we upset with the US?

I always say that it is intrinsic (sifat semula jadi) in the fox to eat chickens. Why get angry with the fox when it does? We should be angry with those who brought the fox into the chicken run (reban ayam). In this case, the US is the fox and Iraq the chicken. So, who brought the fox into Iraq if not the other Muslim countries -- or at least allowed the fox to trot past their territory on the way to the reban ayam?

One important point to note is that Muslims always do things in the name of Islam. So, when they do something wrong, then Islam gets the bad name. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho, Mao, and many, many more are probably as bad as or worse than Saddam. But did they kill millions of their own people in the name of Christianity or whatever religion they subscribe to? Cruelty (kezaliman) recognises no religion. Bad people come from all religions and races. But only Muslims commit cruelty in the name of God or Prophet Muhammad. Sure, one thousand years ago, Christians too killed in the name of Jesus. But that was so long ago and has not happened since the last couple of centuries. But Muslims till today are still doing this and they label it as jihad. Then Muslims point out that jihad is an obligation in Islam and all Muslims must perform jihad. When jihad is interpreted as killing, especially by non-Muslims and those who do not understand Islam, what do you expect? Islam equals jihad equals killings. This is what people are led to believe. So how do we counter this perception when it is still going on?

One last thing Azlan, Muslims, in particular Malays, carry this superior and holier than thou attitude and this upsets many. For example, we say Muslim or non-Muslim and Malay or non-Malay. Do the Chinese say that Malays are non-Chinese? Or do the Christians say that Muslims are non-Christians? We use Muslims and Malays as the ‘accepted norm’ or benchmark and all those who are not Malay or Muslim become non-Malay or non-Muslim. Considering that Judaism is the first Abrahamic religion, which even Islam agrees, should therefore not all Christians and Muslims be non-Jews? But which Muslim would agree to this? It is Muslim first and all others last. And all others are non-Muslims (or non-Malays in the case of race).

I really don’t know whether I have answered your questions. I suppose not, but can you see that trying to be honest with your views is not tolerated in Islam and even I, how direct I normally am, find it very hard. Well, I am over trying to reform the mentality of the Malays and Muslims. This mental revolution cannot happen in my lifetime and I have accepted the fact that Malays and Muslims do not tolerate criticism. For example, Muslims like to draw the line between ‘them’ and ‘us’, as if they would like to isolate themselves or live separately from those who are not Muslims (I am trying to avoid the use of the word ‘non-Muslim’ here). We come out with Islamic banking, Islamic hospital, Islamic insurance, Islamic food, and so on. Do the Christians have Christian banking, Christian hospital, Christian insurance or Christian food? Or do the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., for the matter? The Jews no doubt have kosher food, but then this is just like halal food or vegetarian food. To the Muslims, Muslims are ‘us’, and everyone else ‘them’, and ‘us’ and ‘them’ can never be ‘fellow mankind’. This is why Muslims are isolated, because they choose to isolate themselves and not because others isolate them.

As what Malays always say, I apologise to anyone who may have been slighted by what I said above. The good comes from God and the bad from my own weaknesses, not from the kafir, the Americans, the Jews, or enemies of Islam.

There’s no future in the past

2006-04-08T11:26:00.001-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Parti Keadilan Rakyat, or keADILan for short, celebrated its anniversary a few days ago. It was seven years old on 4th April 2006. Conspicuously absent from the birthday celebration was the party’s adviser, Anwar Ibrahim. Actually there was no real celebration to shout about other than a simple cake cutting ceremony and a discussion on the Ninth Malaysia Plan organised the following day in Petaling Jaya, the brainchild of Abdul Rahman Othman, the party’s Treasurer and Chairman of the Economic and Finance Bureau. If not for that, keADILan’s birthday would have gone unnoticed and unmissed. The pathetic 'crowd' of 60, some who rudely walked out halfway through the event, was a sad sight indeed. Where are the thousands who graced the party's birthdays in days gone by? Even Azmin Ali and Ezam Mohd Nor were absent, an apparent boycott because the session was organised by Rahman, their nemesis.

This is yet another question mark with regards to Anwar’s commitment to the future of the party. His 19 months absence from Malaysia, but for the occasional jaunt home, is in itself unsettling many who rejoiced when Anwar was released on 2 September 2004. They thought, now, at last, keADILan, with Anwar at the helm, would take the country by storm. It was not a storm. It was not even a lull before the storm. It was certainly not the eye of the storm which would be calm inside but fierce outside. It was more like a storm in a teacup. And does this therefore not reflect what the party is, much ado about nothing?

To be fair to Anwar though, he cannot hold any party post other than the unofficial advisory role, a position that does not appear in the party’s constitution or in the records of the Registrar of Societies. This is because Anwar is barred from holding office for at least five years from the day he completed serving his six-year jail sentence on the corruption conviction, or unless he gets a pardon. And the five years will be up only on 14 April 2008; what the Reformasi Movement calls ‘Black 14’. (Anwar completed his sentence on 14 April 2003 after a two-year remission on the sentence). So it is not actually his fault he cannot play an active role in the party. Or is it?

Anwar refuses to apply for a pardon because he does not recognise his conviction and, as far as he is concerned, applying for a pardon would tantamount to endorsing this conviction. He wants one of course, but he wants it to be offered to him without asking for it. Well, this is at least what those who are heading the effort to obtain this pardon tell us; people like Johari Abdul. But does the system work this way? And who is this man who can grant Anwar his pardon?

This matter has already been fully covered in the previous episode of The Corridors of Power so we need not repeat the arguments. Suffice to say we are talking about a technicality here. Anwar certainly knows the technicalities involved yet he won’t work around it. He is standing firm and refuses to budge. “I will not apply for it. If others want to apply for it on my behalf then this is up to them. I have nothing to do with this.”

Yeah, sure, and this means it is not going to happen. So does he want a pardon or not?

Okay, let us look at this whole thing from another perspective. Say Anwar applies for a pardon and he gets it (while acknowledging the fact that this is no admission of guilt or in any way endorsing his conviction). What would he have to do then? Then Anwar has to ‘oust’ his wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and take over the leadership of the party. Then what? Then he would have to contest the next general election while Dr Wan Azizah, if she still wants to contest the election, would have to look for a new seat. But what post would Dr Wan Azizah hold in the party now that she is no longer the president?

Based on this scenario, say Anwar loses the election -- or he wins with an extremely small majority, much smaller than in the days he contested the seat on an Umno ticket -- what would happen to his political career? Anwar has performed well thus far because he has always contested the election on an Umno ticket. No one knows yet how better or how worse he will perform as an opposition candidate. The fact that the opposition candidates contesting the state seats in his constituency did badly the last election, plus Dr Wan Azizah herself won the parliamentary seat by the skin of her nose, shows that all is not well in Permatang Pauh. And you can bet Umno will throw everything it has at Permatang Pauh to ensure Anwar loses.

Secondly, what if Anwar does not really want to make his career in the opposition but actually wants to return to Umno? Once he contests the election as an opposition candidate, then Umno’s doors will be closed to him forever. We must remember that he did not leave Umno but was thrown out, and so far he has never contested against Umno in any election. This therefore does not disqualify him from returning to Umno come 15 April 2008, or once he gets a pardon. An adviser does not count as this is an unofficial post and there is really no such thing as an adviser in keADILan’s party constitution anyway.

No doubt Anwar has openly declared so many times he does not intend to return to Umno. But then he also openly declared so many times he did not intend to take on Ghafar Baba for the Umno deputy presidency. But he did and his excuse was that this was the wish of the Umno members and he has to respect their wishes. Well, if the Umno members now wish for him to return to Umno would he not also have to ‘respect their wishes’? And let’s face it, Anwar wants to become the Prime Minister and the route to the PM’s office is through Umno, not through keADILan.

Anwar is beginning to suffer a crisis of credibility. His credibility is being questioned by those who were once his staunchest of supporters and who bravely faced jail in the struggle to free him from the Sungai Buloh Prison. Of course, the support for Anwar while he was in jail was based purely on sympathy. Many who supported him knew he is not really a saint and is as tainted as those he accuses of corruption, cronyism and nepotism. But they were prepared to forgive him for his transgressions because of the manner the powers-that-be threw him into jail and beat him up. No doubt he has sinned, but he has paid for this sin in full just by the shoddy treatment he received. Anwar has paid his debt to society as far as they were concerned.

In the days when Anwar was languishing in prison, Dr Wan Azizah would go round the country to meet the people and deliver talks. She would relate sad stories about how Anwar misses the children and how their son was plagued with nightmares and would call out Anwar’s name in his sleep. The sob stories would drive the women to tears. We would see them sobbing and wiping away their tears with the sleeves of their baju kurung. Very moving indeed! This would probably have been a wonderful script for a Hindustani movie. But this was still not enough to help her party win the general election though.

When it was pointed out that she should instead talk about how her party can do a better job at running this country, she replied that this is what the women wanted to hear, a sort of Malaysian soap opera. So she feels this is way to touch the hearts of the women. Well, she was proven wrong. Not only was her party almost wiped out, but the solitary seat that it won, her own seat, was touch and go -- and if not for the fact that the candidate Umno fielded was viewed as ‘iman duit’, she too would have hit the dirt.

In short, she did not win her Permatang Pauh seat. Umno in fact lost it. And they lost it because they had fielded an ex-imam of the National Mosque who was perceived as corrupted and a man who takes bribes. True or not is one thing, but politics is about perception, and the perception is he is crooked and a slime-ball. And I am sure the next time around Umno will not make this same mistake again.

Yes, politics is about perception. And what perception has Anwar created?

Amongst one of the many interviews Anwar gave soon after his release in September 2004 was on BBC’s Hardtalk, and they tore him to pieces. Anwar kept talking about Mahathir and the perception he gave was that he still carried a grudge, though he says he has forgiven but not forgotten.

Until today, Anwar still talks about 1998, the era when he was removed from office and thrown into jail. But that was 1998. That was when Malaysia faced the Asian Financial Crisis. What people want to know is how he is going to handle 2008, ten years down the road. That will be when Malaysia will be hit by Globalisation and the FTAs with Japan and the US. The Asian Crisis was a different type of crisis. It was but a cough and common cold. Globalisation and the FTAs are another thing altogether. That will be a heart attack.

Anwar cannot keep talking about what he would have done in 1998 had he been allowed to, but prevented from doing so by Dr Mahathir. He cannot keep harping on the fact that he and Mahathir disagreed on how the 1998 crisis should be handled. He cannot keep reminding us about how this disagreement on how the 1998 crisis should be handled resulted in his fallout with the Prime Minister. That was 1998. That was another era. What will he do come 2008? Anwar has not told us that yet. Everyone is an expert on hindsight. It is foresight that makes a leader. And Dr Mahathir is beginning to more and more appear like a leader with foresight (thanks to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), something Anwar is yet to prove he has.

Back in 1999, renowned economists told me that Anwar was actually wrong in the way he wanted to handle the Asian Crisis. These economists actually like Anwar and dislike Mahathir. Yet they feel Anwar was wrong and Mahathir right. To be honest, I was quite taken aback when they told me this as I had always harboured the reverse opinion. They probably sensed the troubled look on my face so, to pacify me, they said, “To be fair to Anwar though, he changed his stand after we explained it to him.”

Today, it is apparent that if Malaysia had opted for IMF’s solution on how to handle the Asian Crisis the country would have been in worse trouble. Even western experts think so. Many who dislike Mahathir for his human rights record agree, in spite of his shortcomings and idiosyncrasies, he did the right thing.

This is something Anwar is going to have a problem explaining. Those who are critical of Mahathir say he was right. Those who look up to Anwar say he was wrong. It would be better Anwar stop trying to convince us that he was right and Mahathir wrong and instead come clean and admit that maybe he made an error of judgement. He would then be perceived as truly repented and reformed.

Mahathir does not hide the fact he got rid of Anwar because of the latter’s plot to oust the former. No doubt Mahathir accuses Anwar of sodomy, and continues to do so until today, and says that he “cannot accept a gay Prime Minister”. Nevertheless, the plot against Mahathir that Anwar led is still the overriding factor in the decision to get rid of him.

Anwar says that the sodomy thing was just a Red Herring, and many, even his detractors, think so as well. Many of Anwar’s enemies do not for one instant think that the sodomy charge is legitimate. But very few, Anwar’s friends included, do not believe that Anwar plotted against Mahathir. So, deny the sodomy thing all you want, but don’t try to say that it was differences about whether to accept IMF’s plan, and not the plot against Mahathir, was the real reason for your removal.

Not many are happy that Anwar was sent to jail for sodomy, Umno people included. But they do believe Anwar dug his own grave by trying to oust Mahathir. They only wish Mahathir had not used the sodomy thing but something else instead to get rid of Anwar. But get rid of Anwar, Mahathir must, as far as they are concerned. Only the manner should have been refined.

Anwar’s fall from grace draws little sympathy. Only the manner it was done does. And when Anwar uses the excuse that his difference of opinion with Mahathir on how the Asian Crisis should be handled was the catalyst in his downfall, many turn away in disgust. They all know that it was just a power struggle, plain and simple, and Anwar lost. So what’s all this crap about Mahathir was corrupted and wanted to bail out his cronies and family, and that Anwar opposed this? Did not many of Anwar’s cronies become multi-millionaires as well when he was in power? And everyone knows who they are. And they are still millionaires today because they abandoned Anwar to save their arses the minute he got into trouble (that is gratitude for you).

It is now becoming widely accepted that Anwar’s decision to accept the IMF formula would have been drastic for this country. And these same people feel Mahathir probably saved this country from disaster. With this becoming the new perception, Anwar has to change his tune. No longer does his old tune sound good.

As I said, this is the new perception, and perceptions are everything in politics. I can choose to be an Anwar apologist. But my job is not to cover Anwar’s rear. My job is to help Anwar conduct a reality check. And the reality is, Anwar is beginning to lose credibility. And the more he talks about 1998 instead of 2008, the more his credibility suffers.

Many questions are being raised. But Malaysians, unlike the Mat Sallehs from BBC’s Hardtalk, are too polite to ask them to his face. But they are being asked nevertheless, only that they are being asked behind his back. And that is worse. If they are asked to his face, then Anwar will not only have an opportunity to reply, but he will be able to gauge the sentiments of his admirers and detractors alike.

Everyone knows what happened in 1998. Everyone knows why Mahathir sacked Anwar. Everyone knows Anwar played with fire and got burnt. And everyone knows the real story behind the episode notwithstanding what both Mahathir and Anwar might say about the matter. What people want to know, how would Anwar be able to do a better job than Abdullah (not a better job than Mahathir whom Anwar keeps talking about) at running this country?

The country is in dire straits. Blaming everything on Mahathir does not cut it when you were part of the team running this country and was Mahathir’s second-in-command. The more you dig up the past, the more people point out that you were very much part of this past and must share the blame. It was not Mahathir who screwed up the country, it was the Mahathir-Anwar team that did. So forget about the past. The more you dig up the past, the more you are seen as part of the problem rather than the solution. Let’s talk about the future. Let’s talk about 2008, not 1998. What are your solutions? Or do you not have any?

Power perceived, power wielded

2006-04-03T07:06:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I remember reading -- it was many years ago, I think in The Star -- about a foreign dignitary wanting to meet the First Prime Minister and Bapa Merdeka (Father of Independence), Tunku Abdul Rahman. The Tunku, however, would not meet him. Later, when this foreign dignitary met the Agong (King), he commented that His Highness should sack this most insolent Prime Minister. The Agong replied that Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy and in this country it is the Prime Minister who removes the Rulers, and not the other way around. Where else but in Malaysia would you find a King who rules for only five years and a Prime Minister who rules for as long as he wants.

At the height of Malaysia’s Constitution Crisis, a foreign publication -- not sure whether it was Asiaweek, Time or Newsweek -- ran a story which said there are about 20 monarchies left in the world, and half of them are in Malaysia. This may not be quite accurate -- there may be more than 20 -- but Malaysia certainly has ten of them. However, just like in Britain, and unlike Brunei or Saudi Arabia, Malaysia’s Rulers have no executive powers as such. They are, at best, ceremonial heads of state. This was summed up by Dr Mahathir Mohamad twenty years ago when he was asked whether he intends to abolish the institution of the monarchy and turn Malaysia into a republic. Mahathir cheekily replied, if the monarchy is abolished, who is going to dish out awards and titles on birthdays? That, in a nutshell, is the role of the Rulers as aptly put by Mahathir, though tongue-in-cheek of course.

Mahathir was the architect of the Constitutional Crisis of the mid-1980s, part one as well as part two. But the then Prime Minister was smart. He stayed in the background and allowed Anwar -- and Ghafar Baba, his Deputy from 1986 to 1993 -- to lead the charge. And Anwar did lead the charge, like Custer ahead of the Seventh Calvary. And we all know what happened to Custer. And that’s what’s happening to Anwar today.

The Rulers and members of their immediate family were quite pissed. And that is putting it mildly. They viewed Anwar and Ghafar as anti-Royalist Republicans. “What do you expect?” they quipped. “Penang and Melaka (Anwar’s and Ghafar’s home states) do not have Sultans. So definitely they are anti-Sultan.”

Anwar, in fact, did not hide his contempt for the Rulers, not that sometimes they do not deserve this contempt. He would openly express despair at the conduct of the Rulers and I honestly don’t blame him for that. They were after all misbehaving and beginning to become an embarrassment to the Malays. Some were even implicated in serious crimes that would have attracted capital punishment had they been committed by lesser mortals. More than once Anwar was heard saying that Malaysia would be better off without any Sultans. And you can bet there would be a Good Samaritan somewhere who would carry this to the ears of the Rulers -- so I was told by one of those who have the ears of the Rulers.

The Rulers of course were fully aware of Anwar’s sentiments and they were most suspicious of him. They dreaded the day Anwar would finally take over from Mahathir and the first task at hand would be to abolish the monarchy and turn Malaysia into a republic. It was not without reason the Rulers celebrated when Mahathir removed Anwar and sent him into retirement so close to becoming Malaysia’s Fifth Prime Minister. Gone, at last, was the danger hanging over the heads of the Rulers.

I suppose Anwar thought there was nothing that could stop him from becoming the next Prime Minister, after he removes a small obstacle called Ghafar, which he skilfully did. If only he knew that one day he would need the goodwill of the Rulers, he would probably have been kinder to them. Anyway, that is all water under the bridge now.

When I became active in the Reformasi Movement soon after Anwar was thrown into Sungai Buloh Prison, I was summoned by the elders of the Selangor Royal Family and given a dressing down. How can I support Anwar when he is an enemy of royalty? Don’t I know Anwar is behind the move to get rid of the Rulers? Why get involved? We should in fact encourage this power struggle within Umno. With Mahathir and Anwar at each other’s throats, they would be too busy to worry about the Rulers. This Mahathir-Anwar conflict is a blessing in disguise. It means Umno would be too weak to make a move on the Rulers. And the man most likely to head the Abolish the Monarchy Campaign is now out of power and in prison. What better scenario for the royal family?

Some senior members of my family were informed that I was about to be detained under the Internal Security Act in April 2001. But they were not to tell me about it as they were told in the strictest of confidence. Anyway, it would be better that I was ‘taken out of circulation’. I was after all fighting for a misguided cause, the freedom of Anwar Ibrahim, an enemy of the royal family. Maybe my stint under the Internal Security Act would cool me down and help me see the error of my ways. Hopefully I could be ‘persuaded’ to abandon my cause. They were quite disappointed when on my release I became worse than before my detention. Instead of cooling down, I became hotter. And, again, I was summoned before the elders for my second dressing down.

As much as they may outrank me, I argued my case and explained why I cannot abandon my ‘struggle’. But why, why suffer and sacrifice for a man who has no mercy for the royal family. Would it not be better that Anwar be allowed to languish in the Sungai Buloh Prison where he would pose no danger to the royal family? I was prepared to face excommunication and even ‘exile’ if that is what it would have to come to. I refused to back down and told them that it is because we are aloof from the rakyat (citizens) that one day the monarchy may be abolished. If we refuse to fight alongside the rakyat, why should the rakyat have any love for the monarchy? Reformasi is a peoples’ movement. The royal family should demonstrate that is it with the rakyat if it wants the rakyat to be with the monarchy.

But you have been arrested twice so far. And you will be arrested again if you continue this way. Is it worth it? Yes, it is, I retorted to the stunned elders of my family. And before they could regain their composure, I gave them my upper cut. One day, when your sons or grandsons sit on the throne, someone should remind them that the throne is still there for them to sit on because some members of the royal family stood alongside the rakyat in the struggle for reformation. I will never get to sit on the throne. It is your heirs that will. And I want to ensure it will still be there for them, not for me.

There was a moment of silence while what I just said sank in. The debate ended. They had nothing more to say. “Just be careful. Try to stay out of jail.” What more could they say other than that?

Well, that is just one royal family. There are still eight more; nine if we include the King. And how do the others feel? According to palace ‘pillow talk’, five out of ten Rulers are in favour of granting Anwar a pardon. I am of course not at liberty to mention which ones as they may make police reports and, again, I will find myself facing sedition charges plus my computer confiscated. Two are sitting on the fence. If the government wants to give Anwar a pardon they will agree, but they will not enthusiastically push for it. So of course the last three are opposed to it. Even amongst those who are in favour of it, not all are because of their love for Anwar but more to spite Mahathir whom they view as the enemy. And even those who are genuinely in favour of it face resistance from their second-in-line who are not. So, in a sense, the various Royal Families are divided on the matter.

Very complicating isn’t it?

Anyway, these are the people Anwar is depending on for his pardon. And if Anwar does not get his pardon, and if the next general election is called before 14 April 2008, which most likely it would, then he would not be eligible to contest.

One crucial point to note here though, whether the Rulers think Anwar is a great guy or not is not important. The Rulers do not really have the power to decide whether Anwar should be granted a pardon. This power lies in the hands of the Pardons Board. And I was told Umno, MCA and MIC have representatives sitting in the Board. And the man heading the Board is the Attorney-General, the man who was behind the move to send Anwar to jail. Would this same man who Anwar accuses of rigging the trial want to see him pardoned?

But even the Pardons Board does not have the power to grant Anwar a pardon. Many times has the Pardons Board, or in the case of the Kamunting Detention Centre the Advisory Board, recommended the release of Internal Security Act detainees, but the Home Affairs Minister turned down the recommendation. That’s right. It is the Home Affairs Minister who has the final say on whether one can be granted a pardon. And, if he feels Anwar should be granted a pardon, the recommendation would then be sent to the Rulers. Then, and only then, will the Rulers endorse the recommendation.

In short, the Rulers have no power to grant Anwar a pardon if the Prime Minister does not send the papers to them, and they also have no power to reject the pardon if one has been recommended. The Rulers, for all intents and purposes, is a rubber stamp Monarchy.

So that settles the matter of Anwar’s pardon. Does Abdullah Ahmad Badawi want to give him one? If yes, he will get one, and if no, he will not get one. Okay, let me rephrase that question, would Abdullah be brave enough, or stupid enough, to rub Mahathir the wrong way by granting Anwar a pardon, knowing full well what Mahathir feels about Anwar?

I think not. So perish the thought of Anwar contesting the next general election, which I am betting would be held before 14 April 2008 -- unless Abdullah is suicidal and calls for the election after 14 April 2008 instead.

So, what will Anwar do come May this year? Yes, what? And this is what we shall talk about in the next episode of THE CORRIDORS OF POWER, so stay tuned.

MV Agusta: RM500 million down the drain

2006-04-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My wife and I visited the Daimler Benz factory in Stuttgart, Germany, soon after we took up the Mercedes Benz franchise for the State of Terengganu in the early 1980s. Heading the delegation of Mercedes dealers from all over Malaysia was Jaafar Ali, fondly known as Jeff, brother-in-law to the previous Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

I knew Jeff from my Rotary Club days of the 1970s. He was certainly a ‘riot’ and the life-and-soul of the party, if you know what I mean. You would always know when Jeff walked into the room. He had this affect on people, and if the party was dull, rest assured Jeff would pick it up in no time at all. I only have fond memories of Jeff. If Malaysia had just 1% of people like Jeff, this country would definitely be a much nicer place to live. Jeff is in fact the exact opposite of his brother, one-time Bank Negara Governor, Ismail Ali. It is mind boggling they had the same parents. But then the Ali family is a large family and I suppose in any large family there are bound to be at least one ‘black sheep’, the joker in the pack. The rest of the family seemed to be very serious people -- like Dr Siti Hasmah, Zaleha, Ismail, Aziz, and General Hashim (have I missed out anyone?).

The Daimler Benz visit was most memorable indeed, especially the museum where Mussolini’s and Hitler’s cars were on display. More interesting though was the visit to the R&D department. There, for the first time, we saw the 190E being tested. My wife fell in love with this ‘baby’ Mercedes straight away. It was love at first sight. I knew she would never forgive me if I did not buy it for her, so I placed my order on the spot with instructions to Jeff that they make sure we received the first 190E in Malaysia. At least I could enter this into the Malaysian Book of Records -- my wife being the owner of the first 190E in Malaysia with registration number TH88 (don’t know whether we did get the first unit though).

The car did not cost that much really, if not I would not have been so impulsive as to place an order then and there. I can’t remember what it cost in DM, but by the time it landed in Malaysia, and with 200% import duty included, it cost only about RM85,000 on-the-road. Less the tax, therefore, it was much cheaper than a Kancil today. Yes, that’s right; it is the tax that kills the price of the car.

But imported cars needed an Approved Permit (AP); they still do today. So I shopped around for an AP holder and arranged to ‘buy’ one from a chap we had been dealing with for some time. He wanted to charge me RM30,000 for the AP. I was terribly unhappy with this. That was more than the ex-factory price of the car. I reminded the chap that I had given him many AP customers -- our buyers who wanted to import Mercedes Benzes from Germany but did not have APs. I know he normally charges RM30,000 for an AP, but then this is for my personal use, so can’t he reduce the price of the AP? As a gesture of goodwill, he reduced it to RM20,000. I was hoping he would say RM10,000. But the 190E was on the way so I had no choice but to agree to RM20,000.

Anyway, back to the visit to Daimler Benz’s R&D department. We watched the 190E being banged about. We saw another unit being tested on a most punishing track that would smash a Proton in five minutes. If the 190E could withstand all this, then it must certainly be a good car.

How long is the car put through this punishment?

Until something breaks, they replied. Then it is back to the drawing board to redesign the part that broke.

Then?

Then it is tested again until something else breaks. Then they go through the whole process again.

Wow! How long has this been going on?

Well, from design, to prototype, to now, testing stage, nine years.

Nine years? You mean this car was designed nine years ago and it is still at testing stage? When will I get the 190E I ordered?

Maybe in another year or so, they replied.

But isn’t this very expensive? I mean, to spend nine years, maybe ten years by the time it hits the market; before the car is ready to be sold?

Well, they replied, we make sure our cars last at least one generation. In fact, Mercedes Benzes made three generations ago are still on the road. Try to find a Japanese car ten years old still on the road. If there are, they would be in a sorry state.

True, very true, and Mercedes Benzes are just a bit more expensive compared to Japanese cars. Of course, once you take into consideration the rate of exchange and import duties (and AP cost), the cost spirals. But the ex-factory price in DM is not that exorbitant. Okay, last question, considering the amount of R&D put into this car, how much would you have to spend before you actually sell the first unit?

DM1 billion, they replied sheepishly.

What! DM1 billion? How would you recover your R&D cost? How can you sell the 190E so cheap and still cover your R&D cost?

Well, we have to sell a lot of cars. The R&D cost has to be spread over hundreds of thousands of units, maybe millions. The cost of the car is not actually in the production cost. This is only a small portion of the cost. The cost is in the R&D. That’s why Japanese cars are cheaper. This is because they don’t spend too much on R&D. They do reverse-engineering (ciplak in Malaysian lingo). But Japanese cars can’t last as long as German cars.

True, very true. Hmmm....now it becomes clearer.

And with this backdrop in mind, let us now talk about the current ‘war’ between former Proton chief executive officer, Tengku Tan Sri Mahaleel Tengku Ariff, and the present Proton management over the MV Agusta issue.

Why did Proton pay that much money to buy a ‘sick’ Italian motorcycle company? Well, it is not that much really, only about one-third of what Daimler Benz paid to develop the 190E more than twenty years ago. And that was twenty years ago mind you. Taking today’s value of money into consideration, the cost to buy MV Agusta would be less than 10% the cost to develop the 190E.

Yes, this is the reason behind the MV Agusta purchase -- which Malaysians were not told in Proton’s statement on the issue last week. Dr Mahathir Mohamad wanted to develop a volkswagen, a peoples’ car, and he wanted it to cost less than RM10,000 a unit so that it would be affordable to poor people. Well, Hitler too wanted his volkswagen and he called it.... hmm.... Volkswagen. Okay, Hitler also accused his number two of being a homosexual and blamed the Jews for Germany’s economic problems, but this is not what we want to talk about today (just wanted to be naughty by slipping that in).

But how to develop a RM10,000 car? The R&D cost per car alone would come to more than that. By the time the production and other costs are included, you could not get the car on the road for under RM30,000. So, not only must they get an almost zero R&D cost, but they must also obtain the technology to manufacture the car at almost the cost of a motorcycle. When a cub chai costs RM6,000, then two cub chais glued together would still cost more than RM10,000. Not an easy task is it?

Yes, that’s right. Proton needed to develop a four-wheel vehicle cheaper than two two-wheel vehicles joined together. Who in the world has this kind of technology? And how to do it without having to pay RM1 billion in R&D cost? Simple, go buy a company that already has this technology and obtain all the technology from them. And is there such a company? Yes, there is, and this company is in dire straits so they want to sell it off (if not why would they want to sell it?). And this company is called MV Agusta.

Yeap, MV Agusta, the company now the centre of controversy, the company that would have made possible a RM10,000 car, the company that the new Proton management sold off for just RM4 after pumping RM500 million into it.

Sigh....there goes RM500 million of our tax money. Sigh again....there goes our RM10,000 car, Malaysia’s volkswagen. And yet another sigh....for RM10,000 I can’t even buy a 250cc motorcycle.

Georgetown, we have a problem

2006-03-27T12:20:00.000-08:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar Ibrahim was released from jail 18 months ago and since then has been based at Georgetown University in Washington DC. In May, Anwar, now a professor, will be coming home for good to play an active role in Malaysian politics. Some say, watch May 2006, Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Barisan Alternatif are going to rock this country. Okay, I am all for partying, so let’s rock. But does the opposition have what it takes? More importantly, has Anwar finally got his act together? We kick off the first episode of THE CORRIDORS OF POWER by talking about the dying opposition coalition and whether Anwar will be able restore it to what it was during the heydays of 1999.

Tanah: BN hanya terima pakai polisi kerajaan PAS

Oleh Khairul Azlam Mohmad
Harakah (23 March 2006)

Pesuruhjaya PAS Terengganu, Dato’ Mustafa Ali berkata Kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BN) negeri hanya menerima pakai dan meneruskan polisi yang dibuat oleh Kerajaan PAS sebelum ini berhubung permohonan tanah.

Katanya, keputusan itu menunjukkan kerajaan BN negeri sekarang tidak mempunyai `benda baru’ dalam menyelesaikan masalah tanah rakyat.

Beliau menyatakan demikian ketika diminta mengulas kenyataan Menteri Besar, Dato’ Seri Idris Jusoh mengenai keputusan kerajaan negeri yang membuka semula permohonan tanah kepada individu yang meneroka tanah haram sejak 16 tahun lalu.

Idris ketika bercakap kepada pemberita selepas mesyuarat Exco semalam berkata, pemohon mestilah anak negeri dan terdiri daripada peneroka tanah sebelum 1990.

Tambahnya, permohonan itu dijangka dapat menyelesaikan beberapa isu tanah haram dan dapat mengatasi keperluan tanah untuk penduduk.

"Keputusan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa adalah menjadi polisi umum kerajaan BN membekukan permohonan tanah sejak dulu dan sehinggalah kenyataan ini dibuat,” ujar Mustafa ketika ditemui di Pejabat Perhubungan PAS negeri, di sini, hari ini.

Katanya, permohonan bagi mereka yang meneroka tanah haram selama 16 tahun ke atas merupakan satu-satunya polisi yang dibuat oleh PAS sewaktu mengambil alih pemerintahan.

Tambahnya lagi, ada tiga bentuk permohonan tanah yang dibuat oleh kerajaan BA pimpinan PAS, antaranya menyelesaikan masalah tanah pemastautin tanpa hak atau tanah haram yang diteroka dari tahun 1990 dan sebelumnya.

“Kerajaan BN hanya menerima pakai polisi itu dengan tambah enam tahun, sekarang 2006, menerima pakai keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh PAS yang telahpun menyelesaikan beratus-ratus tanah pemastautin tanpa hak yang tidak diselesaikan oleh kerajaan BN sebelum PAS perintah,” ujarnya. (Cut …..)

That was the report by Harakah, the official organ of the Islamic Party of Malaysia or PAS. For those who do not read or understand Bahasa Malaysia, I will summarise what the report said. It is about how the present Barisan Nasional government of Terengganu State has adopted policies that PAS implemented when it was running the state from 1999 to 2004.

What is wrong with this report? First of all, the heading says ‘policies of the PAS government’. Now, note the parts bolded and marked in red in the body of the report. The first marked item says ‘the PAS government’, the next says ‘done by PAS’, the third is ‘BA government led by PAS’, next is again ‘done by PAS’, and finally, ‘before PAS came to power’.

We assume Harakah correctly and accurately reported what Mustafa Ali said and did not misquote him. Out of those five highlighted items, only the third -- ‘BA government led by PAS’ -- would be considered acceptable to the non-PAS partner in the opposition coalition. As for the other four items, they would certainly strike a raw nerve. And the heading tells it all. It tells us what is in the minds of the PAS leaders.

PAS must not indulge in the misconception that it was it that ruled Terengganu from 1999 to 2004. It was Barisan Alterantif (BA), the opposition coalition -- just like it is the Barisan Nasional and not Umno government that is in power today. No doubt PAS monopolised all the seats. But that was only because it was stingy with the seats and it took all the good seats and left its other coalition partners, in this instance Parti Keadilan Nasional (keADILan), with hardly any seats. And even those few seats keADILan was given to contest were kamikaze seats which PAS knew it could not win anyway.

There were numerous complaints from keADILan leaders in Terengganu and Kelantan that PAS was rather pompous in the many sessions of seat negotiations they held with the leaders from the Islamic party. This complaint was echoed by keADILan people in other states as well, such as in Selangor and Kedah. In some disputed seats which were reluctantly given to keADILan, PAS fielded ‘independent’ candidates and it became three-corner fights. As much as PAS may deny that these independent candidates, though PAS members, were sanctioned by the party, one cannot deny the fact these candidates had their party’s surat watikah (appointment letters). If they were renegades, how could they be in possession of proper credentials? And no disciplinary action was ever taken against these renegades though they breached party discipline. Umno would have sacked them. But then I suppose Umno is an undemocratic party.

A slip of the tongue is the fault of the mind. If the above Harakah report is a slip of the tongue, then it can only be faulted on the mind. PAS always had the impression that it and not BA was running Terengganu. And this scenario still exists in Kelantan today. PAS did (and still does in Kelantan) what it wants and not what BA wants. It even interferes in keADILan's choice of candidates (remember when Dr Syed Husin Ali wanted to contest in Kota Bharu, a keADILan seat?) which should actually be an internal party matter and no business of others. And that is why the Democratic Action Party (DAP) left BA when PAS unilaterally made its move to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. DAP left the opposition coalition not so much because it is opposed to Islamic laws, though it is of course, but for the fact that PAS made a decision to implement Islamic laws without consultation with or approval from its other partners in BA. If PAS no longer recognises the existence of the coalition, then there might as well not be one as far as DAP was concerned.

Anwar Ibrahim has been out of jail almost two years now. Okay, not quite two years yet, but come September this year it will be. In two months time, Anwar is scheduled to come home for good. Okay, not quite for good, he will have to spend 10 days or so overseas every month -- but he will be based in Kuala Lumpur instead of Georgetown. What can we expect come May?

In his occasional trips home thus far, Anwar has had dialogues and meetings with the business community, media, educationists, and many other sectors to discuss various issues of national importance. In the questions and answers session, one question that attracted a lot of excitement is whether Anwar intends to contest the next general election. He confirmed he does but he doubted he would be allowed to. They might call for an early election to deny him his right to contest the election, said Anwar.

Anwar must realise, he lost his right to contest the general election the day he lost his appeal against his conviction for corruption and six-year jail sentence. He will only regain this right on 14 April 2008, after he crosses his five-year bar. If they call for a general election before 14 April 2008, then he would not be eligible to contest the election. After that date he is home free.

Will Abdullah Ahmad Badawi determine the date of the general election just for the sake of denying one man the right to contest the election? He will be most stupid if he does. Though many now believe he is a bit slow in the brain, he cannot be that slow. There are many more important factors to consider in determining when the election should be called. If one were to study the many opinion polls conducted over the last few years, it is clear that economic issues are the most important factor in the minds of the voters and an issue which would influence the outcome of any election. If the economy is in the pits, then expect the ruling party to perform badly. If the economy is booming, even a government with the worst human rights record will still retain power. And in Malaysia this is even more so because money is more important than all other issues as far as Malaysians are concerned.

2008 is not a good date to have an election and we all know why, so I need not elaborate on the reasons. Suffice to say, the New Economic Policy (NEP) and Globalisation are just not compatible and when we open up our market to the world, the NEP would be similar to building a sand castle on the beach to protect your house against a twenty foot Tsunami. If I were Abdullah, I would create this illusion of a boom economy, say sometime early next year, and get the elections over and done with long before Christmas of 2007. I would do so not to deny Anwar his right to contest the election, but because this would be the most sensible thing to do.

So let us work on the premise that the next general election will be before 2008. If Anwar wants to contest the election then he would have to first be granted a pardon. But he refuses to ask for one. So how will he get it? You can’t have it both ways. If you want it, you have to ask for it. If you are too proud to beg for it, then forget about getting your pardon.

Anwar’s excuse for not asking for a pardon is that he is not guilty of corruption and was fixed up in a sham trial. If he applies for a pardon then this would be an admission of guilt. So he refuses to ask for one -- this tantamount to him not ‘endorsing’ his conviction. This line of thought would apply if he was just thinking of himself. But if he really believes this nation has gone to the dogs and that he must do something to save Malaysia, then he has to put his pride aside and do what is best for the nation and not what is good for his ego. He cannot be selfish and just think of himself. He must make sacrifices for the sake of the nation. Anwar projects himself as a Muslim leader. His platform, in fact, has always been Islam, even up to today. Would not a true Muslim leader put sacrifice first and service to society above everything else? Islam is about sacrifices. If there is no sacrifice, there is no jihad. And if there is no jihad, then there is no Islam.

Anyway, whether Anwar contests a seat in the general election or not is a minor issue. It would not change the fortunes of the opposition one bit if Anwar is allowed to contest his old Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat now held by his wife and keADILan president, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail -- especially if that is the solitary seat the party holds, like now. It is what Anwar will do to restore the opposition coalition to the days of 1999 which is the more important issue.

The opposition coalition is in shambles. And we cannot blame PAS entirely for this. As much as we may feel PAS has become arrogant and the Harakah report mentioned above lies testimony to this, keADILan and DAP too are equally guilty of this crime. The Chinese leaders in keADILan are curt and abrasive towards the Chinese leaders in DAP, who are equally uncompromising. It is no secret that the younger Chinese leaders in keADILan, such as Tian Chua the Information Chief, are, as Lim Kit Siang says, kurang ajar (insolent) towards the veteran DAP leaders.

It is being touted that Anwar is going to be this unifying factor for the opposition. It is being bandied about that Anwar is the one man who can bring the opposition back together again. The Malays in PAS are at loggerheads with the Malays in keADILan. The Chinese in keADILan are at loggerheads with the Chinese in DAP. The Islamists are at loggerheads with the secularists. The Young Turks are at loggerheads with the Old Guard. DAP has internal conflicts. PAS has internal conflicts. And keADILan has internal conflicts. In short, the opposition is fragmented into a dozen pieces. How can Anwar weld everything back into one solid piece when all the king's horses and all the king's men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again?

Yes, that is the question we want to ask today. What are Anwar's plans? How is he going to unite the opposition? Will PAS drop its Islamic State agenda? Will DAP rejoin BA? More importantly, will BA be more than just PAS, DAP and keADILan? And who are these new partners of BA?

In the episodes to come, we will look at the other aspects of the opposition, in particular what Anwar plans to do and whether he knows what he must do. But THE CORRIDORS OF POWER is not just about Anwar or the opposition. We will look at the entire spectrum of the Malaysian power game. We will look at those who walk through the corridors of power. We will look at those who hope to one day walk through the corridors of power. And Anwar is not the only one who harbours this aspiration.

Taking the Malay out of the kampong

2006-03-27T06:40:00.000-08:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You can take the Malay out of the kampong, but you can’t take the kampong out of the Malay, at least not that easily. Malays are very attached to their roots. Even if they were born in the big city they would still treasure their roots, in this case it could be their parents’ or grand parents’ place of birth.

There is nothing wrong in being sentimental about your roots, and neither does it make you a country bumpkin. The Americans too treasure their roots. There was in fact a ‘roots revolution’ three decades ago in 1976 when Alex Haley, an African American writer, published his best-seller book, Roots, which was subsequently made into a twelve-episode hit miniseries the following year. I still remember the trials and tribulations of Kunta Kinte, the ‘hero’ of the story, which attracted one of the largest dramatic television viewers in American history.

I spent my most impressionable years, age seven to thirteen, in the kampong (after which I was packed off to the Malay College Kuala Kangsar). This was when our family lived in Bukit Kuda, Kelang. Invariably, I grew up in kampong surroundings where I picked up many ‘values’ and beliefs that come with a kampong environment.

Looking back now, I can see how naïve and misguided we were in our beliefs. Many were steeped in superstition, most were prejudices, and all were the result of what the elders taught us, passed down through the generations by word of mouth. British writers and historians have addressed this issue of Malay customs and beliefs at great length and it is certainly not complimentary to the Malays at all. We would of course not expect our colonial masters to look up to us. But then, though we cannot deny that the British, being our colonial masters, would look down on the Malays -- as all colonial masters would on the subjects they have subjugated -- we also cannot dismiss totally what they wrote.

One of our childhood beliefs was that fireflies are souls of dead Chinese wandering about. We would catch these fireflies and place them in bottles. A bottle-full of fireflies would light up the night and could be used as torch-lights in the days when Eveready was not yet available. But we were warned not to bring these bottles into our bedroom or else it would become haunted if the dead souls of these Chinese were to escape.

During the month of Ramadan, even we kids would fast though it was not compulsory for those below the age of puberty. We fasted not so much to train ourselves for when we reached the age when fasting would be mandatory -- which the elders would encourage us to do to -- but so that we could sit and break fast with the seniors, a feast not usually seen in ‘normal’ months and certainly something no kid would want to miss. Of course, sometimes we cheated. We would secretly eat, away from the prying eyes of the elders, and feign hunger by sleeping the whole afternoon. The younger the kid, the more VIP treatment he or she would get come break fast time, much to the envy of the older kids who knew we were faking it.

One of the cardinal rules of fasting, the older kids would teach us, is that we must not swallow our saliva. To do so would nullify our fasting, so we would constantly spit all day long until our throats became so dry. But we must not spit indiscriminately. If we did, and if a non-Muslim were to step over (langkah) our spit, our fast would batal (nullify). So, whenever we wanted to spit, which was all the time, we would look for a drain where there was running water to ensure that our spit got washed away and there would be no danger of an Indian or Chinese langkah our spit.

Hindu temples were something very frightening to us kids. The various patung (statues) of the Gods were actually devils, we were warned. Hindus, we were told, are devil worshipers. So, if we ajuk (made fun of or mimic) the statues, we would die and our faces would become just like that statues. Horror stories were related how one unfortunate soul who made fun of such statues became sick, his face transformed into one of those statues, and he died. To ensure we did not suffer this same fate, we would always turn our face away from a Hindu temple if we were ever forced to walk pass one.

Chinese cemeteries are another thing we were told to be very careful of. Muslim cemeteries are okay. In some places in the East Coast, houses are actually built on top of graves. Though not very common, it would not be odd, until today, to see a wooden house on stilts with graves beneath it. There is no danger though. Your house would not become haunted. But be wary of Chinese graves. Just crossing a Chinese cemetery is enough for you to become possessed by the spirits and you would get sick and die. We took this warning very seriously.

These are but some of our many ‘teachings’. There are certainly more but I can’t remember them all. Anyway, this is not the issue. What I want to demonstrate here is that Malay kids in the kampong were groomed from a very early and impressionable age to believe in all sorts of hogwash that eventually cultivated deep-rooted prejudices against all those who are non-Malay. But the objective of these ‘teachings’ was not so much to make Malay kids despise or fear non-Malays. They were to ensure that kids behaved themselves and would not stray too far from home.

But not all ‘teachings’ were racial in nature. For example, we were told that unmarried people should not eat the necks of chickens lest our head would senget (lop to one side) when we bersanding (marriage ceremony where the bride and groom sit on the pelamin or stage). Also, we should not play outside when dusk arrives, especially if we hear the azan or call for prayer. When the azan sounds, all the devils would run helter-skelter and in their panic to run for cover may accidentally bump into us and we would get sick and die. Undoubtedly, this ‘teaching’ was aimed at ensuring kids stayed indoors at night and not go wandering into the dark forest surrounding the kampong, where all the devils resided.

Nevertheless, though the intention may not have been to turn Malay kids into bigots, the fact that non-Malays, or their religions, are used as the object of fear, this would invariably inculcate anti-non-Malay and anti-non-Islam values. Like it or not, this would be the end result.

Malays, then, were also very confused about what represented religion and what represented culture; and what were old wives' tales and what was fact. Of course today it is not that bad as Malays have become wiser compared to the old days. But some prejudices still remain. Nevertheless, Malays are not the only bigoted lot. I used to have many Indian and Chinese friends in my schooldays and I had to put up with a lot crap from them as well. For instance, my Chinese friend would always tell me, “Mo tiu Malayan”. This can be directly translated to ‘no fuck the Malays’, which means ‘to hell with the Malays’. I would just grin and bear it. Well, what could I say to that? To our Indian friend, the Chinese friend would say, “If you see an Indian and a snake, kill the Indian first.” He too would just smile.

Being kids -- whether Malay, Chinese or Indian -- we would just laugh it all off and not take it to heart. But you cannot run away from the fact that it would leave you with a feeling that maybe the Chinese and Indians are not really friends to the Malays after all. When I visited one of my Chinese friend’s home, his father took out some pork from the fridge and asked me whether I wanted to taste some. “This is pork,” he said. “You want to try it?”

I told my friend’s father that Muslims can’t eat pork. “Why?” he asked. “Hindus don’t eat beef because the cow is their God. Is the pig your God?” I was at a loss as to how to respond and I could detect the embarrassment on my friend's face. But then Asian kids are taught to never go against their parents, so he just sat there and wished the floor would open up and swallow him.

Prejudices and intolerances are planted in our hearts at that most impressionable age. Once we reach our teens, whatever we have been taught to believe will be carried to our graves. If kids grow up to become bigots, it is because the parents or elders teach them to be so. I was more fortunate. I had a Welsh mother who thought all Malay ‘values’ were ridiculous. She did not believe in charms and bomohs (witch doctors). She resented it when my father’s Malay relatives said she had ‘masuk Melayu’ (become Malay), which means she had converted to Islam. “I am Welsh,” said my proud mother who resented even being called ‘English’. Yes, the Welsh are very nationalistic, just like the Irish and Scots.

I suppose you could say my mother ‘poisoned’ my mind to reject all Malay customs and traditions as hogwash. This is quite unfortunate because I am sure there are some good values I could have picked up. My mother stayed British right to the very end and it upset my father’s relatives quite a bit. For example, if they dropped by without an appointment during dinnertime, they would be asked to sit in the living room while our family enjoyed our dinner. ‘Proper’ Malays would have invited the visitors to join them for dinner even if there was not enough food and though they had dropped by uninvited.

I suppose I am what I am today because of my mother’s didikan (nurturing). Your father is not always there except for a few hours during dinnertime, and even then not every night. So the upbringing one receives is usually from one's mother. Many say I am a strange animal. Well, what do you expect from a Bugis-Welsh half-breed who is torn between being an ‘Anak Raja Melayu’ and a 'Mat Salleh'? One minute I am an elite Malay Raja and the next a Welsh nationalist. Would this not fry the brain of any sane person?

Actually, if you look at the recent poll conducted by Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research, things have not changed much since I was a growing kid 50 years ago. Then too we harboured the belief that Malays are lazy, Chinese are greedy and Indians can’t be trusted. How far have we come in 50 years in eliminating our prejudices? Not far I’m afraid. Oh, one thing that has changed though, I no longer spit when I’m fasting. I suppose there is some progress after all.

I love him, I love him not

2006-03-20T07:40:00.000-08:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When Tun Razak died in England and Hussein Onn replaced him as Malaysia’s Third Prime Minister in 1976, one-time PAS Menteri Besar of Terengganu Daud Samad and I debated as to who would become the new Deputy Prime Minister. Daud Samad, fondly known as Pak Su Daud, rooted for Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Ghafar Baba. I, however, rooted for Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Pak Su Daud did not think my forecast was correct. He felt strongly that Hussein Onn, Bapa Perpaduan (Father of Unity), would certainly choose either Tengku Razaleigh or Ghafar, the two true Malay nationalists and ‘real’ Malays. Mahathir was not ‘true’ Malay but a Mamak, plus he was a traitor to Umno, having been sacked from the party in 1969 after which he worked with PAS for about three years in trying to undermine the Tunku’s government.

In fact, the Tunku was about to arrest Mahathir under the Internal Security Act but was saved by the Member of Parliament for Rawang then, Tengku Abdullah, one-time Chairman of MBF and the man who spearheaded the effort to turn the Kuala Lumpur Central Market into what it is today, Pasar Seni or Cultural Market, in the footsteps of Covent Garden in London. Tengku Abdullah and Mahathir were buddies and it was the effort of this prince from the Negeri Sembilan Royal Family that kept Mahathir out of jail.

Mamak or no Mamak, he could have been a thoroughbred Indian for all I cared, but I felt Mahathir was what this country needed. This was a man who had vision, who dared challenge authority and go against the establishment, and he was not a product of Britain or a British ‘running dog’, like the Tunku, Tun Razak or Hussein Onn. Mahathir was a loose cannon and I just love loose cannons. More importantly, a successful politician must be Machiavellian and go by the maxim that the ends justify the means. If people need to be sacrificed, then they have to be sacrificed for the good of the bigger cause.

Well, I was only 26 years old in 1976, 30 years younger than I am today, so I definitely had different values then that I have today. In fact, I did not even become a 'proper' Muslim until the following year when I became neighbours to Harun Jusoh and Mustapha Ali, two PAS Terengganu warlords, and acquired a better understanding of Islam. So matlamat menghalalkan cara (the objective makes the method kosher) as far as I was concerned.

I first met Mahathir in the flesh soon after he became Prime Minister when I attended a joint Malay Chamber and Chinese Chamber of Commerce dinner at the Equatorial Hotel in Kuala Lumpur. It was a Chinese dinner and each table of ten was allocated to five members from the Malay Chamber and five from the Chinese Chamber, and we had to sit alternate to each other so that the Malays were not all bunched at one end of the table and the Chinese at the other end.

Mahathir’s speech that night inspired me and made me feel proud we had such a man as Prime Minister.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) will have to end in 1990, warned Mahathir. The Malays cannot expect the NEP to go on forever. It was agreed that the NEP would run from 1970 to 1990 and it cannot be extended beyond that. This was the agreement made between the Malays and the non-Malays and it would be unfair to the non-Malays if this agreement is violated.

To the Chinese, Mahathir said, they should not put the government in a situation where it will be forced to come out with a policy to elevate the lot of the Malays. The Chinese must find ways to work with the Malays, voluntarily, and help the Malays improve their economic level. Most of the businesses are owned by Chinese, argued Mahathir. So, rich Malays benefit Chinese.

Chinese do not spend their money, Mahathir explained. They save and invest. Malays, however, like to spend, even when they don’t have money. If they have no cash they will borrow. So, if the Malays become rich, they will spend all their money, and they will spend it in Chinese owned shops.

Therefore it is a good idea that the Chinese help the Malays become rich because this will mean the money will all go back to the Chinese anyway. If the Malays are poor, who will buy from Chinese shops? When Malays cannot afford to spend, then Chinese shops will not get business.

Think about it, said Mahathir, rich Malays mean even richer Chinese. Think of it as an investment. You invest in the Malays knowing that the Malays would pay you dividends. Their money would all become yours in the end when they spend it in your shops.

I must say I was really taken in by that piece of logic, whether it really made sense or not. Mahathir was trying to explain in simple, layman terms, that once the purchasing power of the Malays is strengthened, businesses benefit, and since most businesses are Chinese owned, then the Chinese would be those who benefit.

I was a Mahathir fan the first ten years or so. After that I got quite tired of him and felt that a Prime Minister should rule for only two terms or ten years and then retire, never mind how good he may be. Maybe Malaysia should pass a law allowing the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar) to stay in office for only two terms. Possibly this should apply to Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen as well, just like how Senators can stay in office for only two terms. Then they leave before we get sick of them.

I never understood why Mahathir brought Anwar Ibrahim into Umno, or why Anwar agreed to join Umno. Actually, it was not Mahathir but Tengku Razaleigh who brought Anwar into Umno. Mahathir at first did not agree to this but was finally persuaded by Tengku Razaleigh to accept Anwar. It was not until 20 years later when I read Mahathir’s Asiaweek interview that I comprehended what probably went through Mahathir’s mind then.

Asiaweek: JANUARY 26, 2001, VOL. 27 NO. 3

From an outsider's point of view, it seems that the hatefulness comes from Malaysian politics. When you dismissed your deputy and then he ends up getting caught in this cruel judicial process, that's what brings people on to the streets.

You bring up my deputy, but you should listen to what I said about him. This man, who had been brought up by me, pushed up until he became my deputy, all along was working for himself. He joined UMNO not because he believes in UMNO. He had a choice. His inclination would have been to join PAS, the Muslim party. But he joined UMNO because he foresaw no future for PAS.

There was no way PAS could ever make him a prime minister. But there was a greater possibility that he could become a prime minister if he is in UMNO.

He had no commitment to UMNO. He came in because he thought he would be able to control UMNO and turn it his own way. And all along he was plotting -- according to some people he expected to become prime minister within 10 years. You can imagine his frustration after 10 years I am still the prime minister.

But with all due respect, Dr. Mahathir, weren't you both playing the same game? You brought him into UMNO because you needed to bring the Malay Islamic factor into UMNO.

I brought him into UMNO to keep him from joining PAS and creating mischief. I would have thought that once you are in UMNO you must accept UMNO's struggle. Not make use of UMNO for your own personal purpose.

He built up cells in every organization. In the police, in the armed forces, in the civil service, among the students, among the university teachers, abroad. He was building up personal loyalty to him, using his power.

Once he became deputy prime minister his next step was to overthrow me. He had overthrown a whole series of people, [former deputy prime minister] Ghafar [Baba] among them. The next target was me. I could not imagine a person I helped would do that. But now I have people telling me how he plotted against me, although his dismissal had nothing to do with politics or economics.

He went along with me even when we imposed the currency controls because at that time he was still in the government. But after that I found out that his attempt to push me out was very real. I thought he wouldn't succeed. But now I am not so sure that if he had challenged me while he was still in the party that I could win.

In 1987, when I was challenged by Tengku Razaleigh [Hamzah], I very nearly lost. So [Anwar] was quite hopeful that by building up cells of support in the UMNO itself, he would be able to overthrow me.

This is the kind of person he is.

Once action is taken against him, he told me he would fight. And his fight, of course, includes the usual things he used to do before, when he was outside the party, get students to demonstrate. Now he was much more sophisticated, of course. He had a lot of connections so you can notice that while he was in the government there was no demonstration. Once he is out of the government, demonstrations start.

That's my deputy. You see I am very happy I discovered him in time, and I did so for a different reason, because of his bad morals. That was the reason. Without that I think he would be the prime minister now because I had planned to step down in 1998.

Now it is clear. Mahathir was just being his Machiavellian self. He was keeping his friends close and his enemies even closer, and he regarded Anwar as an enemy who must be kept close. But when Anwar made his move to challenge him for the Umno Presidency, he got rid of Anwar.

Mahathir suspected that Anwar joined Umno merely to become Prime Minister and that once he was ready he would make a bid for it. Mahathir was playing with fire and he knew it. Knowing that Anwar wanted to become Prime Minister, yet bring him into Umno, which would make him that closer to his goal, was dangerous. Anyone else would have fought tooth and nail to ensure that Anwar stays outside Umno where he would pose no threat. But not Mahathir! He brought Anwar into Umno where he could be closely watched plus be allowed to make mistakes that would result in his downfall. The Malays call this: ulur tali -- or as the English would say, give you enough rope to hang yourself.

And, looking at it from a purely political angle, Anwar did just that, he hung himself. Mahathir did not hang him as much as we may want to blame him for what happened to Anwar. Whatever happened to Anwar, he sort of did to himself, in that he brought himself to the edge of the cliff and all Mahathir did was give him a small push and he fell off the cliff.

That is Machiavellian for you, a move by a ‘perfect’ politician.

Yes, I loved Mahathir the first ten years and ‘chose’ him over Tengku Razaleigh and Ghafar. Then I hated him the second half of his tenure as Prime Minister. I love him, I love him not. I must admit that I am now going into the third phase of my love-hate relationship with Mahathir. I am now guilty of loving him again.

What is it with me? I loved Anwar when he was in opposition to Umno. I hated him when he became the Deputy Prime Minister. I loved him again when he was thrown into jail. I loved Mahathir when he first became Prime Minister. I hated him when he stayed too long and would not retire. And now I seem to love him again.

Well, it may not actually be that at all. Probably I am so disgusted with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that Mahathir appears so much better in comparison. And Mahathir is, again, proving to be a loose cannon -- and, as I said, I just love loose cannons -- just like in the days before he became Prime Minister. Mahathir is now in ‘opposition’ to Abdullah and Umno. He is against the New Straits Times, the mainstream media, government policies, the rise in petrol prices, the shakeup in Proton, and much more. Mahathir is beginning to think just like how I do.

I hope I don’t start harbouring thoughts that the country would be better off with Mahathir back at the helm. That would be a terrible thought. But when even this thought becomes palatable, that is certainly bad news indeed.

An old friend, now departed, related how the first time he was transferred to a remote rubber estate as the manager he hated it. The women just look so terrible, he sighed. But, after a few months, I found that it was not so bad after all, he related. After six months, the women began to look quite pretty and I actually got quite horny looking at them, my friend said.

Yes, that is the affect when there are no better alternatives -- even the terrible ones start looking good. And, today, that is how Mahathir is beginning to appear compared to Abdullah.

Sad, sad indeed, that is how bad things have become. When you start thinking that maybe Mahathir should return as Prime Minister, then you know we are really in the pits. Frightening isn't it?

Do you believe in miracles?

2006-03-13T08:31:00.000-08:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Chairman of the Election Commission (EC) has proposed that the practice of putting up election posters during general and by-elections be done away with. According to his estimate, political parties spend about RM110 million just on election posters each general election. So, by stopping this practice, much money can be saved.

Now, a few things must be noted here. If RM110 million is spent on election posters, this would mean that nearly the entire amount has been spent by the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), because what the opposition spends hardly touches RM2 million or so. So, almost 99% of the RM110 million comes from BN.

Secondly, a candidate cannot spend more than RM200,000 on his or her election campaign if he or she is contesting a parliamentary seat and RM100,000 for a state seat. So, how much can each political party spend then? Let us look at the last general election in 2004.

There are 219 parliamentary seats. At RM200,000 per seat, this comes to RM43,800,000. Then there are 505 state seats (minus Sarawak which has a separate state election). At RM100,000 per seat, this comes to RM50,500,000. The grand total for both parliamentary and state seats would therefore be RM94,300,000. That is how much BN can spend according to the law, RM94,300,000, and not a sen more than that. If they do, then they run foul of the law and their candidates can all be disqualified plus fined RM5,000 per person.

That is only the calculation for posters. What about mineral water with the BN logo, T-shirts, cell phones, banners, billboards, newspaper adverts, TV slots, and much, much more? Then there are the food parcels, petrol money, ang pows for both voters and election workers, etc.

It is said that BN, as a party, spends about RM1.5 billion for the general election. And this does not include the amount personally spent by the candidates, which is said to be anything between RM1 billion to RM1.5 billion in total. Each candidate has to set aside at least RM500,000 to RM3 million depending on where he or she is contesting, the more urban the seat and the larger the constituency, the higher the expenditure.

All told, BN cannot win the election unless the party and the candidates combined spend a total of RM2.5 billion to RM3 billion. That is the cost to win the general election and this is no secret.

Take Sabah as one example. It has only 25 parliamentary seats. But the bill for Sabah BN is about RM200 million. And, again, this does not include what the candidates spend individually. According to the EC, the recent Pangkalan Pasir by-election cost BN about RM3.5 million when it should have been only RM100,000. I personally know BN candidates who spend anything from RM1 million to RM3 million in the election, far more than the RM100,000 or RM200,000 allowed under the law.

What begs answers now is: would this not make all the BN candidates disqualified? How come they are still in office? They should not only be removed but fined RM5,000 on top of that.

Thirdly, with the billions BN spends to win the election, how can the opposition compete when even RM1 million is a king’s ransom to the cash-strapped opposition parties? Maybe PAS can afford to spend a bit of money, but even then it cannot afford more than RM10 million. Even if we include what the candidates spend personally, it would still be only about RM15 million or so.

In short, with what BN has at its disposal in terms of machinery, infrastructure and finance (most which is government-owned, may I add -- meaning it belongs to the nation and not the party) the opposition has a snowball’s chance in hell of ousting the ruling party and forming the next government. That is the reality of the situation. And when money talks and bullshit walks, rest assured BN will be in power for a long, long time.

Okay, let us move on. Let us assume that BN follows the law and spends only what it is allowed, let us assume that BN does not abuse government facilities and infrastructure and use them as its personal election machinery, let us assume BN plays fair and the EC does not rig the election, (and therefore let us also assume pigs can fly), would this give the opposition parties a level playing field?

Far from it! It does not matter one bit. PAS would like to form the state government in the few ‘Muslim’ states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis. DAP would like to become a strong opposition, from the current weak and pathetic opposition that it currently is. And keADILan would like to form the next federal government though it can win only one parliamentary seat by the skin of its nose. What happens when one wants to eat Tom Yam, another prefers Dim Sum, and yet another has a passion for Nan and Tandoori? Well, you compromise and all end up eating fish-n-chips instead. Any wonder why no one is really enjoying their meal?

From the word go, the opposition is playing with three players (PAS, DAP and keADILan) against the opposing team of 14 (BN component parties). Then, the referee (EC) keeps moving the goalpost halfway through the game and actually helps shoot some goals as well. Then the legs of the three opposition players are tied up so that they cannot run but can only hop. Get the idea? How to win the game? Oh, and the opposition team is not told what the rules of the game are and they keep changing the rules every few minutes in favour of the other side. Suddenly, touching the ball is allowed, and then not allowed again when the opposition also touches the ball.

Malaysia does not practice free and fair elections. It is not free because you have to pay handsomely to win it, and it is not fair because the odds are stacked against the opposition. Why bother to contest then? Until and unless they change the rules (or rather enforce them, because there are already rules, only that they are being violated) the opposition might as well not bother to participate in the election.

The EC is supposed to be the referee of the game. It is supposed to ensure that the game is played fairly and squarely. In reality, the EC is just another of the players who actually shoots the most number of goals and each time disqualifies the goals that the opposition scores.

Take one needling issue, postal votes. We have time and time again been told that the postal votes are rigged. (In Pengakalan Pasir, 215 postal votes were recorded when there are only 195 registered postal voters). When asked to discontinue the practice of postal votes, the EC says that anything can be discussed except the issue of postal votes. The practice of postal votes would never be discontinued and it is a closed subject, not open for discussion. To be fair to the EC, they are actually quite honest about the whole thing. The postal votes would be the only thing that can ensure certain key personalities in the government can win or retain their seats, says the EC. Ever wonder why the military camps are all located in constituencies of the top leaders (PM and DPM included) -- or these leaders are given seats to contest where there are military camps?

Camp commandants have admitted that the armed forces personnel are forced to vote openly in front of their bosses to ensure that they vote for the ruling party. One camp commandant admitted that the postal votes are all marked by two or three officers and the soldiers are not even allowed to vote. Many horror stories have been related by those involved in corrupting the system. One camp commandant related how he was called up because one vote went to the opposition and they knew it was he who had voted for the opposition. When he asked how they know it was him, the reply he got is because everyone votes in front of the camp commandant, except for the camp commandant himself, so it must have been him.

Have no doubts about it, the EC is not the trustee of the election. They are not there to ensure that the elections are free and fair. They are there to ensure that Malay political power will not be eroded. And, as Malays, it is the duty of the EC officers to do this. To not do so would make the EC officers traitors to their race.

Are the EC officers cheats and scoundrels? No, they are nationalists and patriots. They fight for their race. They ensure Ketuanan Melayu would never be compromised. They guarantee that the Malays would always hold political power and would not become second-class citizens in their own country.

The opposition is a David fighting against the invincible Goliath. But unlike how David defeated Goliath, the opposition is aiming their slingshots at each other instead. Three players against 14 is bad enough (or 15 if you include the EC as another player). But when the three refuse to play as a team and kick the ball into their own goal, we might as well all go home and forget about the whole thing.

It will take a miracle to kick BN out of office, if you believe in miracles.

Civil disobedience, not demos, the way to go

2006-03-06T08:48:00.000-08:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I did not participate in the demonstration in front of the KLCC last Friday. In fact, I did not go to the demonstration in front of Wisma Denmark to protest the caricatures insulting Prophet Muhammad either. Frankly speaking, I not only think it is a complete waste of time, I also think it is too little too late.

What is the purpose of these demonstrations? To express outrage? Bullshit! If you are really outraged, you would do more than just stand on the street corner for an hour and shout and scream. You would do something worthwhile if you are genuinely concerned and really angry.

First of all, how did you get to the demonstration? Did you drive your Malaysian-made Proton that is highly priced and of poor quality? Or did you drive your better-quality non-Proton car that has been heavily taxed to give Proton a competitive edge? And I am sure, on the way to the demonstration, you filled up your fuel tank with the ‘expensive’ petrol that you are protesting against.

You are terribly unhappy with Proton yet you still buy it. Okay, maybe you argue that you buy Proton because it is relatively cheaper compared to other cars (actually it is not, but other cars have been heavily taxed to give this illusion that Proton is cheaper). Well, if you are really not happy, you would never buy Proton, never mind how much cheaper it may be. You will buy another brand even though it is more expensive. And you would do this on point of principle. You would never scream that drinking liquor is haram and express your outrage while holding a beer bottle in your hand.

Why spend more money buying another brand when you can save some money buying a Proton? Well, this is called sacrifice. You sacrifice your money purely on point of principle. You will buy another brand at a more expensive price so that you do not support what you are opposed to. This is the sacrifice (korban) you make and Islam says you cannot berjuang (struggle) without korban. You just cannot berjuang yet refuse to korban. Prophet Muhammad said that when doing charity, do it with what you treasure most, only then would it be true charity. And when you struggle, sacrifice what you treasure most, your life if necessary. Sacrifice your life? Come on! You will not even sacrifice a small portion of your money.

Islam says amar maaruf, nahi munkar is mandatory. You must uphold the truth and oppose cruelty, transgressions and violations. Sure, everyone wants the freedom to speak the truth and oppose transgressions. But they would do it behind the safety of their computers and use undetectable pseudonyms. Okay, you do this because you are scared of retaliation and detention. I have no problems with that. I can appreciate that. But then don’t scream and shout that you are upholding and defending Islam. You are not. You are a coward. You are not prepared to sacrifice for Islam. You forfeit your right to speak for Islam. Islam demands you put your life on the line in defence of the truth. Don’t talk about your life. You are not even prepared to risk your freedom, your job, your salary, or the comforts that you have become addicted to. This is not the mark of a Muslim warrior. It is, as Islam says, the mark of a weak Muslim.

Let us talk about the demonstration in front of Wisma Denmark and the one following that at the New Straits Times office in Jalan Riong. Why did you demonstrate? Is it because you are outraged that various newspapers had insulted Prophet Muhammad? What insult? I do not see any insults. Do you want to know what is really insulting to Prophet Muhammad? Insulting Prophet Muhammad is not following his teachings and saying that what has been forbidden has to be allowed in these modern times. That is insulting Prophet Muhammad. It makes Prophet Muhammad appear outdated (ketinggalan zaman), as if what he taught then was only applicable then and not now. It makes the Prophet appear short-sighted. That is really insulting.

How many of those who demonstrated their outrage at the caricatures have flown to Mekkah to perform their Haj or Umrah on a Malaysian Airlines (MAS) flight? Does MAS not serve and sell liquor onboard its flights? And are not those stewards and stewardesses who handle the liquor Muslims? Is not liquor forbidden, according to Prophet Muhammad? Is not an airline owned by a government that claims to be ‘Islamic’ and yet dabbles in liquor make a mockery of Prophet Muhammad's teachings? How come these demonstrators don’t become outraged when they are forced to fly on an airline that sells liquor? How come they don’t demonstrate in front of the Pilgrims Fund (Tabung Haji) building?

Malaysian pilgrims should boycott MAS. Malaysian pilgrims should demand they be allowed to fly to Mekkah to perform their Haj or Umrah on liquor-free Saudia, the Saudi Arabian airlines, or any other liquor-free airline that flies from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah. I know what you are going to say: if they don't fly MAS, then they will be denied entry into Saudi Arabia. Well, then boycott the Haj. They should refuse to perform their Haj until either MAS stops serving and selling liquor or until they are allowed to fly to Mekkah on another liquor-free airline. Sacrifice your Haj on point of principle. Refuse to perform your Haj until the ‘Muslim’ airline stops insulting the Prophet and follows the Prophet’s teachings. That is more important than a stupid carton.

The government has taken over all the mosques. The government controls all the mosques and the kutbah (sermon) are all prepared by the religious department. No mosque can read its own sermons. If it does, then the imam and the entire mosque committee would be sacked and replaced by appointees and nominees of the religious department from amongst Umno supporters and members.

The sermons prepared by the religious department tell us that we must not oppose the government. It is un-Islamic to do so. We must kowtow to the government. That is the Islamic way. That is what Prophet Muhammad and Islam demands of Muslims.

Bullshit! Prophet Muhammad opposed the government. So did all the other Prophets including Moses and Jesus, except maybe Adam. Many Prophets suffered retaliation because they opposed the government. The religious department is spreading government propaganda. They are lying and misleading Muslims. How come Muslims are not expressing outrage? How come Muslims are not demonstrating? How come Muslims allow this to happen? Is this not an insult to Islam? Is this not insulting Prophet Muhammad?

Boycott the mosques. Boycott Friday prayers. Empty the mosques until this is put right. Pray at home or the office instead of going to the mosque on Friday. Don’t become an accomplice to the transgressions the religious department and mosques are committing against Islam. What they are doing is a bigger insult to Prophet Muhammad than stupid cartoons.

I witnessed an incident once in Terengganu where some members of the congregation walked out of the mosque and went home to pray when the imam read a very crappy sermon that was clearly government propaganda. In another incident, some members of the congregation stood up to do their four-rakaat Zohor prayers instead of joining the congregational prayers because they disagreed with the sermon. Now, that is what I call protesting. One of my old school friends (Anwar Ibrahim’s classmate) stood up during one Friday prayer at the KLCC mosque and shouted at the imam to shut up and sit down. The shocked imam immediately stopped talking and sat down. My friend felt quite bad when the imam died soon after that. He felt guilty about it and thought that maybe the shock resulted in the imam getting a heart attack.

Last Friday, thousands turned out to protest the increase in fuel prices. Why bother to protest? Is it because it affects your pocket? When it affects you personally, you protest and demonstrate. But when it affects the nation, you don’t care.

This is what Malaysiakini said last week in its news headed ‘Where did Petronas’ RM500 billion go?’

Over the past 31 years since Petronas was formed, the national oil company has earned profits and contributed to the government coffers up to RM500 billion. What has happened to the money?

That is what DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng wants to know.

“A good question to ask is whether the people have enjoyed a share of this RM500 billion profits or that only a small number of top leaders who practiced cronyism, corruption and rent-seeking are the real benefactors,” said Lim, who is an accountant by training.

Lim Guan Eng says it is RM500 billion. Prof. Jomo says it is RM800 billion. Let us work out the figures.

Terengganu receives RM800 million a year in royalty. This represents 5% of the oil and gas extracted from the state. Terengganu contributes to half of Malaysia’s oil and gas revenue, the other half coming from Sabah and Sarawak. This means RM800 million is 2.5% of the nation’s oil and gas revenue. So 100% comes to RM32 billion a year or RM1,000 billion over 31 years. Discount it 20% to compensate for fluctuations in production and price and this would still come to RM800 billion, the figure Jomo came out with. RM560 billion is just for the 22 years that Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister. In fact, it is closer to RM700 billion, but we have discounted it by 20%, so the figure tallies with that mentioned by Lim Guan Eng (except it is for 22 years and not 31).

Okay, never mind, RM500 billion or RM800 billion, both figures are still huge. When Dr Mahathir left office after 22 years as Prime Minister, Petronas’ reserves were exactly the same as the day he took office. Taking into consideration that money would grow, even if not invested and left idle in the bank for 22 years, this means Petronas’ reserves actually declined. So where did the RM500 billion or RM800 billion go to, whichever the figure may be? The fact that Petronas’ accounts are not for public scrutiny, not even by Parliament, means only the Prime Minister knows what the real figure is.

Forget about the 30 sen increase in fuel prices. This is peanuts. This is only RM4.4 billion a year. What we should be more concerned about is what is happening to the RM32 billion a year. In the five years of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, the 30 sen comes to only RM22 billion. But Petronas’ total revenue over that five years would be RM160 billion. Should this not be what we focus on? Should we not demonstrate against this rather than the 30 sen increase in fuel prices? We should not become outraged with what we have to pay extra. We should be outraged about what they are doing with all that money.

We kick up a fuss because of 30 sen. But we are complacent about the hundreds of billions of OUR MONEY the government is mismanaging. We do not care what happens to the nation’s money. We only care about what has to leave our pockets. Selfish! Pure selfishness!

I will not demonstrate because of 30 sen. But I will if it is because of RM800 billion gone down the drain. I will not demonstrate because of stupid cartoons. But I will if it is because the Prophet has been insulted by ignoring his teachings. I do not support the religious department raiding discos and clubs in Kuala Lumpur. But I will support it if it raids the MAS office and charge them for ‘un-Islamic’ activities to prove they are genuinely concerned about Muslims drinking liquor. I will pray at home and not go for my Friday prayers if the mosques are controlled by the government and the sermons prepared by the religious department spread government propaganda and lies. But I will do so whenever I can find an independent mosque that preaches the truth. I will not perform my Haj if I am forced by law to fly on an airline that makes money through un-Islamic business activities. But I will if I can be allowed the freedom to fly on the airline of my choice.

That is my way of protesting. I protest on bigger issues, not on small issues like cartoons and 30 sen. This is called civil disobedience. This is what brought the British in India down. This is what may soon bring the Thai government down. And this is why we cannot bring the Barisan Nasional government down -- because we don’t practice civil disobedience. We just shout and scream on street corners. Then we go home and live our life as usual. Bullshit, a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned.

If you are opposed to liquor, then don’t drink and don’t support any establishment that promotes liquor. If you are opposed to Proton, then don’t buy it, buy another brand. If you are opposed to the increase in fuel prices, then don’t buy petrol. If you are opposed to insults on the Prophet, then follow his teachings to the letter. If you are opposed to the government, then practice civil disobedience. But whatever you do, don’t scream and shout on street corners then do nothing about what upsets you. And if you are not ready to do all this because you are not prepared to sacrifice, face the risk of retaliation, suffer the consequences, or lose your job and the comforts that come with it, then shut up and do the safe thing by not doing anything.

Perjuangan membawa risiko dan perlu pengorbanan. Kalau takut risiko dan tidak sanggup berkorban, jangan bicara tentang perjuangan.

How clean are Pak Lah's hands?

2006-02-27T07:30:00.000-08:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia's former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, admits that 'somebody' paid a lobby fee -- purportedly US$1.2mil (RM4.56mil) -- to arrange his 2002 meeting with United States President George W. Bush.

"I don’t think the (Malaysian) Government paid. But I must admit the Heritage Foundation (a US think tank) arranged it."

"They talked me into meeting Bush because they said I would be able to influence him in some way regarding US policies."

"Secondly, it would be good for Malaysia if the relationship between Malaysia and the United States improved."

"I agreed with that. I thought I could do something. This was for the good of the country," Dr Mahathir said after delivering a public lecture, Developing the Nation, at Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Official records obtained by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, however, shows the opposite of what Mahathir said. Page 59 of that report shows that an invoice was made out to the Malaysian Embassy, for the attention of Dr Fauziah Mohamad Taib, who was then the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Malaysian Embassy in Washington. The invoice, for an amount of US$300,000, came from the fake American International Center and is for ‘services for June 19- August 19, 2001’.

According to a former Abramoff associate, Malaysian Chief of Mission, Ambassador Ghazzali bin Sheikh Abdul Khalid, met Abramoff on several occasions. It is unclear what was discussed during these meetings but it is believed it was about getting Mahathir invited to tea at the White House.

According to the Abramoff associate, in 2001 and 2002, Abramoff received US$1.2 million from the Malaysian government as payment for his lobbying services. Documents obtained by Senate investigators confirm at least US$900,000 of that amount.

The associate added, after Mahathir's White House meeting, Abramoff, a pro-Israel and Jewish lobbyist, was invited to dinner at the Malaysian Embassy in honour of the Prime Minister, and was seated close to Mahathir near the head of the table.

Okay, we now know beyond any shadow of doubt that Dr Mahathir is guilty as hell. But never mind. He is already out of office. What we would like to know is whether Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is still in office, has in any way also used the Malaysian Embassy in Washington for shady dealings and whether his hands are equally dirty.

We must not forget that current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was the Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1993 (a post which he also held before he fell out of favour in 1987) until he became the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister soon after Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking and incarceration in September 1998. With that point planted in our minds, let us now review the following:

Jamal Abder Rahman’s testimony at the Anwar Ibrahim trial

Fernando: Can you name some of the Malaysian VIP’s who used your limousine services?

Jamal: The present Yang DiPertuan Agong (the Malaysian King), Abu Hassan Omar, who was then the Foreign Minister, Abdullah Badawi, who was then the Education Minister, Tun Daim when he was the Minister of Finance.

Fernando: Did you provide limousine services to Dato’ Seri Anwar?

Jamal: Yes, every time he visited Washington DC.

Fernando: Did you yourself drive these VIP’s around?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: In September, 1998 did you go to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington?

Jamal: Yes, I did.

Fernando: Did you meet a Malaysian diplomat by the name of Mustapha Ong?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: During that meeting what transpired?

Jamal: He asked me to go to New York for business.

Fernando: When?

Jamal: The following day, at 6.00 am.

Fernando: In your limousine?

Jamal: No, in my private car, a Cadillac.

Fernando: What transpired during the journey?

Jamal: We drove off and just before the Delaware Bridge, he asked me if Dato’ Seri Anwar had made any sexual passes at me. I told him, "You must be joking!" Then he said, "You can make some money."

Gani: Objection! It is irrelevant and is hearsay (evidence).

Fernando: We will be calling witnesses.

Judge: It is quite relevant; they relate to the facts-in-issue. Go on.

Jamal: He told me, "If you can say that he made sexual advances at you, we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

Judge: Why are you asking all these questions, Mr Fernando?

Fernando: To show the level, intensity and efforts made to fabricate evidence against Dato’ Seri Anwar! It also shows that the fabrication was not only confined to Malaysia but attempts were made to get concocted evidence even in the United States. And these perpetrators are Malaysians! What else did you say?

Jamal: I said, "Look here Mr Ong, leave me alone; I don’t care about Malaysia, I don’t care about nobody right now. We are going to New York for business. Let’s finish the business and I don’t want to hear the subject no more!"

When we drove on New York, he tried to convince me further and in the meantime I was thinking to myself, do I know two Anwar Ibrahim? He (Ong) told me, "There is a videotape in Malaysia everybody by now knows Anwar Ibrahim from the videotape; why don’t you say so."

I said if you have a videotape, why the heck do you want me for? He replied, "So that the Americans will know too!"

Fernando: Then what happened?

Jamal: The subject was dropped. When we arrived in New York, I dropped him off at a diplomat’s apartment. I think it was on the 13th street, East Side. The Malaysian diplomat came down holding a very small booklet and passed it on to Mustapha Ong and they were talking in Malay. I did not understand them. Ong put his hand on my shoulder, trying to convince me to spend the night there. I refused. I wanted to go back to Washington. Mustapha showed me the booklet and asked, "Why don’t you sign this and we can make up to US$200,000. Don’t be crazy."

Fernando: What was your response?

Jamal: I said: "You are looking at the most crazy man in the world. That’s me." And I told him: "You change the name from Jamal to Mustapha Ong and say that Anwar Ibrahim made sexual passes ... made love to you. Say anything and you make the money!" I then said, "Have a good day!"

Fernando: What happened then?

Jamal: I left and went back to Washington DC ... straight. Then I went to see the Malaysian Ambassador, one Dato’ Dali.

Fernando: What happened then?

Jamal: I told Dato’ Dali what transpired during the journey. He was very, very upset. He said, "Jamal, I assure you I have nothing to do with it. The Embassy has nothing to do with it." And he was very upset; I could see the fire on his face. He said, "You should have slapped him on the face." I said, "I should have done that."

Fernando: Did Dato’ Seri Anwar make any passes at you or sodomise you at any time?

Jamal: No sir, he did not, he never did and never will!

Fernando: So this man wanted you to fabricate this evidence, did he not?

Jamal: I think so.

Fernando: On the way to New York from Washington, did Ong ask you to meet anybody or propose to meet anybody?

Jamal: Yes, he did.

Fernando: What did he say to you?

Jamal: He asked me to meet somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff so that I can collect the money.

Fernando: So you were saying, "... to see somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff to collect the money?"

Jamal: I did not receive the money.

Fernando: Why did he want you to see somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff?

Jamal: I understood, by that, if I say what they wanted me to say, I will get the money.