How Malaysia's politics stay true while reinventing?

Tweet

Much ado about everything

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

MALAYSIA has braved slogans as milestones with chequered results.

Spanning two decades were the Mahathir-era “Vision 2020” and its “Bangsa Malaysia” component, and the Najib administration’s “1Malaysia” and “high-income nation”. As national goals, they have been positive, inclusive and aspirational.

In 1997 then deputy premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim proposed masyarakat madani, translated as but supposedly transcending “civil society”. Much of its potential was however obscured by interpretation issues even in the original Bahasa Malaysia.

Malaysians are generally wary of attempts to tinker with the existing secular (non-theocratic) system. So in the 1999 general election, much of the DAP’s support evaporated over its links with PAS in the Barisan Alternatif opposition pact.

In 2001, then prime minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysia was an “Islamic state”. This infamous statement panicked some political circles, notably the DAP.

Typical of Dr Mahathir’s rhetorical flourishes, it was meant to counter and challenge, and needed to be read in context. It had come after a wearying tussle between PAS, which had sought to install an Islamic state and amend the Federal Constitution, and its adversaries.



Dr Mahathir later said since (as he had defined it) Malaysia was already an Islamic state, there was no need to amend the Constitution. He had sought to end the debate and preserve the secular status quo rather than to change it.

That was fine as long as Dr Mahathir still headed the Federal Government and dominated the terms of the national debate. Nine months later he went further and declared Malaysia a “fundamentalist Islamic state”, according to his (textually correct) definition of fundamentalism.

But after he retired in 2003, the terms of the debate changed and his past statements encouraged PAS in further Islamisation instead. His successor Datuk Seri (now Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi could not direct or dominate the discourse that followed.

Aware of popular opposition to its theocratic aims, PAS this year unveiled the idea of a “welfare state”, a vague concept that did not impress many. Kelantan Mentri Besar and PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat then announced plans to implement hudud in his state.

Some legal quarters insisted that no state may implement hudud (punishments for “serious crimes”) without amending the Federal Constitution, but that view has been challenged. PAS then said hudud would not apply to non-Muslims, but that has also been questioned.

Hudud is part of syariah law along with qiya (punitive recompense), diyya (compensatory settlement) and tazir (corporal punishment). Hudud covers apostasy, alcohol consumption, theft (or robbery) and illicit sex, with punishments that include amputation and execution.

These offences can involve other people, including those serving or selling the alcohol or those accused of trying to convert Muslims. Thus saying that hudud would apply only to Muslims is unconvincing.

Further, hudud is considered divinely inspired so its punishments are not open to reform, substitution or reduction. PAS has also told non-Muslims that since hudud would not involve them, they have no right to object.

But in July 2002 after the PAS Terengganu government passed the Hudud and Qisas Bill, Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Hadi Awang said hudud would be “extended to all non-Muslims” when they were ready for it. Presumably the party would decide when non-Muslims are “ready”.

Parti Keadilan Nasional at the time had joined protests against the Bill’s impending passage. But this year, PKR adviser Anwar supported Kelantan’s plan to implement hudud.

Beyond DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s personal objections, the party does not oppose Kelantan’s plans for hudud. DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said hudud was not mentioned in Pakatan Rakyat’s Common Policy Framework (Buku Jingga), placing any opposition to it only at Federal level.

But once Kelantan introduces hudud, Kedah as another Pakatan state may follow. Then, acquiescing at state level may be taken as tacit approval for compliance at Federal level.

These and related issues would be explored at today’s Insap (Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research) forum at Wisma MCA in Kuala Lumpur from 9.30am to 2.30pm. Admission is free.

China says it can’t use forex reserves to save Europe

Tweet

BEIJING: Europe cannot expect China to use a big portion of its US$3.2 trillion foreign exchange reserves to rescue indebted nations, a top Chinese foreign ministry official said, Beijing's strongest rebuttal yet to suggestions it should bail out the eurozone.

Vice-Foreign Minister Fu Ying said at a forum the argument that China should rescue Europe did not stand and that Europeans might have misunderstood how China managed its reserves.

She did not explicitly rule out using part of China's reserves for more targeted measures, but implied China was not going to ride in with a big chunk of its “savings” and bail out crisis-stricken Europe.

“We cannot use this money domestically to alleviate poverty,” Fu said. “We also can't take this money abroad for development support.”

Economists estimate that Beijing has already invested a fifth of its reserves in euro assets.

While the size of China's reserves is the largest in the world, analysts say two-thirds of that is locked up in dollar assets that cannot be sold, giving Beijing a more modest portion of about US$470bil to invest each year.

Fu said China's reserves were akin to the country's savings and that the 1997 Asian financial crisis taught Beijing how important reserves were to the nation.

China's foreign ministry does not exert direct influence over how the country invests its foreign exchange reserves but can comment on that policy.

Fu said Beijing's refusal to use its reserves to ease Europe's debt woes did not count as a lack of support for the region, which was also China's biggest export market.

“I say the idea that China should save Europe does not stand. What I mean is the money cannot be used this way,” Fu said. “China has never been absent from any international efforts to help Europe. We have always been an active participant, and a healthy particpant as well.”

As the owner of the world's largest foreign exchange reserves, China is one of the few governments with pockets deep enough to buy a sizeable portion of European government debt and help pull the region from its economic malaise. - Reuters

China says it can't use forex reserves to rescue Europe

02-Dec-11, 8:41 PM | Agence France Presse

BEIJING - China's vice foreign minister on Friday ruled out using the nation's vast foreign exchange reserves to bail out Europe, as the debt-laden continent tries to stave off the risk of a massive default.

"The argument that China should rescue Europe does not stand," vice foreign minister Fu Ying told an EU-China forum.

"We cannot use foreign reserves for... rescuing foreign countries. We need to ensure safety, liquidity and profit for the foreign reserves."

European leaders have lobbied China, the world's second largest economy, to help struggling eurozone countries by contributing to a bailout fund, but so far Beijing has not made a firm commitment.

The Asian powerhouse, which has the world's largest foreign exchange reserves at $3.2017 trillion, has said it is keen to seek more investment opportunities in Europe, but has held back from agreeing to contribute to the fund.

Fu pointed to China's purchase of European bonds, increased imports and expanded investment in the continent, which would "create jobs and restore growth".

But she insisted China was not seeking to use its considerable financial clout to exert power over the continent.

"China is no old-fashioned power or empire. China has no intention of seeking power through financial means," she said.

China's commerce minister Chen Deming said last month Beijing would lead an investment delegation to Europe next year, and the head of China's sovereign wealth fund has said it is keen to invest in European infrastructure.

But some in Europe have expressed concern about the potential cost of accepting Beijing's help.

In October, Francois Hollande, the Socialist candidate for next year's French presidential elections, asked if China was really "riding to the rescue of the euro... without making any demands in return?"

Fu also reiterated China's confidence in Europe, just as European leaders prepare to meet at a summit next week that some have billed as their last chance to restore the credibility of eurozone economic governance.

"We have reason to believe that Europe has the wisdom, capacity and resources to make it this time by accelerating adjustment and reform," she said.

Related post:

Is China still a developing nation? 

Understanding our rights

Tweet

Brave New World By AZMI SHAROM

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental and inherent. It exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women. 

RIGHTS are the weapons of the powerless. And just who are the powerless? Well, in my view, it is most of us.

Ordinary folks who either do not hold the reins of government machinery or have the means to control those who hold the reins.

That is why only those who are powerless or who have been powerless can truly appreciate rights.

We only have to look at history to see that to be true. The Magna Carta was created because the nobility of Britain felt powerless against the King.

The American Declaration of Independence takes the shape that it does because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that they would never again be under the yoke of a distant king.Image via Wikipedia

Our own leaders, during the early days of our existence as a nation also understood this need for rights, having been ruled by an oppressive force more powerful than them.

Of course there are those with short memories who belittle rights when they have power, bemoan the lack of them when they lose power and belittle them again when they have power once more.

But then, there will always be the utterly unprincipled in any community.



The human race has evolved. We have values which prevent the strong simply taking what they want from the weak.

Our laws are in place so that we can be assured a person who is bigger than us can’t simply knock us out and take our wallets.

And just as we have laws to protect us against thieves and thugs, so too do we have principles which prevent the rulers from abusing us.

As a race we have come a long way from “only the strong will survive”. And that is due to the civilising of human kind.

Rights therefore are the current pinnacle of this civilising process. It indicates that we are civilised.

Related to human rights is democracy. When we choose our own leaders, we ensure that we are not led simply by someone who is going to force himself or herself onto us.

Once again, we see a principle which empowers the powerless.

This is why I care so much about human rights and democracy.

This is why I get furious when those who do not understand or choose not to understand, take my rights away.

That is why I work on the premise that we must have as much rights as possible.

Of course I understand there are limitations to everything, including rights, but those limitations must be made with the aspiration that a complete right is the ideal.

It is only with these aspirations in place will we ensure that whatever limitations imposed are the barest minimum and with the smallest effect on our rights.

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental, it is inherent. It is not something that can be given for it exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.

The powerful do not wish to see this.

It is up to us, the powerless, to remind them.

Related post:

New thinking on human rights & cooperation