Malaysia can finally stand up and be counted as a progressive country. Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Najib Razak, announced last night the decision to abolish decades-old British laws that allows citizens to be detained without trial. In addition, he also promised to repeal media control laws whereby licenses of mainstream publications had to be renewed yearly. Don’t know the details of his speech. But it finally feels good to be Malaysian. And I had to write something!

To put this in context, do not forget the Arab Spring where citizens in nearly 10 Middle East countries had to go through countless beatings and tortures by illegitimate regimes. With the exception of Egypt, the rest required civil wars before anything substantial was achieved.

Yet Malaysia did not have to suffer as others did. And we achieved something last night because one man was willing to stand on principle.

As we prepare for our 48th Malaysia Day, we may have just found a real leader who is able to bring real change, and not just act on self-interest like the others. All these years, our politicians (those in power anyway) ignored the simple principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Yet, they kept getting re-elected.

Najib, however, was not elected as Prime Minister. He was the Deputy who took over mid-stream in 2009. And now he has made history, only after 2 years in office. If he keeps this up, I might just enjoy blogging again. And, hopefully document our progress.

One more thing, the gossiping class says that all this is posturing, especially since we are entering the final year before the next general election. Well, of course they could be right. Much depends on when these Colonial-era suppression laws are abolished. If it is before the next General Election, then it is pretty obvious cynicism has had it’s day and it’s time we look forward to a better Malaysia.

So, Happy Malaysia Day to all and let’s have more of these. Proud to be Malaysian.

More details at Bloomberg, Aljazeera and Bernama.

On 25th Sep, I wrote a post about Anwar Ibrahim’s political style.

Briefly, my point was Anwar is an opportunist in politics. For all his reformer credentials, his ideology is closer to Bush and the neo-conservatives such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. than a believer in constitutional liberty or liberalism.

The neocon government of Bush lied to the people and their Congress (our Parliament), imprisoned individuals on nothing more than hearsay in Guantánamo, dismissed public prosecutors who refused to bend justice and stood up against the White House, and, in recent days, belligerently asking for tolerance from the American people and support from Congress in the latest Wall Street crisis.

The American public knows how to stand up to their politicians – Bloomberg’s reporting on the recent USD$700 billion bailout plan:

The plan would benefit “a bunch of rich good old boys,” said Seattle bicycle messenger Mark Pilder, 39, on a break from his downtown deliveries. “They’re not going to lose money. They’re shifting the burden to taxpayers. The ones actually making the decisions aren’t in danger of losing any money.

A bunch of rich good old boys is correct. That’s what we should call BN, not just UMNO, leaders like Mahathir and Anwar. They get all the glory, power and money. What do you get? Know the nickname of General Patton? ‘Old blood and guts’ – Anwar’s guts, your blood.

This is repetitive but it has to be said: Anwar dares to bullshit because he knows the general population, or at least bloggers, of Malaysia will believe him.

Anyway, my post above generated 2 comments from ‘Outsider‘, which essentially said that he could not trust politicians but Anwar is the best of the worst, so we have no choice but to elect him anyway.

Please read that earlier post or, at the very least, Outisder’s comments before going further.

Here are my thoughts:

≈≈≈
1) Democracy Is About Choice

Let me be clear at the start, democracy is nothing but choice.

Your choice: If you don’t think you have a choice, a say in the election of your representative, it’s not democracy. If you tell me you are too lazy to think, then it is not the democratic system but the failure of its citizens. The inattention by Americans got Bush elected. Anyone still doubt Bush was a bad choice? Today, the world’s last remaining superpower is totally indebted to China, and facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930′s. Even our hero, Mahathir, is taking potshots at them.

In a complex society like Malaysia where issues of multi-ethnicity and religion creating our pluralistic society, the only way to succeed is to acknowledge that ‘ the devil is in the details’.

Exactly because we are multi-racial and multi-religious in our outlook as Malaysians, we need a higher standard, a deeper commitment that we, as Malaysians, can see past skin colour, cultural intolerance and bigotry.

Raise the bar, not lower it – because Malaysia deserves better. This self-fulfilling deception, “We have no choice“, “We have no choice“, is the reason this country has not done better all these years.

If you do not expect our leaders to be honest, they will not be honest. Simple as that. It’s called the halo effect.

≈≈≈

2) We Wouldn’t Want A Mullah From PAS As Prime Minister, Would We?

I do not know much about ‘mullahs from PAS’ but I refuse to believe rational Malaysian Muslims cannot appreciate universal values for a progressive society, regardless of faith.

The issue of religious fundamentalism vs civil liberties is a false argument – one that Mahathir and Anwar has been playing both sides to shore their support base for the past 30 years, since 1969.

Unless we see pass the sensationalism thrown at PAS ideology and understand real concerns of PAS followers, we cannot begin the process of accepting their ideology as valid and reasonable beliefs. I am neither a Muslim, nor a scholar of PAS ideology and I will leave this argument at that, except to say PAS followers are Malaysians too.

Australia, UK and USA have been scrambling like headless chickens, trying hard to understand their own Muslim community after the attacks of Sept 11, 2001. Yet, we do the exact opposite.

Whereas we have, on our very doorstep, Muslims who we know as fellow Malaysians and have the benefit of Muslims and non-Muslims working, living and dreaming together for a better future – our local politicians do the exact opposite and play up fears about Muslims and their ideology.

I cannot understand this small-mindedness of some local politicians. That’s not Malaysian.

≈≈≈

3) Anwar As An Icon For Reform

Anwar’s populist statements, “ISA has to be repealed”, “issue of democracy”,”freedom and the rule of law” are exactly what every politician would say.

Didn’t Badawi say it? Didn’t Mahathir say it? Anwar is no different from any other politician.

The only issue to be decided should not be whether he says it, but whether we believe him when he says it.

This ‘politics by slogans‘ has infected everyone because I know it’s empty when I hear some individuals talk about it, like ‘”check-and-balance’ in our government“. Do we elect them as well? I can teach my 25 year-old nephew to talk like that too. Please don’t tell me we’ll elect him too!

No, we should be scrutinising all politicians, as and when, they speak. They need to match words to deed. McCain forgot how many houses he had in the current US Presidential election, at the same time claim he can speak for the common folk. Guess what happened? He was met with howls of derision from all quarters. And that’s exactly right. I laugh when I see Anwar go through his list of favourite rhetoric lines.

If we want to talk about Anwar’s intellectual ability, let me say I do not believe Anwar because his reformist policies fail to make one important point: Laws are mere instruments. Principles, not laws, provide real guidance in decision-making. If Anwar quotes law, you quote him principle and he always seem befuddled after that.

Like I said – I have seen progress, I have worked for it and often it‘s difficult because we did not have laws to tell us what is the best course of action to choose – we had only principles.

Principles lead, laws come after that. I say again: Principles shape our arguments (i.e. debates and discussions); Laws merely give form to our policies after we have debated and discussed. Never the other way round.

Not once, I repeat, not once have I heard Anwar go in any detail with his ideas. It’s all populist rhetoric. If you tell me he has written books, I would reply with one word: Ghostwriters. I cannot back up this assertion, but you watch Anwar when he is asked tough questions. The replies he gives – is that what you’d expect from a great mind?

So, if I stick around long enough, that’s how I’d do it – ask the tough questions and have the courage of your convictions to believe yourself, instead of believing Anwar Ibrahim.

≈≈≈
4) National Sovereignty

Coming back to principles, I say Anwar is an unprincipled leader because he has never been guided by principles. He is an individual that makes decisions that fail to serve Malaysians. Don’t be fooled by his comments about repealing this law, or enacting that law. All the laws in the world backed by the most enlightened judges are not enough.

The most independent judiciary interpreting a brilliantly drafted Constitution cannot stop a strongman from bending the system and causing absolute havoc to a newly independent country – even a progressive one founded by Nelson Mandela. See this analysis on why Thabo Mbeki had to resign recently. Not only was he indifferent towards the needs of South Africans, he was also seen as a Bush crony.

In some countries – such as South Africa – where the citizens take pride in their independence, they dislike it if their leaders need foreigners to speak up for them. It’s called the ‘Westphalian model’ in international relations – another word for national sovereignty, as in Malaysia is a sovereign nation.

I read somewhere in our blogosphere, Anwar recently had two individuals – Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (SC is the highest court in USA) and Gus Dur, the former President of Indonesia – speak well of him or recommend his character. I am sure they are learned individuals, and I will not put down their ability.

But what has that got to do with who we, MALAYSIANS, decide what is best for ourselves? Is Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Gus Dur Malaysian? What, you want Putin, Hu Jiantao and Sarkozy to choose your next Prime Minister?

I am insulted that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and President Gus Dur think they should have any influence at all in whom I want to vote for as my next Prime Minister. Thanks, but no thanks – I can decide for myself.

In most places I have been, national leaders do not need foreign dignitaries to speak for them. In fact, it’s an insult to even try that. Tell me again why Blair ‘retired’ as PM and became UK’s envoy to Middle East. Hint: Bush and Blair mentioned in the same sentence one too many times.

Yet, in Malaysia – our patronage system has turned Malaysia’s bloggers into lapdogs or nice kittens (more on this below).

Before we leave this point, let me ask – why do you think Anwar had these individulas publicly support him? Because you will be swayed? And why do you think Anwar believes so? Has it anything to do with the lack of scrutiny he gets from blogs in Malaysia?

≈≈≈

5) Anwar is the best of the worst of Malaysia’s politician, what choice do we have?

Well, perhaps.

On one level, it is a purely personal choice (see above) and the Faustian bargain may be worth the risk. But that would be to shirk our responsibility – to our future, your children’s and probably their children’s too.

I look at it differently.

I do not like Faustian bargains and I don’t dance – neither with the devil nor the sea. We can say, this time, we don’t want to set a lousy example for our next generation. That it’s not OK to be irresponsible for your actions and decisions. That if our leaders made mistakes, they apologise. Then, only then, we need to consider if such losers deserve a second chance.

Selecting a Prime Minister is not like a messy Massa fill-up in a pit stop, as in the recent Singtel Singapore F1 incident. This person holds the highest Executive Officer position for 5 years. And he has much resource to use, or waste. Also, the powers vested in this office has been known to be abused (ask Raja Petra and the others and see Zaid’s letter on past abuses and the importance of Rule of Law).

When it comes to making decision for the public good you should fear more the danger of electing an unprincipled populist to the highest office by omitting to scrutinise Anwar Ibrahim than that of hoping Malaysia will progress faster. It’s penny-wise, pound-foolish.

≈≈≈

6) You have 5 years: Until 2013

After all, the March 2008 general election was not invalid, nor undemocratic. We should have at least about 5 years to figure this out. Five years to scrutinise Anwar’s record.

More importantly, as mentioned by Outsider, less than two-thirds is always a good thing – the government will have to serve Parliament (Article 40), and not vice-versa. To amend our Constitution, our supreme law, it requires two-thirds of the votes in Parliament (Article 66).

Yet, you want to change the balance again after 50 years of trying?

Further, it’s not as if Anwar never had an opportunity to serve, and therefore a blank canvas without a tangible record for analysis. Why hasn’t the government made a greater attempt to discuss his record? Is it fear that it is also a record of BN or UMNO’s performance?

Any exposure of Anwar would also be an exposure of BN’s record under Mahathir’s administration – the corruption costing billions to Malaysians and dismantling of our constitutionally protected civic institutions – our judiciary and the media.

I take all these from Anwar’s admission in a March 2005 interview with BBC’s Hartalk programme. As recently as Sep 2008, Anwar’s closest adviser – Secretary-General of Keadilan, Salehuddin Hashim admitted as much when he said:

“Anwar wasn’t a paragon of justice or virtue. He was part of the racket”

And Malaysians are in a hurry to put Anwar in a big-office, driven in fancy cars with police escorts running the very country which he was once ‘part of the racket‘ that plundered it?

If you haven’t done the scrutiny on Anwar by now, when he is not yet that powerful, what makes you think you can when he is elected Prime Minister? This is what I meant when I spoke of “Malaysian blogs (going) into narcissistic navel-gazing mode“.

Some say blogs made a difference in the last election and they can do that again. I have no doubt that they did make a difference by giving voice to Anwar as a ‘reformer’ – if not overtly, at least implicitly in the many posts running up to the March 2008 elections.

Let me ask, did Anwar say: Do not vote for National Alliance (Barisan Nasional) because the Opposition’s policies are better?” Or, did Anwar say: “Vote for any one you wish except our government?“

We all know it was the latter – it was a protest vote. Except now Anwar keeps harping about his mandate to be Prime Minister because the people voted for his policies.

What policies? When did Malaysians discuss and vote for his policies? During March 2008?

So let me just say: Blogs in Malaysia reduced the two-thirds stranglehold of the government over Parliament, but they did absolutely nothing in terms of scrutinising Anwar.

Why lie to yourself? Are Malaysians that desperate to keep changing Ministers just for the sake of saying we, the Oppostion, can form a government? What benefits do you foresee in electing Anwar and his party to government? How do you know he will perform as he promised? Remember, even Tunku Abdul Rahman lied.

“Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise”

Zaid’s open letter to Badawi – 29th Sep 2008

≈≈≈

7) We Will Create a Check-and-Balance After Anwar is Elected: Can You Say ‘Cognitive Dissonance’

What you mean to say is, once Anwar is elected, we will ensure he does as promised.

May I ask:

• Do you and your coffee-shop friends, the ‘chattering class’, really have the knowledge, experience and judgement to go toe-to-toe with Anwar and his cohorts?

• Another way to ask: Can you say Anwar is incompetent, dishonest and purely opportunistic in his endeavours and, is therefore, unfit to become Prime Minister?

• What information / documents do you have?

• Have you done anything all these years to try and make this case?

• Are you even capable of making a case?

As for me, I have ruffled feathers and this blog is a mere 30 days old – Anwar was not on my radar till my recent return to Malaysia.

Let me ask again: What have you been doing to scrutinise your next leader since he started in politics?

You can call that scrutiny. But I will call it ‘cognitive dissonance‘ – a quite common occurrence in the world of politics and business leadership. It’s so common psychologists has a name for it!

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon …. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy.

In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior.

Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct (my emphasis), as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts.”

As for scrutinising Anwar, I think not. As I said earlier, ‘For a better Malaysia‘ the bar is set tremendously low in Malaysia. The general population is not able to understand government policies, let alone debate, discuss and formulate them. Bloggers, or the smarter ones, will have to do it.

Yet, look at comments in the popular blogs. Are issues being discussed? Or are they being characterised? Do you know the difference?

I am sure Malaysia, like any other country, has capable individuals. But they are either co-opted into the established system or, if they are anything like my closest friends, outside the country. Is it talent wasted? You bet (most of them are helluva smarter than me too).

≈≈≈

8). My last post on politics in Malaysia

This blog is my contribution to raise awareness. It was to counter, in my opinion, the love affairs that goes on in many, many blogs in Malaysia – that herd mentality.

I see blogs as platforms to voice opinions. Diversity of opinions that will promote greater discussion. But I do not see that in Malaysia.

After toiling endless hours on all types of public holidays in absurd locations during my younger days in public service, this short blog of a month is nothing in comparison. Fittingly, the level of satisfaction is also less because my contribution is less tangible on a blog.

So, I will leave the political arena as the rudimentary mistakes made by our politicians is just like school kids. You can only beat ‘em up so much before they really start crying. And I’m no bully. Actually that’s presumptous of me, but I’m trying to make the point that we should not be criticising our government endlessly. It’s bad for morale (civil servants), it’s bad for our national image and it’s very, very bad for the citizenry – to live in a society that has no real potential. I don’t want to keep criticising my government altho’ they really do not get leadership nor governing.

In any case, can I give a parting shot to my readers and their friends? Never stop asking (as in the BBC copyline). When you read blogs, news, magazines – always, always, ask questions:

• Who is he? Or she? – Don’t know is not an option
• Why is he saying this? – Dont’ know, again, is not an option
• What value does this blog bring to the table? – If you cannot articulate the value in its proper context, you have not understood the argument. (Or, the blog is crap in which case ask why are you reading it).

Finally, our popular blogs in Malaysia. I am loath to name names – the era of McCarthyism by listing names is over. You need to decide for yourself. Yet, there are many blogs out there seeking ‘hero worshippers’. Forget about ‘em. Read, think and write for yourself. And if you ever think you want to write to contribute, do it from the heart, not for the pocket.

Politics is not a game or business (tho’ in Malaysia, it seem to be). People die because of political decisions. I have seen it. So, let’s not trivialise politics.

Like I said, this blog is not about me. It’s not a ‘look at me‘ kind of thing. Only desperadoes do that – guys on the last hoorah, the retirees and veterans who did not get enough badges, commendation letters and all that misplaced attention they think they deserve but did not get. Their blogs and comments focuses on the same subject matter they’ve been doing all their lives. Far as I can tell, they add no significant value, just volume.

After 40 odd years of working within the system, these retirees now ‘come out’ and start criticising it for being corrupt and incompetent – as if it wasn’t when they were part of the system.

Others might call it disloyalty. I call them losers, like Anwar. And Mahathir.

Some think Malaysia’s politicians and blogoshpere is akin to MAS, ‘mutual admiration society’. I think it’s that and more. I think it’s MAD – mutual assured destruction.

PS. Look at this article: The tale of the sensitive “citizen” ( September 10, 2008 at 7:25 am), at bigdogdotcom, aka ‘The thirteen million plus ringgit guy rambles on‘. Quite a few readers complimented the well-written article, and one said:

“A well written article! I hope you could translate this into bahasa melayu for better circle of readership!“.

Then see the exact same article, by maharaja blogger, published 3 days before – Sunday, September 7, 2008.

What’s going on here? Unless both blogs are from the same person, someone is plagiarising. Yet readers of the popular blog does not ask, nor realise the blatant cloning going on between blogs.

Did someone say they will ‘check-and-balance‘ Anwar when he is Prime Minister? Go ahead if you think you can.

P.S. (again): Zakaria is smart. See how it’s done – deciding if the politician’s got it! (A friend recommended this link, I agree)

Posted in Blogging, Malaysia Tagged: Anwar Ibrahim, politics ]]> http://ourtable.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/anwars-style-revisited-never-stop-asking/feed/ 6 mike@ourtable http://ourtable.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/blog-short-break/ http://ourtable.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/blog-short-break/#comments Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:13:28 +0000 mike@ourtable http://ourtable.wordpress.com/?p=985 ]]> Taking a break from the raging mediocrity in our ministerial Cabinet and as Malaysian blogs go into narcissistic navel-gazing mode: speculating about opportunists (unprincipled politicians) and who will be made next Emperor of Malaysia (next PM), I will be going off for a week.

Meantime, my posts on Anwar seem to be gaining notoriety and, in blogs, you have to read them chronologically for what I’m saying. You can click here if you want to.

As for Mahathir, here’s my posts.

If you find yourself all alone with nothing much else on, here’s my top 3 posts:

1. For a better Malaysia – Tony Fernandez, Jeremiah and me;
2. MalaysiaKini – remaining Web news after Malaysia Today?;
3. Alternative vs Mainstream Media in Malaysia.

Finally, the next post will probably be a discussion of what one commenter, ‘Outsider‘ asked – one of which – “Anwar is the best of the worst, what choice do we have?” See the comments in full here.

Simple, but good, question. May be difficult to answer for some. I will try next week – Monday, 6th Oct.

Meantime, Selamat Hari Raya to all Malaysians.

It’s certainly affected my thinking, plans, etc.

Anyway, here’s what I got from the 1st presidential debate and the pundits’ thoughts immediately after:

Obama: “(regarding the Wall St crisis) … this is the final verdict of 8 years of Bush administration …“

McCain: “(persistently repeating to Obama) … You don’t understand“.

Pundits (CNN political analysts & reporters) think McCain was condescending and talking down to Obama

David Gergen: McCain close to a neo-con, especially like Bush’s 1st term – attack, attack, attack, ignore everyone else.

David Gergen: Obama reminded him of Kennedy, younger Senator, taking on more experienced Vice-President Nixon and held his own in the first debate. Therefore, established his status – younger, smarter, better.

Christiane Amanpour: Need for America to lift its reputation in the world, and clear difference between McCain and Obama. The recent ex-Secretaries of State discussion clearly favours the approach of more diplomacy, less hostility. One also proposed by Obama.

Early poll numbers: Obama 50-60+%, McCain 30-40+%.

Mood of the audience after the debate: Frustration – foreign policy given more prominence whereas economy (and health-care and energy) were people’s concern.

Roland Martin: McCain did not talk to middle-class, the largest segment of the electorate. McCain got beat by Obama on tax-cuts which McCain want to give to rich people, USD300billion e.g. USD4billion to oil companies.

Gloria Borger: Obama tied McCain to Bush’s failed administration quite effectively.

Campbell Brown: McCain’s strongest area – foreign policy – will not likely be raised till election early Nov. Yet, McCain didn’t win in this debate. So, McCain blew his best opportunity to show he can be a better president.

What struck me:
John King’s preliminary numbers of CNN polls after the debate
Men – went to Obama
Women – went to Obama
Older age group (50 and above) – also went for Obama.

Every single target group liked Obama!

Have a good weekend folks.

PS. For polls and another take, go to Huffpost.

3 sample posters here.

1) “Be like Mike”

http://DesignforObama.org

2) Backward vs Forwards (McCain vs Obama, respectively) | Bigotry vs Clear Thinking

http://DesignforObama.org

3) Oil Painting – used it in one of my pages (For a better Malaysia).

DesignforObama.org | http://popaganda.com

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

Sarawak

Saw a nice post about Sarawak, Mysterious Tropical Rainforest by travelhouse-uk. Like most Malaysians, I thought Borneo was an island, Sarawak a state of Malayisa.

According to the post, Sarawak is a town, Malaysia a state, and Borneo the country:

“… the Orangutan Sanctuaries at Sarawak, Malaysia, Borneo”

Next time I’ll write: KL, Malaysia, World.

Just having some fun at the folks of travelhouse UK blog.

I know why they put ‘Borneo’, the imagery evoked shouts EXOTIC! Why not. I am happy to see them promote Sarawak. Go for it. As long as people visit Malaysia. Also, the blog is nice looking and informative.

To be clear tho', let me just say Mahathir is no exception - his style of politics is no different, if not worse.

See this article: "Mahathir Mohamad, a client of Abramoff’s who paid $2.2 million to arrange a visit with President Bush in 2002 (raw story)". To be fair, Mahathir corrected the reports saying it was 'merely' USD$1.2 million'.

For a list of articles about Mahathir & Abramoff, a conservative lobbyist convicted for corruption in political scandals]

Comments on my recent post about Anwar Ibrahim went from ‘how did you find this stuff?‘ to ‘well, you really don’t like him very much, do you?‘.

I want to clear up a few points:

• First, I have never met Anwar, so I don’t care about the man. I do care about who will lead Malaysia next and I don’t agree with his ‘say anything, do anything‘ style of politics. He does not stand for anything, other than opportunism – as far as I am concerned

• Second, use the Internet/web to get real info. Don’t depend on our media nor government. You are free to read and learn online. You just have to know what to ask. And whom to believe. I cannot make that decision for you [note: See above - ask yourself why Mahathir today (Sept 2008) is mocking the USA/Bush altho' Mahathir paid a million or two to convicted felon, Abramoff to meet Bush a few years ago]

• Third, a lot of what’s online is dependent on the writer/journalist. You know, they say history goes to the victor. In this case – history is made by the powerful.

After Anwar’s relase from prison in 2004, his effort to bridge the divide between Third World or Muslims and the West is to be applauded. But, ask why has he done this? Also, how did he do it?

Opportunity knocked in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The world was aghast. Bush was dreaming of heaven. Neocons such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfield and friends were trying to create a new world order. Suddenly, Anwar was a good friend of Wolfowitz – a leading neo-conservative of the Bush administration. They are not so powerful today because their ideology has clearly been discredited.

By the way, another word for neocon is extreme right-wing philosophy. Which means they are sympathetic towards white minority rule in South Africa, a nuanced way of saying they support apartheid.

This is what Wolfowitz said of Anwar in June 2006 in a World Bank lecture:

… Anwar has cultivated strong credibility in many areas. He’s been described as one of the forefathers of the Asian renaissance for his passionate commitment to interfaith dialogue and his respect for human dignity (my emphasis).

All those doors opened, articles published, lectures given and letters of support only serve one purpose – to raise Anwar’s profile. I do not see the sudden emergence as ‘friends’ since the 1980′s between Wolfowitz and Anwar as pure coincidence.

The neocons and Anwar are some of the people on earth I do not care to meet, nor think about unless I have to. (If you want to monitor the activities of neocons, click here.)

Unfortunately, I have to because I am not so easily fooled by Anwar. Neither are real investigative reporters. If you saw Stephen Sackur’s interview, you can tell how difficult it was for Anwar to answer in straight forward manner (link is at bottom of this post, ‘Anwar and the Politics of ISA‘). That Hardtalk interview was in May 2005 and you can see Anwar defending his friendship with Wolfowitz.

Recently, more questions were raised, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘Rear View’ in March 2008:

This week we examine the political history of the former deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim. Today Anwar is seen as a beacon of democracy by the international community yet for almost two decades he drove the Islamisation of Malaysia with Prime Minister Dr Mahathir.

Who is Anwar Ibrahim and just how significant is he in Malaysian politics today?

This question: “WHO IS ANWAR IBRAHIM?”, has been raised by quite a few reporters / journalists. Me too, ‘Who is Anwar Ibrahim?“, though I am no reporter nor journalist by any measure.

Why hasn’t this been highlighted prominently by our local media? Don’t ask me. Ask them.

Why do I ask so many questions about Anwar? Because I don’t know where he stands, and as someone said recently, “Honour comes honesty“.

And Bill Clinton said during the DNC 2008:

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

So as Malaysian, I want to ask Malaysia’s Opposition Leader what is the power of his example, as opposed to the example of his power.

Wouldn’t you?

For Anwar Ibrahim’s example in activitism, click here.

PS. Rear View’s discussion is available online (see link above) and note Prof Clive Kessler’s observations about Anwar. I will post on this later.

[Update-30th Sep: Zaid Ibrahim's open letter to PM asking ISA to be repealed, with reasons]

In 1946, George Orwell ended his essay, “Politics and the English Language“, with this:

“Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Back then Allies had just won the war but Eastern Europeans, and quite a few Russians, were still being sent to mass graves. The target of Orwell were gutless leaders of Allied states who couldn’t stomach another war, this time against the Soviet empire.

Today, 62 years later, in his tradition, but not his place, I too say to our leaders and young Malaysians:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the decision of our government to imprison lawmakers and journalists, our Ministers’ lack of sincerity in justifying these arrests, the abandonment of political ideology for opportunity, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

Before anyone jumps at me, let me attribute this paragraph to Orwell – paraphrased for our recent events.

Malaysians, living in an industrialised society, supported by 21st century communication technologies, fail to equip themselves to understand the dynamics of society – its structure, our stratification and function.

Simply, structure as the inter-relation of the governed and the government, stratification of civil society groups such as Bar Council, NGOs, bloggers – where power, prestige, influence are misplaced; and function as the role of the individual within the collective is forgotten.

I am no sociologist, but neither am I a pacifist.

Let’s focus on our ISA law. There are more blogs and websites than I care to acknowledge with ‘Repeal (BAD/HORRIBLE/BULLYING) ISA Laws‘ messages and buttons.

Questions:

• Are you a national security expert?
• What threat-evaluation and risk-assessment did you conduct to conclude there’s no need for ISA? Maybe you’ve a report or two?
• How about this, you believe ISA is abused by those in power. Hence, the law should be repealed?
• Once ISA is repealed, there’ll be no suppression? We’ll live in Utopia?
• One more question, what’s the weather on your planet?

This might be harsh, as I’m arguing against Malaysian civil society. I’ve not seen one argument about ISA – only the usual: it’s bad, it’s not good, it’s not fair – nor any serious discussion, let alone solution, to the issue of ISA being applied to civilians. NOTE: Zaid was our Law minister. Not civil society, but government.

I believe threats against our country, your country, is real. ISA should stay. Yet the law that is supposed to protect, is used against us, civilians- therefore, abused.

So, what’s the solution?

Look at the facts, after ISA was invoked recently against Raja Petra, Teressa Kok and Tan Hoon Cheng, our police said on 15th Sep:

“When there are reasonable ground the police will act accordingly under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the ISA. An arrest under the Section provides the police with means to investigate and verify whether the intelligence received can be substantiated.

… Let the police work within the system and laws of the country. Racial and religious unrest can be triggered over small matters and can escalate into situations that are damaging and irreversible.”

Has the police done wrong or acted outside its powers vis-a-vis ISA? If not, what’s the argument against ISA?

The argument is not against ISA. Instead, it’s a question of WHO SHOULD have authority:

• Where should judgement about national security be made? Perhaps by our elected leaders, Ministers and the Cabinet?
• If our Ministers dare not or cannot make the decision as to what constitutes a national security threat – who then should make the decision? Civil servants?
• As civil servants, should the Police be empowered to invoke such tough laws (and susceptible to abuse) in the name of national security?

Our Home Affairs minister shirked his responsibility when he claimed, as a politician, he should not make this decision. I’ve blogged about this here and here and here. But it does not change the fact that Raja Petra will now be held under ISA for the next 3 months, at least.

Let me say this, clear as I can, again: Be careful of your assumptions, be careful of your leaders (media, bloggers, lawyers included) and, most important of all, be careful of using their arguments as yours.

Fluffy arguments disguised as properly considered decisions is the oldest form of trickery by politicians, spinmeisters and young bleeding heart liberals with hysteria substituting logical thought on policy matters.

In May 2005, Stephen Sackur, the abrasive host of HardTalk, cornered Anwar because the latter was trying to hoist his ‘reformer’ and ‘anti-establishment’ credentials to meet expectations. Anwar suddenly blurted out: “ISA has to be repealed …“. Not 10 seconds before in the interview, he said ISA should amended. See for yourself – at 19 mins, 50 secs onwards.

No explanation, just a declaration.

And virtually every blogger in town probably went ‘YAY!’ …

My fellow Malaysians, I know progress. I’ve seen progress. I’ve worked for it – on policy with government ministers and politicians, seeing how they think and process ideas, considering the details of execution of their plans – though not in Malaysia.

My fellow Malaysians, Anwar’s blurt “ISA has to be repealed …” is not progress. It’s humbug. The vagueness of what he stands for changes not in minutes, but seconds. Similiarly, bloggers’ cries for repeal of ISA is sheer humbug.

Yesterday Haris Ibrahim, of People’s Parliament, asked: “Have we misrepresented ourselves to RPK?”. He thinks bloggers/activists may have failed Raja Petra on his latest detention under ISA.

I know where I stand. Do you? Mind sharing why?

His rethorical skills delivered in commanding oratory does make him unique in Malaysia today. But his appeal, I will suggest, is very much for narrow-minded Malaysians, absolutists following the Piper down the drain.

Most Malaysians can see only one side of the man. Our side, the one for Malaysian masses. When he’s outside Malaysia, his preference for conservative organisations – from newspapers to think-tanks such as the Council of Foreign Relations, has always shielded Anwar from scrutiny.

(For those unfamiliar, conservatives are Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin – “there’s WMD, let’s kill Iraqis”).

To paraphrase his speech of July 2006, in a Brisbane City Hall, he is certainly free to “throw caution to the wind and seize the moment while he still has the image of reformer (not just the podium) “, yet, keen Malaysian watchers would do well to note his arguments for constitutional liberty a mere 3 months before.

In March of 2006, during his globe-trotting days to shore up international support, Anwar published an eloquently written article in LA Times, and said:

The true cultivation of democracy requires more than simply the introduction of elections. It also requires the establishment of democratic processes and a leveling of the political playing field. It needs the guarantee of a separation of powers and the liberation of the judicial system from the stranglehold of autocrats and tyrants. Most of all, it requires the protection of fundamental liberties and a free press.

It is in these prerequisites of democracy that the U.S. and the Muslim world need to invest, with far more significant effort, for the causes of liberty to truly prevail.

If it sounds typically populist, it is – as Hamish McDonald of the The Herald (a Melbourne daily) found out recently. Hamish’s recent article of 20th Sep concluded with this:

So who is he?

[ANWAR:] “They say I’m a chameleon because to the Western journalists I sound liberal, to the Muslim crowd I echo the Koran. It’s true. I don’t go into the little village and quote Shakespeare, and when I talk to Chinese I use a few words of their language and quote Confucius. But the fundamental pillars remain unchanged … I am still a Malay, a committed Muslim, and very much a Malaysian.”

Anwar’s unabashed use of political rhetoric is exactly how he got this far – by saying what each audience wants to hear.

So, what exactly did Anwar say? He said he is Malaysian. That’s all he did? Yes, he admitted that he is chameleon-like in his politics, but such honesty is not high-minded at all, it’s a simple necessity.

In the face of real investigative reporters – does he have a choice and deny it? Alas, foreign correspondents have only so much interest in Malaysian affairs – enough for their conscience to say they raised the lantern. We Malaysians must follow through.

Has Anwar ever admitted his ‘chameleon’ qualities, and his failures to any reporters or interviewer in Malaysia – is he even willing to?

I doubt it because, when he was dismissed by Mahathir – Anwar, in July 2006 told his audience in Brisbane City Hall that, he “found himself in a dark wood, for the straight path was lost“.

Pray tell, Anwar, how was it a straight path with Mahathir? Dismissing judges, incarcerating citizens for disagreeing with government policies, robbing the nation with corrupt practises?

That’s a straight path?

Recounting his incarceration, he nearly got me misty-eyed when speaking of his prison cell experience, comparing it to wood:

Ah, how hard it is to tell what that wood was, wild, rugged, harsh: the very thought of it renews fears! It is so bitter that death is hardly more so.

My dear Anwar, could I say your cadence is not quite right (actually, mine too) but we are not here for literary wit but to consider the fate of the nation – your nation, mine too.

And I will be damned if I don’t speak of your wooden heart when you had the chance to!

If this stuff is not your cup of tea, go for one of the clearer home-spun post about Anwar, by a Malaysian blogger: Quo Vadis, Anwar. She’s much better and not so long-winded.

Have a good Monday evening!

PS. The ‘woody quotes’ are from Anwar’s speech (PDF), ‘Between Tyranny and Freedom: A Brief Voyage with the Bard‘ – Plenary Paper by Anwar Ibrahim, VIII World Shakespeare Congress, July 2006, at Brisbane City Hall, Queensland, Australia.

PS… Hamish McDonald thinks DAP is a ‘Chinese-based Direct Action Party‘. Huh?

The oft-quoted statement by Lord Levehulme, founder of Unilever:

I know that half of my advertising budget is completely wasted, I’m just not sure which half.

I don’t wake up Sunday mornings thinking about Leverhulme, but I did when I read an article today, ‘English on the Web’ , about a website by our Ministry of Education:

THE Online Resources for Learning in English (MyLinE) which was specially created to help UTM students improve their language skills, has proven to be a hit. It’s been so popular that the website has been extended to students in the country’s 19 other public universities.

… By the second semester, the MyLinE website already had 158,192 hits.

Did they say 158K hits? Should it be ‘hits’ or ‘visitors’?

I want to hit the Minister for Education on the head. Look, you are the Ministry of Education, you’ve set up a few websites haven’t you? And you don’t know the metric for website analysis? Quid pro quo: what’s a hit, as opposed to visitor for a website? (Let’s set aside, unique visitors vs returning visitors for the moment).

Recently a few blogs has been going on and on and on … about their hits. Rocky, at least used Alexa search engine, instead of some script-counter widget to analyse performance of their blogs. That’s OK, because blogs are personal, subjective, individual choice.

Can we say the same for our Ministry of Education? C’mon, get some standards.

The IFABC in 2001 – 7 years ago – has this to say:

Hits — Are misleading and do not appear as a standard measure.

‘Hits’ are analogous to the ‘http-request’ – like the Internet browser (the one you are using to view this blog, see the top of your browser now, can you see: “http://…”?) requesting pages from servers of domains (e.g. www.google.com or www.thestar.com.my) … if you don’t get the technical bit on this paragraph, it’s ok. You are a web user, not a webmaster. But let me just say this clearly:

You know why correct website metrics do not use ‘hits’? Because, ‘hits’ is a count of files, not users (humans).

Machines count hits – servers need to know how many requests/functions it takes to completely load a client browser. One load of a page (i.e. 1 user) can generate anything from 50 hits to 5000 hits. That’s just one user, depending on the page. Assuming it’s (conservatively) 300 hits per page, you only need 530 visits to a page to generate the measly 158,000 hits.

That’s a “proven to be a hit” success for a site started 2 years ago (since semester 2006/7)? Less than 1 visit per day? (I don’t have actual data, let MoE check)

It’s a Sunday, and I shall be calm, and like I said in my earlier post, ‘For a better Malaysia‘, the bar is so low, it’s underground.

See for yourself: With websites in Malaysia today going goo-goo and ga-ga with multimedia, hopelessly stuffing each page with multiple animations, jpegs, gifs, and endless links to everybody else on the web – is it any surprise some sites take 2 seconds short of forever to load?

Humans are users, and users do not see every single link on a page, let alone every picture available on a web page.

Are the students at UTM and “19 other public universities” humans or machines? Should you count hits or visitors?

Rocky’s defence (see links above) when he used ‘hits‘ to mean ‘unique visitors‘ was that he’s a layman. And, like I said, it’s a blog with his own regular readers who get his lingo. Can we say the same for our Ministry of Education? Why must Malaysia’s standard be set so low? Can we heighten it a bit, say, sometime in the 21st century?

Finally, to those who would say, we mean this but said that. Remember, I managed tech companies? Well, I’ve dismissed several marketing ‘Directors’ because they cannot do their job. They were not Malaysians, but the mentality was slowly, slowly, maybe, maybe, actually I think, I’m trying … what? Get your act together, customers depend on you, shareholders has invested in you, and staff and colleagues need you. If you can’t do the job, go home. Let someone else do it. This, my friends, is the real world. Not a maybe, maybe world. Unless, of course, you are Ministry of Education of Malaysia.

I know that half of my Education Budget is completely wasted, I’m just not sure which half?

Live in the real world Mr Minister for Education – is it hits or visitors?

One of the better pieces is by Paul Jenkins, ‘Obama Still Does Not Know His Place‘. It’s fairly ‘old’ (posted 29th July) but it always reminds me how hard change can be to the status quo.

By definition, emerging thinkers or leaders are not from the old establishment pack. Stories of such new thinkers and doers having their difficult rite of passage must be as old as the Greeks. Yet we still see it in 2008 – up north in USA and here at home. And if we stop for a moment, parse the words and thoughts of old moguls, compare them with what we (the public) seek, we’ll realise we still can get things done and progress without old dogma – what I sometimes, in exasperation, call ‘the box’. Our younger Malaysians can draw inspiration from this. There’s always a better tomorrow.

Hence, this piece is a reminder for me, a reminder that no matter how absurd our lot, there’s a much longer road than we can imagine, and we’ll get there, one day. Anyway, if you haven’t already, it’s a good read.

PS. Requires some knowledge of geo-politics, importance of Clintonistas to Democrats, and so forth. But still brilliant on its own

≈≈≈≈≈

UPDATE: 6pm

Blogger Syed Azidi Syed Aziz, aka kickdefella was released about 4pm today and has this on his blog:

Hi folks, sorry for all the unreleased messages and comments. As you know, I have been away on holiday in Lokap Balai Polis Kota Bharu and Lokap Dang Wangi. I tried to check in at Pudu Prison but was turned away because not enough qualification.

I wished to thank all for the supports and prayers.

Like I said, there are better tomorrows, and tho’ there may be bumps – as long as we keep moving, we’ll get there.