Will Najib do the same to Malaysians
The U.S. threw its weight behind nascent reforms led by Egypt's new vice president as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that international support was crucial to prevent extremists from hijacking the political transition.
A "perfect storm" of economic woes, repression and popular discontent could destabilize the Middle East, said Clinton, lending strong backing for Vice President Omar Suleiman's efforts. Clinton's comments at an international security conference suggested that the U.S. believes Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has set in motion the "orderly transition" it had demanded by appointing Suleiman, pledging not to run for re-election in a scheduled September vote and taking his son, Gamal, out of the succession picture.
"We have to send a consistent message supporting the orderly transition that has begun," Clinton told government officials, politicians, security experts and policy analysts.
Suleiman, appointed as Egypt's first vice president during Mubarak's three-decade reign, has begun to reach out to long-ignored opposition figures and aims to make constitutional and other changes before the elections are held. Suleiman was elevated from intelligence chief amid violent anti-government protests seeking to topple Mubarak.
Clinton said support for Suleiman's efforts was essential despite the risks of short-term instability, as illustrated by reports of an alleged attack Saturday on an oil pipeline in the Sinai Peninsula. An Egyptian gas company official said the explosion and fire was caused by a gas leak; a regional official said earlier that sabotage was suspected.
Such unsubstantiated reports bring "into sharp relief the challenges that we are facing as we navigate through this period," Clinton said.
"There are forces at work in any society and particularly one that is facing these kinds of challenges that will try to derail or overtake the process to pursue their own specific agenda," she said. "It's important to support the transition process announced by the Egyptian government actually headed by now-Vice President Omar Suleiman."
Her comments were a departure from the administration's earlier stance that centered almost entirely on the need for the transition to begin immediately.
"It takes time to think those through, to decide how one is going to proceed, who will emerge as leaders. The principles are very clear. The operational details are very challenging," she said.
Frank Wisner, the retired American diplomat sent by President Barack Obama to Cairo this past week to tell Mubarak that the U.S. saw his rule coming to an end, said Mubarak had to keep a leadership role at least temporarily if the "fragile glimmerings" of progress were to take hold as quickly as needed.
"President Mubarak's role remains utterly critical in the days ahead while we sort our way toward a future" in which Egypt is peaceful and moderate, and committed to its international obligations, including its peace treaty with Israel, Wisner said in his first public comments about the mission.
He told the conference by a video from New York that the international community had to play a "protective and encouraging role."
"There is a chance but we are in the early stages of seeing this take shape," Wisner said. "It is not certain that matters cannot slip off the rails, that you can't have renewed violence, violence in which radicals can push their case forward."
With anti-government demonstrations spreading from Tunisia to Egypt and Yemen, Clinton said high unemployment, depleting oil and water reserves and long-simmering unhappiness at autocratic rulers threaten global stability. That unhappiness expands exponentially with new communications technologies, she said.
"The region is being battered by a perfect storm of powerful trends," she said. "Leaders in the region may be able to hold back the tide for a little while, but not for long."
She said change is a "strategic necessity" that will make Arab nations stronger and their people more prosperous and less susceptible to extremist ideologies. The region will face greater threats and insecurity without such actions, she said.
"This is not simply a matter of idealism; it is a strategic necessity," she said. "Without genuine progress toward open and accountable political systems, the gap between people and their governments will grow, and instability will only deepen."
Clinton's speech mirrored one she delivered last month in Qatar, when she warned regional leaders that the foundations of progress and development were "sinking into the sand" and would continue to do so unless those leader acted to meet the aspirations of their people, particularly youth populations.
A day after that speech, Tunisia's longtime autocratic president was driven into exile amid a rebellion that in turned inspired protesters in Egypt to step up demonstrations against their leadership.
She said incremental steps that do not give people full freedom and opportunity will breed further discontent.
"This is what has driven demonstrators into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and cities throughout the area," she said. "The status quo is simply not sustainable."
"Some leaders may believe that their country is an exception – that their people will not demand greater political or economic opportunities, or that they can be placated with half-measures," she said. "In the short term, that may be true. But in the long-term that is untenable."
Many Middle Eastern leaders, including Mubarak, long had argued that opening up political space without controls would empower extremists bent on destabilizing their countries and the region.
Israeli officials have questioned calls for sweeping democratic reform in the region. They fear that peace deals with Egypt and Jordan could be threatened and their security imperiled if friendly Arab governments are ousted by popular uprisings backed by radical Islamists.
Clinton said democratic transitions can be messy and can fail when "hijacked by new autocrats who use violence, deception, and rigged elections to stay in power or to advance an agenda of extremism."
But she said leaders who deny their people basic rights open the door to instability rather than close it.
"If the events of these past few weeks prove anything, it is that the governments who consistently deny their people freedom and opportunity are the ones who will, in the end, open the door to instability."
Graphic footage has surfaced of what appears to be a protester shot in the streets of Alexandria, Egypt by secret police. The birds-eye view video shows seemingly peaceful activity until about 1:30, when what looks to be a tire on fire falls to the ground. A few moments later, an individual approaches what looks to be police forces and opens his jacket, facing them. The forces then shoot the protester, who collapses instantly. An English-language description of the video on YouTube says, "Most likely killed on Friday the 28th of January in the Manshya District in Alexandria. Video by Moustafa Mahmoud."
WATCH (Warning: Explicit Content):
Najib said he has decided Malaysian
to decide his fate the Barisan govrnvernent
that Egypt’s solution had to be on the demands and wants of the people to determine the future of their government.The resignation) is very important politically because this party was exploiting the state for the interests of the party, and that has caused a lot of criticism," adding that it had fuelled anger over corruption. Najib’s reminder was a short one: “We also want both sides not to resort to any form of violence and there not be any casualties as the people only want to show where they stand regarding the leadership Najib totally agreed with the PAS spiritual leader had earlier criticised Umno for continually oppressing the Malays with its undemocratic, unIslamic and secular nationalist principles.
What is interesting about the tsunamis of change cascading through the Middle East this past month is that the "dumb, undeserving-of-democracy" Arab masses have turned out to be magnificently saavy, efficient, focused and determined in flipping over longstanding dictatorships.
And it turns out they are polite too. Arab populations from North Africa, the Levant and the Persian Gulf have now, quite organically it seems, devised a wait-your-turn system for overthrowing the Middle East's iron-fisted leaders.
Opposition groups and ordinary citizens have taken to the streets in Yemen, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain and Algeria recently to air their grievances and demand change. But they are not going full throttle quite yet. First, they are waiting for their brothers and sisters in Egypt to finish, as Egyptians did when Tunisians were focused on overthrowing the 23-year-old dictatorship of now deposed president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Which leader is next is anyone's guess, but I bet that every subsequent uprising will be leaner and smarter than the last. The Arab masses are learning quickly: when the Egyptian security forces sent thugs onto the streets to foment chaos and turn folks against the protesters, Egyptian bloggers and commentators hit the media and social networks to warn about these tactics - quickly pointing out that Ben Ali's presidential guard had attempted the same a few weeks ago.
When the inevitable US and Israeli warnings came about Islamic fundamentalists hijacking the protests, the moderate Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) released statements to the contrary and aligned themselves behind Mohamed ElBaradei, a secular, Nobel Peace Prize-winning potential presidential candidate.
When warnings came that Egypt's Coptic Christians - ten per cent of the nation's population - would be targeted by the "mobs", Copts spurned the rumours and formed human chains to protect their fellow Muslims from government forces during prayer time.
It was literally just one week ago when American and mainstream Arab commentators were saying that what happened in Tunisia could not possibly happen in Egypt. That even if Egyptians hit the streets, it would take much, much longer to impact the entrenched government of Hosni Mubarak, if at all.
Instead, in seven days, Egyptians of all stripes - young, old, male, female, religious, secular - have fundamentally rocked the 30-year-old regime of president Mubarak. They have sought to keep the revolt peaceful. When security forces became aggressive, protesters fell to their knees in prayer, evoking some of the most emotional pictures of this uprising yet. They have nipped rumours in the bud swiftly, they have sent their rank and file to speak to the world's media, they have put aside differences to speak with one voice.
That voice - en masse - is not demanding lower taxes or higher subsidies as would be expected from a people whose per capita income amounts to less than two dollars per day. It is demanding the removal of their president, a fundamental change in the constitution and the reform and re-election of all political bodies. But wasn't this all about poverty and human rights?
Yes and no. "Yes", in that the clever Arab masses realise the obvious: that good policies can only come from good governance. And "no", in that this is obviously not only about the individual and his/her needs: a closer examination of the governments under threat in the wider Middle East shows that they are all US allies - regimes that we have supported regardless of their human rights records or their ability to govern fairly and effectively.
None of them are on the side of that famously maligned axis consisting of "Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas". Those state and non-state actors will not be directly touched by this gale of unified popular protest - and neither will Qatar, Oman, Iraq and Turkey.
But don't be mistaken that the Arab masses are unleashing an anti-American revolution in the region. In fact, while they dislike US policy, there does not seem to be a specific rage directed at Americans at all. This smarter-by-the-second Arab Street realises full well the reasons for the US's rotten policies in the region - primarily its blind commitment to promote Israel's interests and "security" above all else, including its own. So while most American politicians and pundits remain "concerned" about the spiralling events in Egypt, it is Israel and its US allies who are really, truly splitting a gut.
It turns out that the "we're the only democracy in the Middle East" crowd are eminently satisfied with the dictatorships around them. It is the only way they look good by comparison. And the only way they can control Arab masses and regional narratives, both. As news broke yesterday that Jordan's king Abdullah was dissolving his recently appointed government, you could practically see the realisation dawning on some of the region's most vociferous supporters of US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Jordan has seen spurts of protests these past few weeks, primarily against prime minister Samir Rifai who, to be fair, didn't have much of a chance to prove his mettle, if indeed he had any. But alas, I think Abdullah's move to preempt Tunisia- and Egypt-style repercussions has just flipped the focus onto himself.
The king of Jordan may now be the first monarch hit by the popular regional discontent.
Which effectively means that with Lebanon's new "quiet" shift toward the opposition, Israel may soon be facing on all three borders its worst nightmare. Arab masses, fed up with repression, implementing democracy with the support of worldwide audiences…willing, able and experienced in righting injustices peacefully and responsibly.
And getting in line to help each other do it right.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East, and a Senior Associate at St. Antony's College, Oxford University.
He said, “Initially, we see Tun Mahathir as a person who loves Malay unity. Does Tun Mahathir realise that Umno has been the one oppressing the Malays?
“I want to ask Tun Mahathir, what is the basis of Umno’s struggles? Has Umno in any way put Islam as the basis of its struggles ahead of national struggles? Can Umno even call themselves pious?”
Nik Aziz questioned if Umno had even cared about the rights of the Malays or Islam and used various examples to illustrate his point.
He cited the federal government’s now-aborted plans to award gambling licences, the government’s abolishment of the Jawi script in schools (1968) and the reduction of national funds for Islamic schools during the Mahathir administration.
Nik Aziz also accused Umno of using undemocratic means to stay in power, claiming that Umno had “kidnapped” PAS assemblymen and MPs back in 1961 just to trounce PAS at the polls in Terengganu and Kelantan.
According to Nik Aziz, Umno had ordered the mass killings of Malay followers of Ibrahim Libya in Memali.
He said, “Till this day Umno continues its undemocratic practices. In Perak, they topple the government from behind. In Selangor, they appoint the state secretary without any prior discussion with the mentri besar. Strangely, it is this same ‘ketuanan Melayu’ party which had opposed an amendment to return the powers of the Selangor Sultan.
“In Kelantan, they (Umno) deny us oil royalty rights and instead set up a federal development department (JPP). This is not democracy, federalism and a far cry from being Islamic.”
In his blog, Mahathir called Nik Aziz an opportunist who was willing to forsake his Islamic beliefs for political mileage.
“It is because of Malay nationalists our country is now governed by Malay-Muslim leaders. These leaders instil Islamic practices in the government administration and build mosques and banned the national lottery... how bad can these nationalists be?”
Mahathir then blamed both Nik Aziz and PAS for shattering hopes of a Malay unity because the Malays split into three splinter groups.
Mahathir said, “This is Nik Aziz’s contribution... He ignored one of the most important Islamic concepts, that is brotherhood among Muslims”.
Nik Aziz brushed aside Dr Mahathir’s remarks and said that he was suffering from the “Melayu mudah lupa” (Malays easily forget) syndrome.
He said, “Tun Mahathir labels me and PAS as the reason for the division among the Malays. Perhaps it is me then who caused Umno to be banned in 1987 which lead to the formation of Semangat 46. Perhaps it is me who caused the deputy president of Umno to be sacked in 1999 and eventually formed PKR.
“I am worried... Tun Mahathir has already contracted the ‘Melayu mudah lupa’ disease which he talked about some time back.”
For 22 years, Dr. Mahathir’s divisive policies helped deepen the racial divide in Malaysia so that he and Umno would retain power with absolute control over the Malay community, the largest voter base in the country.
Dr Mahathir sought to portray the Chinese, principally the DAP, as the enemy in a dubious attempt to unite the Malays.
During his rule, corruption thrived whereas various institutions, which were once the pride of the region, such as the judiciary, the police force, the civil service, the teachers, the universities, the Family Planning Unit, all disintegrated into mediocrity or chaos.
Mahathir’s race based policies have been used by successive governments to keep the Malays in check and is just short of causing the downfall of the Malays. The majority of the Malays are poor, apart from a tiny fraction which is closely linked to the top of Umno. They are super-rich.
Mahathir has denied the ordinary Malay the chance to excel, be disciplined, stretch himself, shake off his provincial thinking, be rewarded by hard work, be proud of his own achievements and realise that fear of failure is only in the mind.
For as long as Umno is in power, the Malays will never be liberated from oppression.
Protesters who have rocked Egypt's political system have complained about corruption, poverty and political repression that left power in the hands of Mubarak and his allies.
"Practically, it is important because the people using violence were being mobilised by the party ... and now they have been stripped of this protection and they won't feel secure that they have a party behind them," .Acting almost in concert with former Prime minister Mahathir Mohamad who made remarks about the uprising in north Africa, Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak assured Malaysians that his administration would put the interests of the people first.
He said, “In a democratic system, we must prioritise the people. The people, in the present era, are empowered through globalisation, ICT and with a higher level of education and when they are unhappy, they show it more openly.
“We must learn from this (crisis in Egypt).”
Economists have, for over a month, had an internet debate on growth and social spending. It started with the Financial Times citing Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen as saying it would be "stupid" to focus on double-digit GDP growth without spending more on social sectors. The newspaper also cited Jagdish Bhagwati, a potential Nobel Laureate, as stressing second-generation economic reforms to accelerate growth to finance more targeted social spending.
I think Martin Wolf of the Financial Times got to the heart of this debate. "Obviously higher incomes are a necessary condition for better state-funded welfare, better jobs and so forth. This is simply not debatable. Indeed, only in India do serious intellectuals dream of debating these issues." How true!
Rather than enter this debate, let me simply expose the scandalous mendacity of left analysts and politicians on this issue. Sen did not actually accuse the government of failing to expand social spending. But a cavalcade of left analysts and politicians has endlessly repeated the myth that the government is a neoliberal fiend that focuses on fast growth while ignoring social spending. Which planet do they live on? Social spending has actually been booming.
Recent scams make it blindingly obvious that the last thing this government focuses on is GDP acceleration. When Ashok Chavan and other worthies wangled lucrative flats for relatives and friends in what was supposed to be a defence services building, were they aiming for double-digit GDP growth? Was this a neoliberal abandonment of all regulations, or a classic case of the neta-babu raj imposing regulations in the holy name of socialism, and then using them to line their pockets and create patronage networks?
When Suresh Kalmadi and others handed out bonanzas to various contractors in the Commonwealth Games, did these constitute a single-minded focus on accelerating GDP? Or did they display a single-minded focus on accelerating their own personal wealth?
When former telecom minister Raja manipulated 2G spectrum to favour some businesses, causing revenue losses of possibly Rs 176,000 crore according to the CAG, was he trying to accelerate economic growth? No, he was illustrating the strategy of the political class: no matter how many controls are abolished to facilitate growth in some areas, controls must be expanded and milked in other areas to ensure that politics remains the most profitable business of all.
Like all businesses, politics requires massive cash investments in winning elections. Likewise, politicians want high dividends from their investment. But democracy means they may never be re-elected or get another cabinet post. Any opportunity to make big money may be their last. So, they make hay while the sun shines, piling up enough cash to last a possible lifetime out of power.
Every political party in India is an investor with considerable expertize in ways to improve profits and shareholder value. But the Congress has always been the biggest business house of all. It knows that to stay profitable in a democracy, a ruling party must provide visible hand-outs for the masses, even while raking in black money itself. This principle has been the lodestar of seven years of Sonia-Manmohan Singh rule. Second generation economic reforms have taken a back seat.
On coming to power in 2004, the first priority of the Congress-led UPA coalition was to rectify the supposed anti-rural bias of the preceding Vajpayee government. So it shifted governmental focus to Education For All, rural employment guarantees through NREGA, and Bharat Nirman—a multifaceted rural infrastructure programme covering irrigation, roads, telecom, electrification, health and much else. This was a win-win strategy, wooing voters while ensuring that leakages from social programmes leaked (to the extent possible) into the desired political pockets.
Between 2004-05 and 2009-10,central plus state social spending more than doubled from Rs 1.73 lakh crore to Rs 4.46 lakh crore (and from 5.33% of GDP to 7.23%). So, social spending has actually risen faster than GDP.
Rapid GDP growth has financed, not hindered, rapid growth of social spending. The Economic Survey (2009-10) says gross central revenues more than doubled in 2004-05 and 2009-10, from Rs 3.04 lakh crore to 6.41 lakh crore. This helped finance the social spending boom.
Sonia Gandhi's key policy innovation has been a National Advisory Council brimming with NGOs. This led to the Right to Information, a sort of Right to Work (through an employment guarantee), Right to Food (to be implemented through a Food Security Act) and Right to Education. To claim that this is a mindless neoliberal search for double-digit growth is nonsense. I hope Amartya Sen will denounce such claims as stupid.
