Barisan Nasional alleges that Khalid Ibrahim encourages his supporters to vote for Barisan Nasional.
Keadilan denies.
RTM, TV3 and everybody show a clip proving the allegation:
[youtube]AP8IVpKPpV4[/youtube]
Aiya!!!
This coming by-election is memorable, that is for sure.
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.
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.
The Election Commission has a lot of explaining to do:
For more information, go to Screenshots and Malaysia Today. Raja Petra of Malaysia Today has more juice, that is for sure.
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]
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?