| Anwar Trial Looms Over Malaysian Politics Posted: 16 Sep 2011 01:38 AM PDT By James Hookway, The Wall Street Journal Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is carving out a new role for himself as a liberal reformer after pledging to scrap the country's harsh Internal Security Act, but he still has one big problem in selling his case to the rest of the world—the continuing sodomy trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. The trial has captivated Malaysia since Anwar was arrested three years ago for allegedly violating Malaysia's strict sodomy laws by having sex with a male aide.
Mr. Anwar, a 64-year-old father of six with a goatee mustache and snappy glasses, denies the charges, saying they are a political plot to destroy any threat to the ruling coalition that has controlled Malaysia for over half a century. Mr. Najib and his government deny setting him up. If Mr. Anwar is convicted, he faces going to prison for the second time after being jailed in 1998 for allegedly sodomizing two other aides before an appeals court overturned his conviction.
The outcome could help determine bigger issues in this majority-Muslim, multi-racial nation of 28 million people, which has been struggling to break away from its system of race and religion-based politics that many analysts believe have retarded growth in one of Southeast Asia's most important economies.
Although Mr. Najib is opening up the country's political system to head off the kinds of stresses that have destabilized parts of the Middle East this year—on Thursday he announced plans to repeal harsh laws that allow for detention without trial and pledged new freedoms for the country's closely controlled media—he faces a potential push-back from opponents in his ruling United Malays National Organization party. Some analysts view Mr. Anwar's multi-ethnic opposition alliance as perhaps better placed to pursue a more aggressive liberalization policy—that is if he can stay out of jail and get elected to office.
This time around a difference is emerging compared with Mr. Anwar's last trial, or so Mr. Anwar hopes: The importance of forensic evidence that could be partially attributed to—the widespread following here for fictional television cops such as Horatio Caine of the show CSI: Miami.
Political analysts say that in 1998 Mr. Anwar was convicted on witness testimony, but this time the prosecution relies heavily on new technologies such as DNA testing and other forensic-investigation techniques. That, Mr. Anwar told The Wall Street Journal during a recent recess at his trial, gives him fresh hope of being acquitted.
"Last time there was no medical report and no medical evidence—nothing but the word of mouth," Mr. Anwar said during a lengthy discussion about anal swabs, data samples and the survival time of sperm cells. "But now the case is all about the science—and that's where I have a chance."
A Malaysian government spokesman says it has no comment on Anwar's remarks, saying it is a matter for the courts.
During recent testimony in the marathon trial, Mr. Anwar's lawyers presented a series of expert witnesses who raised doubts about the credibility of the forensic evidence presented by prosecutors. Australian forensics expert Brian McDonald told the court that the DNA testing and labeling wasn't up to international standards and was riddled with errors. Dr. McDonald said it was unclear where some samples came from.
Some of the testimony could help Mr. Anwar's case, especially in the court of public opinion, analysts say.
"I think it will resonate," says Bridget Welsh, a professor Singapore Management University and a close observer of Malaysia's political drama. "People in general don't trust the system. That feeling is endemic in Malaysia and Mr. Anwar is trying to capitalize on it."
It helps that shows such as the CSI franchises are so popular, especially the Miami-based version famously spoofed by comedian Jim Carrey on the David Letterman show. Malaysians closely follow the adventures of Lt. Caine and his colleagues as they try to bring down criminals using advanced forensic techniques and a spot of fisticuffs when appropriate.
"We know about forensics. Nobody can fool us about that. We've all seen CSI," says one keen viewer, Rizal Osman, from Pahang, central Malaysia.
Bloggers, among others, often discuss plots from shows such as CSI and Special Victims Unit to discuss what's going on in Malaysia. One person, Gerard Samuel Vijayan, wrote to the Malaysiakini portal to describe an episode of Special Victims Unit that featured a conspiracy to fabricate DNA. He said Mr. Anwar might be facing a similar problem. "Given the holes in the prosecution's case, there is sufficient doubt to acquit the accused," Mr. Vijayan wrote.
Either way, as the trial moves toward its conclusion—Mr. Anwar is scheduled to continue making his defense on Monday —Malaysians can expect to hear more about DNA, and in forensic detail, in the weeks and months to come.
Claiming he is unable to get a fair trial, Mr. Anwar unleashed a tirade against Malaysia's judiciary recently, liberally quoting from Nelson Mandela, Shakespeare and the Quran to buttress his allegation that the judiciary and government are conspiring to put him away—something Mr. Najib denies.
If Mr. Anwar is ultimately convicted, "I hope the forensic evidence lingers in people's minds," he says. "It's worth the effort and expense of debunking the prosecution's entire case."
In the meantime, Mr. Anwar's political party is claiming the credit for forcing Mr. Najib to unlock Malaysia's political system. Mr. Anwar took to microblogging site Twitter after arriving on an overnight flight from England to say Malaysians must remain vigilant. "We have to be wary whether the freedoms are now guaranteed and what laws will replace" the Internal Security Act. |
| Formation of Malaysia Posted: 16 Sep 2011 01:18 AM PDT 
By Datuk JC Fong, Borneo Post As we celebrate the 48th anniversary of our beloved nation, it is time to reflect on the circumstances which led to the formation of Malaysia with Sarawak joining the Malayan states, Sabah and Singapore to give birth to a new federation on Sept 16, 1963, and also how the success and progress of our nation can be sustained and strengthened to secure a happy and prosperous future for generations of Malaysians to come. In May 1961, when Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-haj, affectionately known as 'Bapa Malaysia', mooted the idea of forming a new federation which would embrace Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei, there was grave concern about the political stability and security of South-East Asia.
The spread of Communism through armed struggle in the region and the British government's decision to withdraw from 'East of Suez', meant that the then British colonies east of the Suez Canal, such as Sarawak, had to be prepared for an accelerated process of self-government and to deal with the threat to her own security and economic interests.
Indeed, the Brunei rebellion in December 1962, which spilled into areas of northern Sarawak, and the presence of the largest Communist party outside China across the Indonesian Border, created much anxiety for both the British administration in Kuching and the local leaders who were preparing themselves to assume the role of seeking independence from Britain.
The idea of a new federation of Malaysia as proposed by Tunku Abdul Rahman, then Prime Minister of Malaya, was accepted without much qualms by the British government.
With the concurrence of the Malayan government, they set up a commission – the Cobbold Commission – to ascertain the wishes of the people of Sabah and Sarawak to join the proposed federation.
Safeguards
The key finding of the Cobbold Commission was that 80 per cent of the people of Sarawak would support her entry into the new federation, provided that there were requisite safeguards for the state and her multi-racial and multi religious population, and only 20 per cent 'hard core' group would oppose the formation of Malaysia "under any terms and conditions."
Following the Cobbold Commission Report, a joint statement was issued on Aug 1, 1962 by the British and Malayan governments expressing any intention to conclude a formal agreement for the formation of Malaysia which would provide for safeguards for the special interests of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak, and these safeguards would cover such "matters as religious freedom, education, representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control over immigration, citizenship and the state constitutions."
The Joint Press Statement also announced the formation of an Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), which would have representatives from the two Borneo states to work out these 'special safeguards'.
The IGC drew up the safeguards for the special interests of Sabah and Sarawak and they formed the bases of the Malaysia Agreement signed on July 8, 1963.
These safeguards, which included, inter alia, complete control over the states' natural resources like, land, forests, minerals both onshore and off-shore, local government, immigration, usage of the English language in judicial proceedings etc, state ports and more sources of revenues being assigned to the Borneo states, were eventually incorporated or embedded in the Federal Constitution and also into crucial legislation like the Immigration Act, 1963 which was passed and came into force on Malaysia Day.
They formed the fundamental bases for Sabah and Sarawak to join Malaya and Singapore in the formation of Malaysia in September, 1963.
National integration
The forefathers of this nation had taken great pains to ensure that Malaysia succeeded and progressed as a united and harmonious federation.
The special constitutional safeguards had been intended to enable the Borneo states not only to maintain an acceptable degree of financial and governing autonomy within a federal system of government, but also to provide for conditions whereby the two states could attain political and economic progress on par with the other already more advanced states in the federation.
These safeguards, therefore, were intended to foster national integration. At the time, the founding fathers had not factored in the possibility of any constituent states leaving the federation.
That was what made the departure of Singapore in August 1965 so painful and acrimonious.
By all accounts, the foundation for a strong, united and peaceful federation has been laid by our forefathers.
Malaysia, as a federation, has succeeded when many other countries with a federal system of government have not.
It has to be admitted that no system of government is or could be perfect but in Malaysia, there has always been a resolute commitment by the federal government and the state governments of Sabah and Sarawak to honour the terms of the Malaysia Agreement and the constitutional safeguards that have been accorded to the Borneo States.
Today, the process of national integration has been strengthened. The peoples of Sarawak and Sabah have made important contributions to the economic progress, security and stability of the country.
Substantial budgetary allocations and development funds from the central government coupled with the additional sources of revenues assigned to the Borneo states by the Tenth Schedule of the federal constitution, have enabled the two states to enjoy vast improvements in infrastructures and amenities and to sustain the transformation of their economies.
Much remains to be done, but much can be truly achieved towards realising Vision 2020 by strengthening the unity and harmony of our multi-racial and multi religious peoples.
Through better understanding, respect for, and adherence by all Malaysians to the constitutional safeguards accorded to Sabah and Sarawak when the federation was formed in September 1963, our country's political stability and security will be assured.
For Malaysia as a federation to remain resilient and harmonious, and develop into a high income, progressive nation, its institutions of government both at state and national levels and the people themselves, ought to conduct their affairs and relations with each other in accordance with the federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land and wherein the constitutional safeguards for Sarawak and Sabah are firmly entrenched.
The late Tun Mohd Suffian, Malaysia's highly respected jurist and Lord President once said: "Thanks to the goodwill and common sense on the part of our leaders and of our people the constitution has so far worked well, and let us hope that it will continue to work equally well in the future, and that there be peace and prosperity in the country." |
| 48 years of Malaysia Posted: 15 Sep 2011 03:32 PM PDT  By Phyllis Wong, The Borneo Post How has Fair Land Sarawak fared since independence? A PROMINENT Sarawakian Lo Suan Hian wrote a very personal account of the ceremony on 16th September 1963 which was published in the Sarawak Gazette on 20th September 1963.
It was fair report. Fair in the decorations, the celebrations, the ceremonial uniforms, the grandstands.
Fair in the programme with proclamation of Malaysia, raising of national fl ags, playing of anthems.
Fair in giving credit to the two doctors who attended to the governor who felt faint during the ceremony.
Fair in giving an account of the police on duty to prevent any untoward happenings.
Yet, in the midst of all the fairness and beauty, Lo observed: One lady guest remarked it made her feel sad while a local man said the thought of the police having to face the crowd made his blood boil.
Today, as Malaysia marks her 48th birthday, The Borneo Post examines the path our 'Fair Land' Sarawak has travelled from its birth as an independent state, carved out of the Brunei Sultanate by White Rajahs, through to the dark years of Japanese occupation during the Second World War, a brief period of anti-cession struggle to maintain our independence before we became a colony of Britain, the birth pangs of a new nation Malaysia and on to what we are now.
We walk down memory lane with Sarawakians who had themselves – or their loved ones – gone through British colonial rule, the Japanese occupation, the communist insurgence and the process of the formation of Malaysia.
Recalled former State Secretary Tan Sri Datuk Amar Bujang Nor: The period leading up to the cession of Sarawak to Great Britain in 1946 was preceded by a tumultuous time, marked by intrigue, loyalty, greed, deception, politics and murder. Of Japanese occupation, veteran Sarawakian journalist Gabriel Tan wrote: The heaviest allied bombing by B17 flying fortresess was on June 4, 1945 over Sibu.
Many shophouses were destroyed. The new concrete flat-roof market was fl attened.
The number of people killed and wounded was never accounted for but it was in the dozens for sure.
There was a blackout that night after the bombing. The town was practically devoid of people, its eerie silence only broken by howling dogs.
There were many deaths, mostly reputable vendors, in the bombed out market which is now a car park. Today, Sibu has one of the best markets in Sarawak if not Malaysia.
A former communist cadre recalled: Following the Brunei Rebellion in 1962 when AM Azahari launched his attempt to overthrow the Brunei Sultanate, the British carried out large scale arrests of anti-colonisation and anti-Malaysia elements.
The 'migration' of the mostly Chinese youths to the Indonesian border was prompted by arrest orders issued by the British to round up suspected communists.
About 700-800 CCO members and supporters slipped across the Sarawak border into Indonesia where they received intensive training in guerilla warfare.
James Matthews Hoover, the fi rst Methodist missionary who came to Sibu in 1903, wrote to a friend: Our missionary business included the whole range of human interests: religion, education, politics, medicine, immigration, town planning, road building, machinery, boats, etc. On the formation of Malaysia, one political commentator noted: The 20/18-point Agreement should not be ignored or eroded.
Thus, certain policies and the relationships between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak must be relooked to address whatever imbalance in terms of infrastructure, social, economic or educational developments between the centre and periphery in the last 48 years.
More financial allocations should be channelled to Sabah and Sarawak.
The Federal Government should increase the petroleum royalty to at least 15 per cent from the current 5 per cent.
But still there are many intriguing questions that run through our minds. What, if, the British had not given up Sarawak and Sabah to hasten the formation of Malaysia with Malaya?
What, if, the communists' movement had not posed a serious threat to the security of Sarawak?
Would the British have allowed Sarawak to become independent on her own?
There is a school of thought that the communist threat was detrimental to the interests of the British who, in consequence, came up with the formula that Sarawak's independence must be with the condition of being part of Malaysia.
Changes have always brought about opposition and conflicts just as the anticession movement was the prelude to the handing over of Sarawak under Brooke rule to the British, and the communist insurgency and the Indonesian confrontation were the birth pangs of Malaysia.
The early troubled years are still fresh in the minds of those who witnessed the momentous – albeit not altogether troublefree – birth of our nation and some directly involved in events leading up to it are still alive today.
There were fears and hopes when Sarawak mulled the proposal of forming Malaysia together with North Borneo (Sabah), Malaya and Singapore.
The apprehension was reflected by Tun Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng when he asked in Iban "would the sugarcane that is sweet now turn sour in future?" amidst the negotiations.
Will we be better off as an independent country? READ MORE HERE. |
| Infighting in Pakatan Johor Posted: 12 Sep 2011 05:32 PM PDT 
Therefore, the DAP wishes to gain more seats in Johor, while PAS, currently having two state seats in Johor, wishes to expand its influence and the PKR, having no seat in Johor yet, is anxious to make a breakthrough. They are having their own calculations and a common goal. By LIM MUN FAH
Translated by Soong Phui Jee
Sin Chew Daily There are only about 500 days left before the deadline to hold the next general election. All parties have started making preparations and deployments for a life and death war, while factional fights have also gradually surfaced. Let's start with the BN's Gerakan. The Gerakan has lost Penang in the 2008 general election but managed to retain a parliamentary and two state seats in Johor. Many might think that the parliamentary and two state seats are not so important since there are so many seats in the parliament, as well as the state assembly. However, to the Gerakan, which is holding only two parliamentary and four state seats nationwide, the seats are indeed as precious as half of its life! Unfortunately, there is an outbreak of infighting in this critical period. Gerakan central committee member and Pemanis state assemblyman Lau Chin Hoon has demanded Johor Gerakan chairman Datuk Teo Kok Chee's resignation. Lau also challenged Teo for an internal debate. As for the Pakatan Rakyat, the Johor seat distribution negotiation between the DAP and the PKR has been trapped in a deadlock and they can only leave it to the central leaders. PKR state chairman Datuk Chua Jui Ming accused the DAP of violating the agreement for revealing the negotiation process to the public. The infighting between Lau and Teo would bring less impacts to the overall situation compared the the inter-party fight between the DAP and the PKR as it a substantial issue affecting the state's development. Johor is one of the strongest bastion of the BN. In addition to the seats in Sabah and Sarawak, Johor has also contributed much in helping the BN to retain power during the 2008 general election. The fact is, in addition to the Gerakan, the MCA and the MIC also rely on Johor to survive. For the MCA, seven of its 15 parliamentary and 12 of its 35 state seats are from Johor. Meanwhile, one of the MIC's three parliamentary and four of its seven state seats are also from Johor. Therefore, the MCA said earlier that Johor is going to be its battlefield in the forthcoming general election while the DAP take Johor as its front-line battlefield. It has even made winning the Johor state power as its ultimate goal. Statistically, Johor has a total of 56 state seats. The Pakatan Rakyat, which is currently holding only six of the total seats, would need to win at least 23 seats to make state regime change possible. Objectively speaking, it is almost a mission impossible to have a regime change in Johor. However, it is definitely possible for the alternative coalition to gain more seats in Johor and help the change of central power. Therefore, the DAP wishes to gain more seats in Johor, while PAS, currently having two state seats in Johor, wishes to expand its influence and the PKR, having no seat in Johor yet, is anxious to make a breakthrough. They are having their own calculations and a common goal. However, it is a standard taboo to have a chaos even before the war is started. It all depends on how the confronting coalitions settle their respective infighting or they might have to suffer a great defeat in the end. |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan