Rahim of course is best remembered for the infamous Black Eye incident involving former deputy prime minister-turned-parliamentary Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
"Bapa anjing"
On the night of his arrest on September 20, 1998, Rahim "lost his cool" and administered karate-like blows on a blindfolded Anwar who was detained at a cell in the Bukit Aman police headquarters.
Hours later, he was to tell the media that Anwar was "safe and sound" under police custody, only to be shockingly proven otherwise when the one-time acting prime minister appeared in public days later sporting a black eye.
In comic exchanges with Anwar's counsel Karpal Singh at a Royal Commission of Inquiry set up amid public outrage over the 'black eye', Rahim claimed that he was provoked by Anwar who called him "bapa anjing" (father of dog).
He claimed that he entered Anwar’s cell and had wanted to remove Anwar’s blindfold, but before he could do so, Anwar said "ni, bapa anjing" ("here comes the father of dogs"), at which point, he slapped Anwar on the right and left side of his face. Karpal then reminded that Anwar was blindfolded, and questioned if Anwar could have possibly made such remarks, unless he had smelt the canine.
Karpal then disputed Rahim's claim that the incident lasted several seconds, saying he could not have hit Anwar seven times in such a short time.
"Mike Tyson would not have managed that," Karpal remarked.
Now 68, Rahim had largely been out of public view since then, until recently when he made a comeback after being recruited to counter PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu's revisionist view of Malaya's history of independence.
The choice of Rahim at the Perkasa event should come as no surprise. Ibrahim after all is a staunch loyalist of Perkasa's patron Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and resurrecting another figure from the tumultous era when the latter reigned is only natural.
1987.A tumultous year in Malaysian politics.
Mahathir had already been PM for 6 years by then.
His darker side was soon to unleash itself upon the nation.
April that year, the challenge by Tengku Razaleigh for the top position in UMNO effectively split UMNO into two.
That Mahathir only managed to retain the presidency on a miniscule majority of 43 votes reflects the extent of the split then.
The challenge by Kuli’s supporters in respect of that election outcome in the High Court, the judicial pronouncement that UMNO was illegal, followed by the formation of UMNO Baru by Mahathir and Semangat 46 by Kuli and, bearing in mind that PAS then already had a significant grass root following, the Malay community then, not accounting for the numbers in Sabah and Sarawak, could, politically, be seen as a split into 3 camps.
Semangat 46 and PAS almost immediately found common ground upon which to co-operate.
Mahathir and UMNO found themselves pushed against the wall.
They no longer commanded the support of the majority of the Malays.
As if having to deal with this issue was not enough, Mahathir also had to contend with the High Court and Supreme Court that was flexing their judicial muscles.
Injunction granted by the Supreme Court, on the application of Lim Kit Siang, to restrain UEM from acting on the North South Expressway contract awarded to it.
Injunction granted by the High Court to restrain Asia Rare Earth from dumping radio active waste Bukit Merah.
Worst of all, Mahathir had to endure a seemingly free press, notably, The Star.
In October, that year, a plan was set into action.
Using demands by Chinese educationist group Dong Jiao Zong in respect of non Mandarin-speaking senior assistants being sent out to Chinese school, UMNO youth organised a huge rally in KL.
Led by Najib.
Calling for the blood of Chinese to be spilt.
Stage 2 of the drama : a series of exchanges between MCA’s Lee Kim Sai and UMNO youth, which served to heighten tension.
Stage 3 : Ops Lalang. 106 detained. Opposition leaders and social activists. Diverse enough so that the real targets might be lost in the numbers.
The Star was shut down.
Months later, when The Star resumed publication, it was under a new management and with a permit issued under the amended Printing Press and Publications Act, 1984.
All the other media, too, were now either UMNO-owned or controlled.
The days of reporting without fear or favour were over.
One more move called for.
Salleh Abas removed and, in his place, Mahathir’s errand boy, Hamid Omar installed as top dog in the judiciary.
And the heightened tensions, albeit contrived, that led up to Ops Lalang, served to remind the average citizen of the tragedy of May 13.
Mahathir, and UMNO, still without the support of the majority of the Malays, but now having cowed the non-Malays into voting for stability rather than change and reforms at every general election, the judiciary rendered impotent, and now able to maintain an unassailable grip on the psyche of the nation through a controlled media, would continue to rule, rob and rape the nation for another 2 generations.
This, notwithstanding the birth of Reformasi, following the sacking of Anwar in 1997, which further diluted UMNO’s hold on an already much-reduced following in the Malay community.
Fast forward to 2007.
The expose of the VK Lingam video in September.
The lawyers march for justice on 26th September.
Bersih rally on 10th November.
Hindraf rally on 25th November.
For UMNO, the lawyers march was a trifling annoyance.
Bersih, they feared.
It was non-racial. It would see Malaysians from all walks of life come together on a common issue : free and fair elections.
The very thing that UMNO, almost since Malaya gained independence, could not afford.
The Hindraf rally, so UMNO thought, would offer them the best opportunity to react with a rally of their own.
Their media would spin it as a challenge to the special rights of the Malays, and UMNO would orchestrate a rally of its own to galvanise the Malays to unite.
So a decision was made.
Leave the Hindraf leaders at large so that the rally could go on.
Detain them after the rally.
And then hold their on UMNO rally.
On 19th December, in Kampung Baru.
UMNO’s miscalculation then, was in underestimating how the alternative media had further eroded their influence amongst the urban Malays.
If, in 1987, the numbers rallying in Kampung Baru had to be beefed up by bussing in people from the heartlands to add to those from the city, in 2007, Malays dwelling int the city, it was clear, could not be counted on.
They would have to be practically made up of folk bussed into the city.
And paid and fed Pekida and Mat Rempit.
RM70 each with 1 nasi bungkus thrown in.
Finally, a report from special branch put paid to that planned rally in December.
That report had it that in the Hindraf rally, there were people who were bearing diesel and kerosene, ready to self-immolate.
Yes, they were ready to die for a cause they believed in.
UMNO’s planned rally, on the other hand, would comprise mercenaries and rural folk out to take advantage of a chance of an outing to the city, all paid for.
UMNO was warned that they may be setting the stage for a clash in the city between those ready to die for a cause and those paid to do a dance and little else.
Should this come to pass, the short messaging service would take news of this to all corners of the nation.
Within minutes, the nation would be in flames.
Hence, the rally was abandoned.
Instead, every other day that month, ex-IGP Musa would issue statements warning people not to believe rumours about the rally.
The mainstream media gave full coverage of those statements.
It had the desired effect.
The spectre of impending trouble had been created.
Many feared a recurrence of October, 1987, or worse, May 13.
Those fears, however, were just not enough to stem the mood for change or the momentum that had been galvanised by the 3 rallies that year.
8th March, 2008, bears testimony to the sheer force of people power that day that humiliated UMNO and BN as never before.
Humiliation enough to spell the end of Pak Lah’s era.
Fast forward to 3rd April, 2009.
Najib succeeded Pak Lah to the premiership.
By then, Perkasa had already been put in place to do the dirty for UMNO.
Perkasa, though, has again and and again proven to be ineffective.
Perhaps Ibrahim Ali is seen too much as an UMNO lackey.
By now, UMNO had also wisened up to the fact that their playing up issues of Malay unity were not getting them anywhere with the politically split Malay community.
The race card had lost its vitality, more so with Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan being pitched at the people on every billboard and in all available ad space in the media.
Well, if race issues won’t bring the Malays together, maybe Islam under siege will.
And so, we had the sale of beer issue and the cow head protest in Shah Alam in July and August, 2009.
Not enough.
Kitab Injil and use of Allah by the Christians in 2010.
Damn! Still not enough! What will it take for these @#$% Malays to rise and retaliate?
Defile mosques and suraus with the heads of pigs and wild boar.
Still nothing!
Murtaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!
Move to Christianise the country!
Will these do the trick?
Not if it comes from UMNO.
UMNO has lost all credibility with the Malay folk.
Bring in the monarch.
Bring in the mullahs.
Enter Himpun.
Fronted by personalities who, like UMNO, would not hesitate to use Islam for their own ends.
I have no doubts that this is an UMNO-driven initiative.
Many Malays will see it as such.
Thankfully, the leadership of PAS and PKR have elected to distance themselves from the event.
Three rallies in the run-up to the 12th GE almost put paid to UMNO and BN.
There is much talk now of a snap election.
This, after the BERSIH 2.0 rally on 9th July.
Will the Himpun rally make it two this year?
If it does proceed, it will reflect on the willingness of UMNO to risk everything to stay in power.
If it does go on tomorrow, will BERSIH 3.0 follow?
By tomorrow night, it will become clearer for civil society as to the direction we must take if we are to lead this nation from the sheer madness that UMNO and their allies will surely lead us to if we do not stand up to them.
It was Euripides in ‘Medea’ who made famous the phrase “ Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. Certainly it would be a fitting description of Muammar Gaddafi, whose gory end was telecast for all to see, on Al-Jazeera and CNN. It would be no less appropriate a phrase to describe Mahathir Mohammed; who has been mad for quite a while now.
We will not delve too much into what drove Mahathir mad, but it does not appear to be the usual reasons of genetics, or grief, or some drug overdose. Mahathir appears to have been driven mad by power. And perhaps certifiably insane by his quest for absolute, unquestioned power.
A crackpot in many ways
Mahathir, uncaring of the fact that Malaysia was a small country with limited say in the affairs of the world, would proceed to attempt to lecture everyone else, particularly the West, on how the world, or their nations, should be run. This despite the fact that he ran Malaysia like a demented despot.
There are two ways that countries can play large roles in the global affairs of nations. They must have either financial or military muscle. Malaysia had neither, yet Mahathir would for years, including after he retired, continue to harangue the west with his ‘advice’. In the case of 9/11, to this day he insists that it was an American or Jewish conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers. This crackpot conspiracy theorist, to the detriment of his country, was Malaysia’s Prime Minister for 22 years.
Then there was Proton
Ordinary Malaysians ended up with the raw end of the deal; they were forced to buy Proton’s sub-standard cars for premium prices. Consumer safety was ignored by Proton and the government turned a blind eye. Protons lacked airbags and and anti-lock braking mechanisms. Many a fatality occurred that could have been prevented if these saferty features had been in place. Export models of course had all the requisite safety features. It was only Malaysian lives that Mahathir deemed cheap. The government tried to rid itself of Proton by selling it to DRB but Proton would come boomeranging back to haunt it. And no real automotive company was interested to buy it. Discussions with Volkswagon and GM would all fall apart. Malaysia is stuck with Proton, thanks to Mahathir, and it is costing us.
Asian Financial Crisis took a heavy toll
There were endless other ways to spend the money, in development or infrastructure, that would have benefited Malaysia in the long term. Mahathir instead chose to dump it in a concrete monument to his own vanity. Mahathir was the short guy, trying to walk on outsize stilts to prove that he was tall. It was unreal and was bound to end in a big fall, which is precisely what would happen in the Asian meltdown of 1997/98 when Mahathir’s house of cards would come crashing down on him.
Malaysia’s apparent success in the 1990s was at first attributed to good economic management. Yet all the Asian economies were booming including Thailand and Indonesia. It was quite impossible that Asian leaders, including a collection of despots whose leading lights were Suharto and Mahathir, were all providing their nations with good economic leadership.
The real explanation was that foreign funds were fuelling the Asian boom and too much of it was hot money that could disappear overnight. The fact that more and more funds were investing in Asia was an indication of the herd instinct that rules the often illogical global financial markets; rather than anything else. Currency speculators would take advantage of the inherent weaknesses of the economies within this unsustainable system to usher in, starting with Thailand, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.
Rushed to blame others
The Malaysian political crisis of 1998 would test Mahathir as never before, and it would illustrate the lengths that Mahathir would go to hang on to power. His deputy Anwar Ibrahim would be jailed, based on concocted evidence fabricated, allegedly, at the behest of Mahathir’s friend and crony, Daim Zainuddin. The trial was a farce; one of the key prosecution witnesses, a policeman, stating that he would lie to the court if ordered to do so and yet managing to have his evidence admitted.
Putrajaya
Putrajaya would cost an irreplaceble RM 12 billion to Malaysia. The money went into grand designs and buildings filled with expensive furniture. It went into expensive ornate lamp posts instead of functional ones. Wanting to have bridges, but not having either rivers or lakes in Putrajaya, Mahathir dug his own lakes! He then built bridges over the ground he had just dug up! All this at taxpayer cost!
And what did we have to show for it? A bunch of civil servants sitting in nice buildings instead of functional ones. Nice buildings do not produce any economic activity. Factories do, private business does, and infrastructure facilitates the two, reducing the cost of goods and services and reducing time to market. Putrajaya’s buildings and unneccessary just sit there; a huge crater of waste.
Handover to Badawi
Over the past 2 years Mahathir has been trying to rewrite history by claiming, for example, that he had not ordered the the infamous 1987 Ops Lalang where more than a hundred opposition figures were arrested. Nobody was fooled and his audience actually laughed.
Not satisfied, Mahathir wrote a book with the misleading title of ‘Doctor in the House’. The book is filled with hypocrisies and in some instances, outright lies. His intention, one supposes, was to try and make himself look like a doctor who cured Malaysia’s ills. In fact, Mahathir was a cancer in Malaysia’s gut, and his malignant effect will be felt long after he is gone.
The chronicle of American power's demise has been foretold many times. The retelling in fashion these days is Arvind Subramanian's Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance. The title is apt, though: the prognosis of China overtaking the US by 2030 is an optical effect, not real, just as an eclipse of the moon or the sun is a transient optical effect rather than permanent occlusion.
The Eclipse thesis assumes that power derives from three things: the size of the gross domestic product, the magnitude of trade, and the extent to which a country is a net creditor to the rest of the world. Military strength is treated as a derivative of GDP.
The primary thing wrong with this model is the use of GDP as a wholly representative measure of economic strength. This would have been all right some time back, but not in these days of globalised growth.
A nation's economic power depends on the production its nationals command, not on the production carried out within its borders. The US is home to the largest number of the world's multinational companies. (Forget transnational. However transnational they might look, there would be a national government to which they run crying, when they run into a political problem they cannot tackle themselves. So, these 'transnationals' are multinationals owing allegiance to the nation whose government is their final protector.) These multinational companies contribute to the GDP of other countries, where they locate their production, such as China, rather than to their own. Conventional national income accounting fails to capture the economic power commanded by a nation's companies that operate abroad.
California-based Apple does the product design, engineering, technology development and marketing for its popular products. These are manufactured in Taiwan and China and shipped around the world. China's exports worth billions of dollars of Apple products show up as China's GDP, but in reality, very little of that value accrues to China for its manufacturing services. The bulk of the value is captured by Apple. If Apple chooses to repatriate its profits wholly back to the US, these will figure in US gross national product, which is GDP adjusted for net payments abroad on account of capital and labour. However, US tax laws not only do not compel Apple (or other American multinationals) to repatriate their profits, royalty earnings, etc, back to the US but also offer incentives to keep their money in some low-tax location abroad. What this means is that American multinational profits that are not kicked back to shareholders will not show up in US national income accounting at all.
Globalised business also makes a country's trade an imprecise measure of its economic vitality. America's oil giants partner Middle-Eastern national oil companies. Oil trade from the Middle East spans the globe.
Only the fraction that goes to the US would figure in Arvind Subramanian's measure of national power, whereas all oil exports from the Middle East add to the power of America's oil giants.
Trade by multinational companies is a large part of global trade. Some of their trans-border trade is intra-firm trade, making for one more difficulty in straightforward use of trade as a good proxy of national might.
The Eclipse thesis assumes that power derives from three things: the size of the gross domestic product, the magnitude of trade, and the extent to which a country is a net creditor to the rest of the world. Military strength is treated as a derivative of GDP.
The primary thing wrong with this model is the use of GDP as a wholly representative measure of economic strength. This would have been all right some time back, but not in these days of globalised growth.
A nation's economic power depends on the production its nationals command, not on the production carried out within its borders. The US is home to the largest number of the world's multinational companies. (Forget transnational. However transnational they might look, there would be a national government to which they run crying, when they run into a political problem they cannot tackle themselves. So, these 'transnationals' are multinationals owing allegiance to the nation whose government is their final protector.) These multinational companies contribute to the GDP of other countries, where they locate their production, such as China, rather than to their own. Conventional national income accounting fails to capture the economic power commanded by a nation's companies that operate abroad.
California-based Apple does the product design, engineering, technology development and marketing for its popular products. These are manufactured in Taiwan and China and shipped around the world. China's exports worth billions of dollars of Apple products show up as China's GDP, but in reality, very little of that value accrues to China for its manufacturing services. The bulk of the value is captured by Apple. If Apple chooses to repatriate its profits wholly back to the US, these will figure in US gross national product, which is GDP adjusted for net payments abroad on account of capital and labour. However, US tax laws not only do not compel Apple (or other American multinationals) to repatriate their profits, royalty earnings, etc, back to the US but also offer incentives to keep their money in some low-tax location abroad. What this means is that American multinational profits that are not kicked back to shareholders will not show up in US national income accounting at all.
Globalised business also makes a country's trade an imprecise measure of its economic vitality. America's oil giants partner Middle-Eastern national oil companies. Oil trade from the Middle East spans the globe.
Only the fraction that goes to the US would figure in Arvind Subramanian's measure of national power, whereas all oil exports from the Middle East add to the power of America's oil giants.
Trade by multinational companies is a large part of global trade. Some of their trans-border trade is intra-firm trade, making for one more difficulty in straightforward use of trade as a good proxy of national might.
The third leg of Eclipse's index of power is the degree to which a country is a creditor to other countries. This sounds plausible, until you realise what the world's greatest debtor nation, the US, has done with its debt: a large part of the money that the rest of the world has so generously lent to the US has been recycled back as private equity, venture funds, hedge funds or corporate war-chest to allow transfer of ownership of productive assets in these very lenders to American entities. If I lend you money, I might think I have leverage over you; but if I lend you enough money for you to buy out my home, you have leverage over me.
An index of power suited more for the world of national economies that most economists are comfortable with than for today's world of globalised economic activity is not the only problem with Eclipse. It also sadly underestimates four other key determinants of power: the ability to innovate technology, cultural influence - soft power, so to speak - the gap between current levels of national military technology and the ability to muster and lead international coalitions. In all these, the US is today far ahead of all other countries.
US universities are powerhouses of fundamental research, advances in which translate into technological breakthroughs. China will take generations to catch up, although they are on the job.
American films, television programming, music, games, food, fiction and clothes mould the lives and aspirations of young people everywhere, including in China. American companies - Google, Apple, Facebook, Coke - permeate their lives.
American military power is unrivalled. Advances in electromagnetic weaponry that can take out the electronic brains of enemy weapons systems, including ships, planes and missiles, hold out the threat of lasting American superiority. The US can persuade a host of other countries to fund and man the wars it initiates. The only country that China can readily marshal to its side is Pakistan.
If the US can persuade Israel to stop pretending that the US still needs Israel to play regional bully, it will suddenly find a sea-change in its global appeal as well.
All those in charge of long-term strategy are strongly advised to not hold their breath waiting for an imminent change in the global power pecking order.
An index of power suited more for the world of national economies that most economists are comfortable with than for today's world of globalised economic activity is not the only problem with Eclipse. It also sadly underestimates four other key determinants of power: the ability to innovate technology, cultural influence - soft power, so to speak - the gap between current levels of national military technology and the ability to muster and lead international coalitions. In all these, the US is today far ahead of all other countries.
US universities are powerhouses of fundamental research, advances in which translate into technological breakthroughs. China will take generations to catch up, although they are on the job.
American films, television programming, music, games, food, fiction and clothes mould the lives and aspirations of young people everywhere, including in China. American companies - Google, Apple, Facebook, Coke - permeate their lives.
American military power is unrivalled. Advances in electromagnetic weaponry that can take out the electronic brains of enemy weapons systems, including ships, planes and missiles, hold out the threat of lasting American superiority. The US can persuade a host of other countries to fund and man the wars it initiates. The only country that China can readily marshal to its side is Pakistan.
If the US can persuade Israel to stop pretending that the US still needs Israel to play regional bully, it will suddenly find a sea-change in its global appeal as well.
All those in charge of long-term strategy are strongly advised to not hold their breath waiting for an imminent change in the global power pecking order.
Before Occupy Wall Street -- before Occupy Chicago, Los Angeles or Washington -- was "Occupy Tiananmen Square." I know because I was there, leading the student-fueled movement, and today I see glimpses of early Tiananmen in the Occupy Wall Street movement. My fellow students and I gathered in the square that fateful summer, and were, at first, ill-supplied, unorganized and ineffective. The occupiers are being accused of the same. During those long months in Tiananmen, thousands of us, mostly students, camped out for truth and freedom. We faced conflicts many thought were insurmountable: internal strife, external forces and harsh elements. But our protests rallied millions to our cause, and despite the tragic military crackdown that ensued, our unrelenting pressure shook the foundation of China's Communist system. Occupy Wall Street can also see success if they adhere to key organizing principles, many of which I learned the hard way and which I told to those assembled in my hometown at Occupy Boston: 1. Seek the Righteousness of the Kingdom. The Whole 100 Percent. Our rallying call in China came from a deep desire in our hearts for all people to be free, not just for 99 percent. In America, we all need freedom from greed and corruption. If Occupiers call for change for the 100 percent, many more people will be able to join the movement without misunderstanding labels others have created. Seek to unify, not further divide our nation. 2. Sow Peace and Harvest Justice. One thing we made sure of in Tiananmen from day one was this: No Violence. Even when the government handed us many guns to use against them, we destroyed the weapons and sent them back as a sign that we were committed to peace and would not resort to war -- even when tanks and troops rolled in. Occupiers must make sure that the messages sent out from its members are peaceful and nonviolent. Slogans like "EAT THE RICH" are alarming to people who could have come alongside in unity. The same peace message goes to the city leaders and the police force. Blessed are the peacemakers. Don't send a message to the dictators around the world that "America is oppressing its protestors too." 3. God Opposes the Proud but Gives Grace to the Humble. The French poet Victor Hugo once wrote, "an invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an invasion of ideas." Just imagine the power of sharing the ideas with humility. At Tiananmen we started a hunger strike movement that eventually grew to 3,000 people and lasted for seven days. Using China's love language -- saving food for the loved ones in a family through a hunger strike for a better nation -- brought millions of people, media reporters, government officials, even military officers and soldiers to understand and support the movement. What is the love language in America? Use it with humility; it will transform the movement and the nation. How about fasting for one meal and using the savings to help the poor, asking the rich to match for more? Or request a dialogue with the rich to learn what they are doing with their wealth? Or learn how much more they want to give, like 10 percent of their revenue if our tax code would allow it. We may be in for a surprise. 4. The Power of Prayer. If there is one thing I have learned since Tiananmen that I wish I knew the night of June 4, it is the power of prayer. God hears the cries of the destitute. He loves the poor and helps the oppressed. He will hear cries of the dissatisfied if they just call to Him. Occupy Boston has a spiritual tent and has had various religious services. I urge all Occupiers to take time daily to reflect and pray for the will of God, his power to be revealed and for daily bread. At All Girls Allowed, a new organization to end the largest crime against humanity today, we have seen and experienced the power of prayer and the miracles that God will produce when we pray in His name. God has promised us that HE will be found by us if we seek him with all our heart and all our mind. When Occupiers pray to Him and listen humbly, He will answer. 5. Warning to the Rich. Nothing we create or purchase in this world will have value in eternity. I learned through my own pursuit of the American Dream that money is not able to buy happiness or peace. And who are the rich? To the rest of the world -- the 3 billion people who live on less than $2 a day -- we are all the 1 percent. All Girls Allowed, the nonprofit organization I founded to restore value to girls andmothers in China, is working to save the lives of baby girls in China's poorest areas. These families live on less than $2 a day. There are millions in this situation. We must be the first to give if we hope to see change in our wealthy nation. Ghandi wisely implored followers to "Be the change you want to see in the world." Do Occupiers have to send money to China or Sub-Saharan Africa? No. But this movement needs a foundation of generosity if its message is to be heard and accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment