Categories
Politics & government

[1194] Of losing trust in Anwar Ibrahim

The Bernama report that tries to link Anwar Ibrahim with Paul Wolfowitz — the current President of the World Bank — is a cheap shot and has been criticized by a number of people on the blogosphere.

Nevertheless, Anwar Ibrahim will have to explain his connection to Paul Wolfowitz. This is especially so when the Ethics committee of the World Bank mentions the Anwar’s name several times with respect to Wolfowitz’s friend, Shaha Ali Riza. Please read the ethics report produced by the World Bank for more information.

At the end of the report, there is a letter which Anwar Ibrahim requested the World Bank to transfer Shaha Ali Riza to the Foundation for the Future from her previous position. Anwar Ibrahim is the chairman of the foundation.

According to the New York Times as well as the International Herald Tribune:

Her initial supervisor at the State Department was Elizabeth Cheney, whose father, Vice President Dick Cheney, has been a longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Riza now serves as a consultant to the foundation, known as the Foundation for the Future, while still drawing her World Bank salary, the State Department said.

[…]

Alison Cave, chairwoman of the bank’s staff association, said the amount of the raise and the procedures followed seemed to violate bank rules. Cave also said the records showed that Riza was to return to the bank at the higher salary level and be given a rating of “outstanding” in her performance reviews while with the foundation. [Turmoil Grows For Wolfowitz At World Bank. IHT. April 12 2007]

This link is extremely suspicious. Anwar Ibrahim must clarify his relationship with Paul Wolfowitz and in particular, his role in the matter surrounding Wolfowitz and Shaha Ali Riza.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1191] Of Turkish secularism

There are those that point Turkey as an example of secularism. While secular, Turkey is not my ideal secular state. Turkey, as well as France, has taken secularism beyond what is required, turning the state hostile to religion whereas it is sufficient to be neutral instead. Religion is matter of personal choice and individuals must be able profess their conviction as long as such activity does not prevent others from living freely. The state should not have a say in individual’s belief.

One of the most controversial issues that concern secularism in Turkey is the Islamic headscarf. Muslim women are prevented from wearing headscarf at public institutions such as schools and the parliament. Back in May 1999, there was a dispute between a Muslim woman MP that wore a headscarf and many secularists in the Turkish parliament:

The first session of the newly-elected Turkish parliament has broken up in turmoil after a woman MP arrived for the swearing-in ceremony wearing an Islamic-style headscarf.

The newly elected MP Merve Kavakci, of the pro-Islamist Virture Party, refused demands to leave the chamber. Caretaker prime minister Bulent Ecevit accused her of violating the basic principles of the secular Turkish Republic. [Headscarf row in Turkey parliament. BBC. May 3 1999]

I am unsure what exactly is the basic principle of secular Turkish Republic but I am sure that the MP was prevented from exercising her individual right. Her religious freedom was threatened and that, to me, is unacceptable.

Farther into the past, Islam as a religion was suppressed to an extent that it is difficult to believe that Turkey was once the center of the Islamic world. The call to prayer was forced by the state to be sung in Turkish instead of Arabic, as it has been traditionally done all around the world. Worse, religious properties were confiscated by the state; a violation of private property. Restriction placed on Islam in Turkey was almost very authoritarian and I find it repulsive. As time progressed fortunately, the Turkish state has found ways to respect religious freedom better though there are spaces for improvement still.

Perhaps, in Turkey, the meaning of secularism goes far beyond simple separation between religion and the state. As I take it, or rather, the secularism I have in my mind is the one that simply separates public policies and religion, instead of pushing religion rudely into an dark, empty box, infringing religious freedom.

Secularism in no way should infringe any individual liberty. Let me get this straight — individual freewill sit on higher plane to secularism. Secularism is a only tool — useful nonetheless — in promoting liberty.

As one may be overzealous in pursuing religious goals, one may be overzealous in pursuing secular goals; so overzealous that one forgets that secularism is the absence of religion in the workings of the state and the absence of the state in religious matter. Turkish secularism, only fulfills the former rule but fails to satisfy the second requirement. The state has no business in regulating religion, be it in favor or against. It is worth reiterating that secular state is merely neutral of religion.

Repeat what I have written again, Turkish secularism fails to respect liberty. This is a reason why whenever somebody cites Turkey as a secular state, I am rather reluctant to accept such example. A better example would be something like Canada, United Kingdom or the United States when all individuals are free to practice their faith in public, while the state is free from religious influence and religions from the state.

But, when I read the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, a candidate for the next President of the Turkish Republic made the following statements…:

Mr Gul insisted that “the president must be loyal to secular principles”, adding: “If I am elected I will act accordingly”.

Both Mr Erdogan and Mr Gul have wives who wear the Islamic headscarf – a highly divisive issue in Turkey.

Mr Gul defended the headscarf choice on Tuesday, saying “these are individual preferences and everybody should respect them”. [Turkey ‘must have secular leader’. BBC. April 24 2007]

…I cannot help but nod in approval.

I seek a secular state that respect individual liberty; a liberal state above anything else. Notwithstanding that, that particular statement by Mr. Gul, Turkish secularism, in its current and past forms, does not my profile and thus, I cannot give it full support. What I can give is mere sympathy for the lesser devil for I do not believe an Islamist state would respect liberty more than the status quo.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1190] Of fraud in Ijok?

The Election Commission has a lot of explaining to do:

Copyrights by Election Commission. Screenshots by Jeff Ooi. Fair use.

For more information, go to Screenshots and Malaysia Today. Raja Petra of Malaysia Today has more juice, that is for sure.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government Society

[1189] Of is that unity in Iraq real?

When I first read over the news about the occupying force in Iraq was constructing a wall between Sunni and Shiite Arab areas in Baghdad in hope to reduce violent contact between the two groups, I felt a hint of disapproval toward that plan, as much as I felt against the proposal to turn Iraq into a three-state federation. Yet, the continuing violence between the two groups does make a case for the erection of walls in the city. Existing walls have proven to reduce the number of attacks:

Although the strategy of using barriers to safeguard areas of Baghdad is not new, the Adhamiya plan to enclose the neighborhood entirely was promoted as an advanced security measure. About two years ago, the American military erected a wall along the section of the Amiriya neighborhood that borders the airport road. While hardly foolproof, it reduced the number of attacks on American convoys on the route. [Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. NYT. April 24 2007]

The separation barriers roughly run along the periphery of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is another supporting case of how it could reduce attacks. Nevertheless, it divides community, cutting friends and relatives from each others. I am therefore am undecided on the issue of separation barriers in Iraq.

While undecided, I am happy to read that there are those from both Sunnis and the Shiites Arab communities that oppose the walls. It does show that both communities are willing to work together toward an end, regardless of creeds. Perhaps, there is hope for Iraq after all.

The ability of the Arab Iraqis to trust the Kurds might be another signal of hope:

Arabs see them as a neutral force, the Americans say.

“The reason why people are willing to trust the 1-3-4 is because they’re Kurdish,” said Capt. Benjamin Morales, 28, commander of Company B of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, the partner unit of Captain Hamasala’s company. “They don’t care about Sunni or Shia.” [In Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad. NYT. April 24 2007]

Yet, I doubt if this is a clear cut sign that Sunni and Shiite Arabs in general could live together. I feel so because the opposition to the walls might be fueled by common dissatisfaction against a force rather than true respect:

The American involvement in the wall’s construction has united Iraqis of different sects. Sunni political parties, as well as some Shiite groups, strongly oppose the wall. Shiite groups fear that though Sunni Arab neighborhoods are the ones being cordoned off this week, next month it could be Shiite areas as well. [Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. NYT. April 24 2007]

Much like Keadilan.

The uniting factor is more of ad hoc in nature, rather than permanent. It is ad hoc because it is superficial. I do not believe commonality based on hate would produce lasting alliance. Once that commonality is removed, what other intransient factor would peacefully hold the communities together?

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1182] Of the rape of Lojing and the clowns in PAS

Exposé on the rape of Lojing started a finger pointing fest between UMNO and PAS in Kelantan. It was not long before the the state and the federal government started to join the blame game. To a certain extent, given how poor the state is and hence, the lack of resource to protect the natural environment, I am sympathetic of the state. Nevertheless, I am refraining from taking side for I am fully aware that both sides are more interested in looking for brownie points instead of the environment. Yet, I cannot help but ridicule PAS on the way it handles the issue. Instead of engaging in damage control, it makes matter worse for itself, much to the UMNO’s gain.

About a week ago, it was revealed by the minister of the environment Azmi Khalid that the state government — more precisely, the office of the state chief minister (menteri besar; MB) — issued a gag order to the state forestry department on the situation at Lojing. The deputy MB denied the allegation:

KANGAR: The Kelantan government is said to have stopped the state Forestry Department from divulging information on the environmental damage in the Lojing Highlands.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid, who made the claim yesterday, said the gag order had resulted in the ministry not being able to get any information.

“I want the people of Kelantan to know that the Kelantan menteri besar’s office had issued a written directive to the state Forestry Department preventing them from giving any information on the damage in Lojing Highlands.”

Kelantan Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob had earlier denied allegations that the Kelantan government had withheld information about Lojing. [‘Forestry Dept told to keep mum about Lojing’. NST. April 15 2007]

In The Star:

“The statement by the Deputy Menteri Besar that the Kelantan government did not issue such a directive is not true and implies that I have lied. I have written proof as the letter came from the Menteri Besar’s office.

“I urge Datuk Ahmad to retract his statement and check the matter with the Menteri Besar’s office,” he told reporters after closing a handicraft seminar and workshop in Mata Air near here yesterday. [Azmi hits back at Kelantan government over Lojing logging. The Star. April 15 2007]

Later, the deputy MB admitted to the existence of the order after consulting with the MB’s office:

KOTA BARU: Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob made another about-turn yesterday, saying that there had indeed been an order restricting the disclosure of information on forest clearing in the state.

He said the menteri besar’s office had issued a letter dated March 26 to the state forestry director not to divulge details on logging in the state to federal authorities.

[…]

Ahmad, who had denied issuing the gag order, said he was only told about the letter by the menteri besar’s office on Monday. [Deputy MB blames boss. NST. April 18 2007]

In the article, the word another refers to this:

In a sudden about turn, the state government is now claiming that 13,000ha of Lojing Highlands had long been gazetted as a forest reserve.

Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob, contradicting his own statement on Sunday that the government-owned 25,000ha of land in Lojing which had yet to be gazetted under the National Forestry Act 1984, said the 13,000ha had been earmarked as a water catchment area. [Deputy MB’s gaffe over Lojing Highlands claim. NST. April 17 2007]

That means he shot himself in the foot, twice. He should be in a wheelchair now. It is unsure if the shot foot was in his mouth.

Back to the letter, apparently, the letter ordered the forestry department not to divulge information to the public with permission from the chief minister’s office, as clarified by PAS member Husam Musa:

State Public Administration, Economic Planning, Finance and Community Development Committee chairman Datuk Husam Musa said Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, as a state leader, was “well within his rights” to insist on being kept informed.

He said a letter dated March 27 to the department was in fact not a gag order although it ordered the department director to obtain permission from the menteri besar before releasing any information on land clearing in the state. [State says MB ‘well within his rights’. NST. April 19 2007]

Not a gag order? Really? Further in the same article:

“We have no intention of restricting information or vetting them as we are transparent. But the menteri besar must be informed, otherwise there will be chaos.” [State says MB ‘well within his rights’. NST. April 19 2007]

No intention of restricting information? Transparent? Au contraire!

There is no restriction of information if and only if the state does not restrict information!

And yes, that is a tautology.

Moreover, how does the rationale “menteri besar must be informed” rationalize the restriction of information? Would the MB be uninformed if there was no gag order? Stupid is it not?

Also, despite what had happened:

Its secretary, Takiyuddin Hassan, said the party would hire a consultant who would be accompanied by knowledgeable government officials to inspect the development of hilly terrain in other states.

“We are pushing for total conservation of the environment. We are aiming for it in Kelantan, but can other states follow suit?” he said in an interview. [Look at damage in other states first, says Kelantan. The Star. April 1 2007]

The people from PAS will be better off if they take my advice: slow down and think way, way harder before blurting an opinion.