There is something about the way the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at the Prime Minister.
The publisher of the original photo, The Star, captioned it as “Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at the Umno special meeting Wednesday afternoon to decide on Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s fate over his alleged racist remark about the Chinese”.
Obviously, it fails to capture the expression of both politicians.
So, please provide your caption!
And consider this as an open tread.
A person from UMNO Youth, Abdul Rahman Dahlan threatens to take it to the streets if there is a change of government.
“If Sept 16 does occur, it will not be a surprise if Barisan supporters go to the streets to challenge the legitimacy of a government formed through undemocratic means. And all this is because Anwar wants to be Prime Minister.” [Umno Youth questions ‘voices of the people’. The Star. September 8 2008]
But, but, but… did your party not say street demonstration is not part of (y)our culture?
With (x,y), x is the payoff to the incumbent while y is the payoff to the challenger. Numbers are cardinal.
The challenger plays the first round. The incumbent plays the last round.
By martial law, I mean to indicate incumbent’s refusal to let go of power, eventually involving some kind of conflict greater than mere tongue war and successfully retaining power through the conflict.
By new government, there is a peaceful transition of power.
p/s — this model does not consider any discount from the conflict on the society. Such accommodation would likely change the payoff of the second round, making the model more complex.
This model stands on only one assumption: holding power is better than not holding power.
One late morning in early November 2004, the sun was well up but with an overcast sky, it was a dark day. At the lobby of a library in Ann Arbor, the United States, the television finally broke the news that John F. Kerry had lost to George W. Bush in the US presidential race; Bush would stay in the Oval Office for four more years. And in the lobby, there was a feeling that the Republicans and meteorology had worked hand in hand to make Ann Arbor a miserable place that day.
In the days that followed, there was a widespread sense of defeat and it just would not go away. In a bastion of American liberalism where it had been joked that the Republicans urgently require affirmative action to survive, the air was filled with major disappointment.
After fierce campaigning and just over a year after the controversial invasion of Iraq, it was not hard to imagine how bad the kind of depression felt across Ann Arbor was. Already many were talking, in jest, of migrating to Canada. Some others began to speak scornfully about the Land of the Free.
Why did these mostly Democrat sympathizers hate the United States so much when the source of their discontent was the Republicans’ victory?
Something was amiss.
It is not uncommon for a fraction of Malaysians to adopt the same tone and attitude against Malaysia. In return for the injustice done on them by the policies of the Barisan Nasional government, they are content to generalize Malaysia and throw the most unflattering names against the country.
Various criticisms directed at Malaysia by these groups of Malaysians are grossly off-target. It should be at the Barisan Nasional government that these criticisms be directed, not the country.
For foreigners, perhaps the distinction between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia is not all too important since they have no say in our political process. They cannot vote and really, they are not responsible for the policies that Malaysia employs.
For Malaysian citizens, however, it is crucial to understand that the government can change while the country remains unmoved in times when international borders in the most sense are held sacred. If it is not too outrageous, the difference is analogous to a driver and a car; a political party is merely the driver of the car and the driver can change based on the collective decision of the passengers of the car which includes the driver. The car is the country. Mistakes made by the driver should not be attributed to the car.
The reason why the separation is important is due to the fact that the citizens have a say in the direction which Malaysia takes, especially when the democratic system which we have here works relatively well compared to other countries with dictatorial tendencies.
Unfortunately, there are challenges in separating the two entities from each other especially when the Barisan Nasional tries so hard to blur the lines that separate Barisan Nasional the political party and Malaysia the country.
Who can forget the so-called golden jubilee anniversary celebration — never mind the fact the federation was formed in 1963 and not 1957 — of Malaysia last year at Stadium Merdeka?
What was supposed to be a Malaysian celebration was turned into a political rally for Barisan Nasional. Flags of various kinds belonging to the component parties of Barisan Nasional flooded the whole stadium, possibly outnumbering the Jalur Gemilang, confusing neutral observers of the purpose of the celebration.
For those who can grasp the difference between political parties and the state, the shameful hijacking of the golden jubilee celebration was a distasteful political maneuver. It was turned into a divisive celebration. August 31 was supposed to be a day of unity but the way it was celebrated discouraged others who do not subscribe to the political ideas of the Barisan Nasional.
For those unaware of the important difference, that maneuvering suggested the idea that the Barisan Nasional is Malaysia and Malaysia is the Barisan Nasional. Such intentional conflation may well be what the Barisan Nasional is trying to achieve in its effort to embed its presence into voters’ consciousness. For those who bought the idea that the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia are inseparable, a Malaysia not led by the Barisan Nasional would be an unimaginable scenario. A Malaysia without the Barisan Nasional would mean the death of Malaysia.
Such conflation is bad for Malaysia. Just observe the 2007 by-elections of Ijok and Machap where public money was used to campaign for the Barisan Nasional whereas this money belonged to the people of Malaysia, the taxpayers and not the Barisan Nasional. The Barisan Nasional has no right to use public money amounting to millions of ringgit to fund its political campaigns.
Those who suffer from the conflation indirectly legitimize how the Barisan Nasional’s unscrupulous spending of public money because they see no wrong. Due to their ignorance of the difference between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia, the politicians of the Barisan Nasional have no qualms about using state machinery for their own gains. Too little people consider such spending as wrong.
The fact that the Barisan Nasional has been in power since the very beginning of our country’s history makes the purposeful conflation of the political party and Malaysia an easy goal to achieve. After all, history is always kind to the victors because the victors get to write history.
Our official narrative is skewed to glorify the victor while the contributions of others are ignored, at best mentioned as an afterthought or at worse, vilified. This creates a perception that any threat to the Barisan Nasional is a threat to Malaysia.
Take, for instance, the aftermath of the March 8, 2008 general election. Why is it that our country is said to be in crisis when in fact, the one in crisis is the Barisan Nasional? Or, why is it when the ideas championed by the Barisan Nasional are challenged, the challengers would inevitably be accused of being traitors to the country?
Freedom has been defined in so many ways and here is yet another definition of freedom with respect to the Malaysian context: freedom from the conflating the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia.
This is why the effect of March 8, 2008 is so important. And this is why the promise of September 16, 2008 is so important. It has the potential to set many who are trapped in the flawed conflated idea free.
It has the potential of liberating the mind from ridiculous conflation.
A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider.
I was surprised to discover that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state, despite the early enthusiasm exhibited by the Abdullah administration,
Back in February 2008, a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia read “Malaysia hopes the declaration of independence fulfils the aspiration of the people of Kosovo to decide their own future and ensure the rights of all to live in peace, freedom and stability“. In the same statement, Malaysia stated that it welcomed the independence of Kosovo.[1]
As mentioned previously, such recognition maybe problematic for Malaysia, especially when there are so many separatist movements around in the world. Just outside the door step of Malaysia lay Pattani, Mindanao and Palawan, among others. Move to recognize Kosovo could be viewed with suspicion by the neighbors of Malaysia. The latest Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could also offer a challenge to effort to keep Malaysian foreign policy consistent if Malaysia recognized Kosovo.
Well, it seems that problem of consistency is no more of an issue as Malaysia has decided to be agnostic to the Kosovo question and possibly return to its policy of non-interference. The Malaysian ambassador to Serbia Saw Ching Hong expects Malaysia to support Serbian effort to refer the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence to the International Court of Justice.[2]
But truly, why would the Foreign Minister issue such statement when it has no intention to recognize Kosovo outright?
Due to the statement, it caused a misunderstanding that led Kosovo to list Malaysia as one of the countries which recognize it.[3] I myself had concluded that the Kosovar declaration of independence was recognized by Malaysia. Eight months later, I learned that the statement was misleading.
Malaysia’s current position surrounding Kosovo is murky. It has to be noted that the opinion of the ambassador is not the official position of Malaysia. Or at least, I have yet to read any. Prior to the Malaysian ambassador’s statement, Serbia claimed that Malaysia had frozen the recognition process. Kosovo claimed otherwise.[4]
I think it is time for the Ministry to clarify the Malaysian position once and for all.
[1] — Malaysia said Wednesday it welcomed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia which was unilaterally announced Sunday. [Malaysia welcomes Kosovo’s independence. Kyodo. February 25 2008]
[2] — BELGRADE — The Malaysian ambassador expects his country will back Serbia’s ICJ initiative at the UN General Assembly. [Ambassador: Malaysia to back ICJ initiative. B92. August 27 2008]
[3] — Kosovo declared independence on February 17, and has been recognised by 45 countries.Pristina initially included Malaysia in the recognition list, but it turned out that this was a misunderstanding; the Asian country had only welcomed Kosovo’s independence. [Malaysia Still Mulling Kosovo Recognition. Balkan Insight. August 14 2008]
[4] — Mansor, presenting the stance of his government, during the meeting with President Sejdiu said that there are no changes to the Malaysian stance towards Kosovo, disproving the claim of Serb Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremiq, who on Tuesday announced that “Malaysia has frozen the recognition process of Kosovo. [Malaysia refutes Serbia claims of Kosovo recognition freeze. New Kosova Report. August 15 2008]