Ucapan saya di Kongres Shakespeare Sedunia VIII Ahad 16 – Jumaat 21 Julai 2006 di Brisbane City Hall, Queensland, Australia
Our answer is that those who hold positions of power also carry a moral responsibility to listen to the people. To interfere with individual freedom is to rob individuals not just of their freedom, but of the right and responsibility they have to reason. No one has a right to take away that liberty, not a single despot and not even a duly constituted legislative majority.
Teks lengkap seterusnya…
Between Tyranny and Freedom: A Brief Voyage with the Bard
Plenary paper by Anwar Ibrahim at the VIII World Shakespeare Congress Sunday 16 – Friday 21 July 2006 at Brisbane City Hall, Queensland, Australia.
Anwar Ibrahim is currently Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington DC, and Honorary President of Accountability, London.
Ten years ago, I addressed an audience at the Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines. I began with the following lines:
Midway in the journey of our life I found myself in a dark wood, for the straight path was lost. Ah, how hard it is to tell what that wood was, wild, rugged, harsh; the very thought of it renews fear! It is so bitter that death is hardly more so.
While I do not intend to sound like an antique drum, I do want to remind ourselves of our inter-connectedness in the face of the forces that threaten to separate us. It is said that throughout its history, the West has defined itself in opposition to the East, in terms of the rational against the irrational, the superior against the inferior, or as Edward Said puts it, the Orient is the West’s great complementary opposite since antiquity. To paraphrase William Hazlitt in his characterization of Leontes, this discourse is “beset with doubts and fears, and entangled more and more in the thorny labyrinth†of mutual distrust and jealousy. We will have more to say about The Winter’s Tale and the overriding theme of tyranny later, but, for now, let us just say that, it is this blinkered view of the world with vociferous advocates on both sides that has led us into mutual suspicion, acrimony and hostility, and threatens to suck us into the quicksand of an even greater clash.
The Divine Comedy to my mind is really about the clash between good and evil, a universal and timeless drama of the human predicament. According to Santayana, the symbolism in The Divine Comedy had been devised for a purpose; “and this purpose, as the Koran, too, declares, had been to show forth the great difference there is in God’s sight between good and evil.†(1) Let me transpose the clash between evil and good onto the struggle between tyranny and freedom as we embark on a brief voyage with the Bard, “the most universal genius that ever livedâ€Â, as our guide and companion.
On September 2, 1998, I was sacked from the government and relieved of all executive positions. I have had the occasion to recount the stormy events that followed at a keynote address given last year to the Lawasian Conference held here too, and since brevity is the soul of wit, I will just round up the episode by saying, once again, that:
Midway upon the journey of my life I found myself in a dark wood, where the right way was lost
The ‘dark wood’ I found myself in was none other than the prison cell that would be my abode of solitary confinement for the next six years. Tyranny had been let loose. Freedom was being incarcerated. It might not have been the Gulag Archipelago of Solzhenitzyn’s but there was the same systematic, deeply irrational use of terror against a large section of society: people who supported the cause of reform; and people who just wanted to show that they cared for freedom and justice and that they were prepared to suffer the consequences of fighting tyranny; But much as we opposed, we couldn’t end them. Hamlet had gate crashed into our lives, so that we would have to bear the whips and scorns of time, the insolence of office and the law’s delay. But, as I had said to Nelson Mendela when we met in Johannesburg soon after my release, mine was only a short walk to freedom.
Isaiah Berlin tells us that freedom is essentially the absence of constraints imposed by others. I am free to the degree to which no man interferes with my activity; political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. But viewed behind the walls of incarceration, shorn of philosophical abstraction, freedom takes on a completely different dimension. Thus, freedom is simply the day my lawyer placed on my table my own copy of the Riverside Edition of The Complete Works of Shakespeare. This came six months to the day of my incarceration. Before that, only one copy of the Qur’an was allowed which no doubt was the only thing I needed for my devotional activities. But even a man condemned to death row needs to read; I was only in for 15 years. Indeed as I soon discovered, deprivation of reading material was one of the chief attempts at inflicting mental torture by the powers that be.
When Walt Whitman described democracy as a young giant exposed all over to the life-giving air, he also meant that in such a democracy every citizen was free to think and feel for himself. But in the land of Shakespeare, thought control was introduced in the midst of civil war in 1643, prompting Milton to write Areopagitica. In what is generally regarded as the earliest indictment against censorship in England as well as his best prose writing, Milton wrote:
Truth and understanding are not such wares as to be monopolized and traded in by tickets and statutes, and standards. We must not think to make a staple commodity of all the knowledge in the Land, to mark and licence it like our broad cloth, and our wool packs. (2)
In modern Western societies the tension between the ultimate value of ‘freedom’ in its broadest sense and that of ‘equality’ has occasioned intense soul searching. The desire for ‘freedom’ is then counter-balanced by the demands for ‘equality.’ This is because those who may benefit most from freedom may not always be the weak, the marginalized and the oppressed, but also, the rich and the powerful. This situation may give rise to what Gore Vidal sums up as ‘socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor!’
Could thought control be justified on the grounds that freedom of expression can never be absolute? In a civilized society, every individual has the right to express his or her thoughts and beliefs but we would imagine that there has to be some limits to freedom to defame, to incite to hatred one race or ethnic group against another, to blaspheme, or to disseminate falsehood, and so on.
But in reality, we find that there is an even greater likelihood of autocrats and tyrants abusing the constraints on freedom. For example, they will contend that the freedom to criticize the powers that be must also be curtailed because it causes political instability, which in turn may lead to insurrection and disorder. This pretext has been used habitually by petty despots and aspiring autocrats alike, some citing religious sanction for legitimacy. Of late, it is also being used by democracies as legitimate grounds to erode the basic freedoms of the people. In the name of the war on terror, these modern demagogues have no hesitation in suspending civil liberties which are supposed to be the hallmarks of a constitutional democracy. In this regard, it is fashionable to invoke the virtues of traditional values and condemn the blind imitation of Western concepts: Consensus is better than individual freedom. Opinions of the state must prevail over those of the individual because of the need to protect public morals and to maintain peace and harmony. So on and so forth.
Our answer is that those who hold positions of power also carry a moral responsibility to listen to the people. To interfere with individual freedom is to rob individuals not just of their freedom, but of the right and responsibility they have to reason. No one has a right to take away that liberty, not a single despot and not even a duly constituted legislative majority.
According to Aristotle, tyrants acquire power by promising to protect the people and retain power by preventing the rise of any person of exceptional merit, by assassination if necessary. He should employ spies, sow the seeds of discord, and impoverish his subjects while keeping them occupied in great works, as the king of Egypt did in getting the pyramids built. For such a tyrant, freedom of expression is obviously untenable. On the contrary, literary conferences must be banned just as any education likely to produce hostile sentiment. (3) This really looks like “art made tongue-tied by authorityâ€Â.
In my solitary confinement, I sought solace in prayer and reading the Qur’an. Subject to that, I would agree with Hazlitt that Shakespeare would indeed be enough for us. Apart from going back and forth to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Nehru’s Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom, and al-Ghazali’s Deliverance from Error, Shakespeare remained my most intimate companion and chief source of comfort: Hamlet, King Lear, The Winter’s Tale – the list may look predictable, even hackneyed, but only if we see it from the frigid perspective of academia. But in the stoned silence of the night, when you have no one to talk to, Shakespeare’s characters become more than mere dramatis personae. They speak to you and allow you to speak to them.
In Julius Caesar you hear yourself telling Brutus why he should not have made that fatal error in allowing Marc Anthony to address those fickle minded Romans. And then it dawns on you that you yourself might have suffered the same overweening confidence in the goodness of your cause to resist injustice and tyranny. Hazlitt sums up the argument: Tyranny and servility are to be dealt with after their own fashion: otherwise, they will triumph over those who spare them. Reading Macbeth, you tell yourself that the “air-drawn dagger†should be haunting your conspirators, assailing them with ‘the stings of remorse†and “preternatural solicitings.†Usurper, murderer and tyrant, that’s what Macbeth is: but you’re still alive. But it wasn’t for want of trying – don’t forget you were left for dead and the whole world saw your black eye. And now there’s arsenic in your food. In The Tempest, you look around and find yourself surrounded by four walls; what else is there but to take a flight of fancy and start playing the part of Prospero? This one you could definitely relate to. It’s the story about freedom over tyranny, the triumph of light over darkness. It starts with incarceration and ends with freedom. And between the idea and the reality you have to settle for Ariel instead, bending to the tasks at hand, do your time before the time is out. And as the end draws near, you gain freedom with the rediscovery of virtue within yourself. But we see tyranny in its most ruthless manifestation in The Winter’s Tale unleashed on the saint-like Hermione. There is neither an Edmund nor an Iago to lay the blame on for Leontes’s state of mind. Is there a way to rationalize the character of this jealous tyrant? Is it the tyrant in him that makes him so irrationally jealous or is it just the jealousy that transforms him into a tyrant? Or does the answer lie in Shakespeare’s metaphysics?
We could say, like Harold Bloom, that with King Lear we are at the very centre of canonical excellence just as we would be as we traverse the cantos of the Inferno or the Purgatorio. But above all, it is in the harrowing barrenness in the final scene that makes it particularly compelling for me to read the play, over and over again, in those long hours of solitude and read it with intense attention. Yet it is in defeat that we find victory as we can gather from Lear’s speech to Cordelia after they have lost the battle:
Come, let’s away to prison;
We two alone will sing like birds i’ the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out,
And take upon’s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies; and we’ll wear out;
In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by the moon. V, iii, 8-19
Needless to say, depending on your state of mind at any given time, with Shakespeare, you could be anyone you choose to be. When Keats was suffering from his bouts of depression, he wrote to his friend, the painter Benjamin Robert Haydon, who chided him. In reply, Keats says “I never quite despair and I read Shakespeare – indeed I shall…never read any other Book…†(4) And this leads us to Hamlet.
According to Eliot’s doctrine of the “objective correlativeâ€Â, the finding of which is the only way of expressing emotion in the form of art, Hamlet is a failure. Hamlet (the man) is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear. It is a feeling which he cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and obstruct action. In conclusion, Eliot says, we must simply admit that in Hamlet Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for him. (5) With all due respect to the poet whose Four Quartets I continue to quarry whenever I am short of a quote or two, in my view, Hamlet needs no “objective correlativeâ€Â, and this is what happens when we keep hoping to be wrong about Shakespeare in a new way. Coleridge, perhaps having foreknowledge of the self-induced intellectual conundrums that might be caused by Hamlet, had summed up the situation as follows: “It had been too much the custom when we could not explain anything that happened by the few words that were employed to explain everything; we passed it over as beyond our reach: they were looked upon as hints which Philosophy could not explain: as the terra incognita for future discoveries; the great ocean of unknown things to be afterward explored, or as the sacred fragments of a ruined temple, every part of which in itself was beautiful but the particular relation of which parts was unknown.†(6) Indeed it is this terra incognita in Hamlet which, in the language of transcendence, will remain hidden to those who are not initiated in the mysteries but not being unknowable, it is but a hidden treasure waiting to be discovered. It may be more accurate to say therefore that in Hamlet, Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for the audience at large to handle.
This calls to mind the observation made by the late Martin Lings that to be present at an adequate performance of King Lear is not merely to watch a play but to witness, mysteriously, the whole history of mankind. As Shakespeare matures he becomes more focused on the question of religion, not in the narrow sense of a mode of worship but in its most universal aspect, which is man having the right attitude of the soul towards God. He places himself at the very centre of the ancient world. For him Apollo is not the god of light but the light of God. Character after character is developed to a state of virtue which is pushed to the very limits of human nature. King Hamlet is purified in Purgatory but he is also a symbol of man’s lost Edenic state spoken of by young Hamlet in the following terms:
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal
To give the world assurance of a man (III, 4, 60-62)
The pious man looks at the story of the Garden of Eden objectively but imagines the devil to be harmless, unaware of the extent of his own subservience to him. The mystic, on the other hand, looks at it subjectively and knows that most of what seems neutral is harmful. Hamlet transcends the idea of salvation, that is, simple piety in the conventional sense, and shows that Shakespeare, having drunk from the fountain of esotericism, knew where to ‘take upon us the mystery of things, as if we were God’s spies’ and tread the path towards sanctification. (7)
Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism or other religions, faith reinvigorated could lead not just to bigotry, but may, when compounded with the elements of political and social discontent, cause us to express ourselves through violence and bloodshed. But if molded under the hand of the universal wisdom it could be a force to free us from ignorance and intolerance, injustice and greed. To use the language of the Gospel of Saint John, this perennial wisdom is the light that “shines in darkness,†although “the darkness comprehends it not.†It is also alluded to in the Qur’an with striking imagery: the light of a lamp “lit from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touches it.â€Â
Shouldn’t this be the light to illuminate our path by imbuing us with ideals that are universal: a message of truth, justice and compassion, and above all, of the liberty and dignity of man? We talk of globalization and the end of history, but we remain a world torn asunder by the practice of polity identified solely with the exercise of power, and leadership that is increasingly divorced from ethical concerns and morality. Enduring peace and harmony of the world must be built not upon hegemonies but on mutual concern, trust and respect. We must discard our loyalties for the parochial and break free from the chains of outmoded mindsets; we should, like Hamlet, be “a little more than kin, and less than kindâ€Â. For more than a century, Kipling has had his say. Let us forswear “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meetâ€Â, and instead, like Prospero, proclaim a “fair encounter, of two most rare affectionsâ€Â.
I see that The Tempest is not in the list of performances; so let me throw caution to the wind and seize this moment while I still have the podium, to recite, as my parting words, the last few lines of the Epilogue:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon’d be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
Thank you.
________________________________
Notes
1. Santayana, G., Three Philosophical Poets – Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe, Cambridge Harvard University, 1910, pp 106-7
2. Areopagitica; A Speech of Mr John Milton For the Liberty of Unlicenced Printing, To the Parliament of England, 1644 p 107
3. Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1946, p 214
4. Dorothy Hewlett, Adonais – A Life of John Keats, The Bobbs Merrill Co, New York, 1938, p 110
5. T.S. Eliot, Selected Essays, London, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1932, pp 141-46.
6. The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lectures 1808-1819 On Literature I, ed. R.A. Foakes, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Princeton University Press, 1987, p 316
7. Martin Lings, The Secret of Shakespeare – His Greatest Plays Seen in the Light of Sacred Art, 3rd edn., Quinta Essentia, 1996, pp 5, 10-13, 22-25, 29-31; He is better known in the Muslim community as Shaikh Abu Bakar Siraj al-Din, the writer of the highly popular modern biography of the Prophet, Mohamed, his life based on the earliest sources.
Hi Sdr Anwar: Congrats on turning to The Bard for some lessons we can pply to modern times, esp in the filed of politics and civilisationof man. I too have used a lot of Shakespearean references in my Blog writings at desiderata2000.blogspot, which I started about 1-1/2years ago.
I just concluded a 7-part series (sorry I did not have your Email, so I’m appending yesterday’s Post and the day before here) analysing the curent FACE-OFF between current PM and ex-PM (plus other protagonists like yourself and curent DPM Najib) in what I had termed as EPIC PLAY ON THE PWTC STAGE. Indded, I had described Najib as a “well-nigh” Brutus as a fence-sitter playing both sides in the ongoing Sandiwara, as we await the “final victim” of this man’s dagger at whom will “Et tu, Brute!” be directed.
I truly appreciate your treatise above on the one who is widely accalimed as the greatest English writer ever lived –Shakespeare — and will ruminate on it in depth over the weekend.
Appendices of last two Posts from here
“Thursday, July 20, 2006Epic Play: Anwar is right man to lead JUSTICE option
This instalment ends the series which I started with a Prelude to Viewing Malaysia’s Political Landscape on July 8, 2006.
Today I go back from where I started, with two points raised by Readers Xpyred and Mave in the discourse about what Options are on the Malaysians’ plate in selceting the leaders to progress NegaraKu to developed nation status, never mind it’s not done by targeted date 2020, at least we have started on the right footing.
mGf at xpyred.textfiend.net in an entry entitled
“on khairy jamaluddin: i’ve got my version, what’s your’s?”
dated June 16, 2006 had raised the question of ETHICS in the field of POLITICS.
“…suppose I tell myself, “But only the real issues matter: housing, jobs, press freedom, etc.”. The question I will have to ask myself is: will I accept these issues being raised, discussed and handled by people who got to power through less than ethical means?
If I were to be pragmatic, I’d probably tell myself, “well, that’s realpolitik for you”. After all, politicians manage the interests of self-interested people. And self-interested people, following that logic, should root for politicians who can protect their interests best - and perhaps that also means rooting for “politicians who survive best”? Or perhaps it merely means rooting for politicians who can pander to the interests of self-interested people the best?
And that is exactly what Pericles, in his second speech, does, isn’t it? Pericles, however, was recognized as the First amongst his peers; would I vote for a scoundrel who is willing to protect my interests? There are a whole host of other questions related to Pericles that I’m ignoring, but I suppose those can be set aside for the moment.
Anyway. What is the most pragmatic option? Basically, if everything RPK says about Khairy is true, if Khairy demonstrates that he can protect your interests, would you root for him?
DESIDERATA’s short answer that Politics has been pragmatically defined as THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE. Another saying is also relevant — That there are no permanent friends or foes in politics — only permanent interests.
I had said several times that Malaysians find themselves in a neat conundrum of being caught twist THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA.
Realistically, we then make decisions to minimise the negatives that impact on us in daily living, and try to maximise the positives. Through active participation in politics — whether you like it or not. The Epic Play on the PWTC Stage is NOT like As You Like It from The Bard — PWTC is where the nation’s policies are determined, like tghe NEP. Not in Parliament which has been turned into a ZOO sometimes; others may beg to disagree saying MOST TIMES, and who’s Desi to disagree?
One of xpyred’s readers, sigma,wrote:
“Ummn, I’ve been reading a bit about the Khairy Chronicles, but I don’t remember reading that he would protect my interests?
I think that one should read that chronicles with 2 pinches of salt, as a lot of what it says is through the grapevine. Not entirely RPK’s fault, mind you, but an appropriation of the blame has to go towards Malaysia’s untransparent political system too, hence forcing people to have to resort towards listening to corridor gossips for the ‘inside’ news.
I initially had great hopes for the Oxford grad. Me thought that a sound foundation of proud traditional Anglo education would expound into him the virtues of egalitarianism, equality, multiculturalism, logical reasoning and intellectual wit.
I based these assumptions of mine from the Anglo institution that I am attending, the University of Sydney. Almost all of the political clubs here, as well as the aspiring student politicians incorporate these traits in their platform. And would guess that such a premier institution lik Oxford University would be similar, if not more enamoured with these beliefs.
And since Khairy has had the chance to apply those beliefs in the real-life workings of a real country, a chance that many of those student politicians would die for, he doesn’t seem to have, through his father,(Desi: I believe he meant father-in-law, the PM?) implemented any of those admirable traits to Malaysia as yet. Hence by dissapointment with him.
Its clear that RPK isn’t a pro-Khairy fellow. Those chronicles, IMO, are bordering on libel, since they are without substantial proof.
But in none of those articles have I came across the fact that Khairy is a pragmatic politician. In fact, I still don’t know what he stands for.
To me, the epitome of a chameleon politician has got to be Anwar Ibrahim. Defender of UMNO for a moment, darling of the Opposition and the West the next moment.”
Answering Sigma directly, I’m reprising this extract:
:
:
July 1st, 2006, at 11:13 am #
“ylchong wrote:
xpyred:
:
I can safely make ONE CONCLUSION about Khairy J, by his public demonstration of KETUANAN MELAYU with his boss Hishamuddin Tun Hussein wielding the “keris†at the UMNO Youth Assembly he is the “typical†UMNO upstart following in the footsteps of current DPM Najib Tun Razak, ex-MB Selangor Muhammah Muhd Taib who similarly cried for “blood†(of non-Malays) to be shed also at a public gathering in a stadium decades earlier. SO I’d rule this “bast…†if I hope to have a Bangsa Malaysia … progressing on politics above Race, Colour, Creed and Gender; politics based on NEEDS, not RACE which I advocate in my mainly Civic Society blog.
I take a break to refer to articulate, but shakily facts-based arguments from Sigma, in particular just this point “…To me, the epitome of a chameleon politician has got to be Anwar Ibrahim. Defender of UMNO for a moment, darling of the Opposition and the West the next moment. â€Â
Defender of UMNO “for a moment† close to 1-1/2 decades can’t be a moment. Anwar parachuted into UMNO  courted from his PAS-leaning ways as nationally, first as ABIM head  by Dr Mahathir, and quickly rose in UMNO to Minister, Finance Minister cum DPM by passing many other “senior†leaders, including present PM!
“…darlin of the Opposition and the West the next…â€Âis TRUE after he was sacked (under highly controversial circumstances. still under debate to this day, in future too… BUT LET’S GIVE HIM SIME CREDIT THAT HE GAVE MALAYSIANS A CHANCE FOR “REFORM & REFORMATION†(ala French Revolution, maybe West-dervived BUT is it inherently BAD?) So on balance, this partial judgment by Sigma cannot be totally be seen as NEGATIVE to be held against the former UMNO PM-in-waiting.
:
:
July 2nd, 2006, at 11:42 pm #
“xpyre wrote:
Ever since I saw Khairy standing behind Hishammudin as the latter wielded his keris, I grew ever more suspicious about his intentions. But here’s the difficulty: if Khairy does indeed pose as a possible, enlightened leader, what are we willing to ignore?
I think this issue is quite complicated. What’s currently on my mind is: what sort of person is Khairy - apart from the little tidbits RPK issues on his blog? How will that affect my decision about supporting him or not? IF he’s worth supporting, what price do I have to pay for that support? Is any price worth paying?
If Khairy trumps everyone and emerges the most powerful contender to the throne, how will this affect the democratic process - a party leader does not a member of parliament make; he still needs to be elected, doesn’t he? What’s going to be ‘fixed’ this time?
It’s quite a.. well. I mean, look at the democratic process. We vote, but we can only vote for candidates. Who are the candidates? Who decides on the candidates? Not the people, but the party, I suppose? Unless we’re talking about independents stepping up to the plate. Who has control? I mean, real control?
Well, just some unordered thoughts…”
July 3rd, 2006, at 12:06 am #
“ylchong wrote:
hi xpyred:
“… Basically, Under the Social Contract, ideally the Government lives up to its Compact (Agreement) as spelt out in its Election Manifesto/es to the people/electorate.
If the Rakyat/electorate are not happy, they can “vote†the present government “out of office†at the next General Elections, but this is only good in theory. The odds are stacked heavily against the opposition –with the incumbent government uing the “gerrymander†in parliamentary constituencies to iit great advantage eg.a Bn constituency may have 30,000 electors but an Oppo area may have double ie. 60,000 voters!
And in realpolitik, the current destabilised stage at PWTC is due to the FACE-OFF between two camps within UMNO, the old order represented by a former PM, Dr Mahathir (plus proxies in Camp1) and the new order led by current PM Pak Lah (plus his proxies in Camp2).
My main thesis is the war is really about fighting for the Bigger Pie of the Malaysian Cake, especially blatantly open and vicious in economically challenging times. Why do you think that *â€ÂMEGA-PROJECTSâ€Âand billion-dollar old scandals being frely opened up for public scrutiny, and both new and old “Pandora’s boxes†are being opened up one by one  via the courts and mass media  for all Malaysians to SEE. As I noted, an unintended outcome of this FACE-OFF is that the mass media “seem†(Yes, I said this is a transient illussion, not a permanent reality) to be enjoying a more open and liberal environment (a “Springtime†that will last…we pray). Another sidenote is to witness the secondary roles played in the unfolding drama by ex-GEICs and current GEICS of the NST, eg Klimulah Hassan (in cahoots with Khairy Jamaludin), Brendan Pereira vs Kadir Jasin, RockyBru.
Please share your opinions if you have the time!:) …”
July 15th, 2006, at 9:35 pm #
“xpyre wrote:
It’s as you say: they are just fighting for a larger piece of the pie. Yesterday, while leaving a client’s place, I was asked for my opinion on the whole matter and what I said then probably applies here: it’s just two self-interested clans - probably separated by a generation - who are fighting over the scraps of what remains of Malaysia.
I can’t see this current tussle as anything more than Mahathir protecting his own interests - the same interests he protected and depended on while he was prime minister. And now? Why, isn’t it surprising how expensive dismantling big mega projects are? I wonder who’s getting a share of the pie in this case…
Behind all of this is a fear yet another friend expressed quite well: what happens when these ravenous dogs run out of blood to suck out of the national coffers? Well, we’ve got rich Chinese fat cats. Might as well do them.
:
:
:
The exchanges engaged by Desi with xpyred are relevant as it was priomarily in answering Xpyred and Mave SM’s challenge I embarked with this LONG ESSAY in several instalments — maybe I shoould submit to UPM to publish as a textbook, and then share the “loot” eh? Just an aside, I’m happy to read today’s NST frontapge:
ETHNIC RELATIOINS GUIDEBOOK WITHDRAWN
‘Ther facts of history
can never be changed…
There is no need for
us to hurl accusations
at other races.’ — (PM) Abdullahj
Just add that I still would urge my ER to give Pak Lah until the end of this term — and should he lead the BN into another term, up to second term’s tenure — to “fully deliver” his election pledges. I have mentioned some BABY STEPS taken — Judiciary being given back some independence and dignity; the Police has come aroubnd to the establishment of the IPCMC; and some spruingtime of media freedom and openness — whether permanent (freal) or temporal (illussion) is yet to be seen…
Okay, back to KJ and accusations some of my ER have thrown up, also by readers at several other Blogs I care to spend time at — that Khairy and PM’s son are using the PM’s position to advance their business interests.
TO SUCH ALLEGATIONS about the PM’s family being involved in business, I would rebut with: “Is this something new in UMNO politics?”
With this rhetorical eresponse, I am not saying I support or condone their activities, but re-state what is a fact of UMNO politics — otherwise, how do you explain away similar actions involving one of Mahathir’s sons buying controlling interests amounting to billions in MISC at one time? About the subsequent action to use Petronas to bail out MISC following the 1997/98 financial crisis. I indeed posit this was the key issue that Anwar resisted against his boss’ insistence to bail out the son that led to Anwar’s subsequent downfall — of course, Anwar’s in favour of IMF measures to tackle the financial crisis did not help.
At about the same time, remember one MCA minister’s son was approved by banks in facilities up to RM1.2billion (he did not deny the press reports which touted him then as a role model for Malaysian youths, becoming athe youngest biollionaire at age 27 in Malaysia; even Bill Gates would have envied this enterprising chap! But when the stock market soon crashed, this guy disappeared from the Malaysian corporate radar for a long time … but that’s another story.
What I am highlighting here is that UMNO, MCA and MIC and to a lessr extent, the junior component parties wityhin the 15-member BN, are all helping themselves in business, directly or via proxies. IS THIS SOMETHING NEW — that the press has to keep harping of Khairy Jamaludin getting RM10million bank facilities to buy shares of ECM-Libra, and then using his influence, with enhanced force of Kalimullah Hassan, in bringing about the merger of ECM Libra with Avenue …..
From Tajudin Ramli’s case, we see that any individual in the good books of the incumbent UMNO chief (also the PM), would be assisted in obtaining RM1.8billion to buy controlling interests in MAS; so what else is new? And do you think there is NO FUNDS (LIKE 10% COMMISSION) BEING SYPHONED OFF TO AID UMNO’S POLITICASL STRUGGLE? Desi would be naive for once and say that I do believe the marines when they said they did not fire any shots in defence when they were attacked by the Japs during Peral Harbour attacks one Christmas morn..
If Desiderata had not started on this series on the EPIC PLAY, many of my EsteemedReadrs would have a misconception I’m writing as a “fan” of Anwar. This I would like to categorically say: No, I am writing as a trained journalist studying the current politics in NegaraKu and suggesting to my ER the options before us and what I, as a concerned citizen, think is about he best, viable option on the plate. I urge that Malaysia should give Anwar a “secong chance” to become what should have taken place, the Prime Minister, as he had “expressed some regrets” serving under the Mahathir regime. Such regrets I had known being expressed only yesterday, but my series had already been planned and this is my last instalment for now, even as the PWTC saga enters into higher gear which I would report on a on-going basis.
In an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini which ran Part 2 yesterday, I extract the fololowing highlights:
* Former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has revealed the key players who went behind the back of the then Bank Negara governor - the late Jaffar Hussein (right) - to make foreign exchange (forex) speculations resulting in losses of up to RM30 billion between 1992 and 1994. The three survivors include current Finance Minister II Nor Mohamed Yakcop (then deputy governor of BNM during forex trading period),
and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin and their big boss, PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad. “That was the time I just came in (as finance minister). But I trusted Jaffar who did not know about it until I asked. He genuinely thought that it was a small amount,” Anwar said.
And Nor Mohamed, then a Bank Negara assistant governor who was the point man in the forex speculation, could have been charged in court had he (Anwar) not been forced to step down. But this also resulted in the dismissal of Jaffar, who also had to take responsibility for the losses.
** Meanwhile, Anwar also expressed his regrets for failing to bring reforms when he was in government.
He said he was in the midst of tabling a new Education Act which would have seen the repeal of the Universities and University Colleges Act and given more protection for vernacular schools when he was transferred to the Finance Ministry.
According to him, his efforts only went as far as circulating the draft bill, which was later neglected by his successors in the Education Ministry.
He also regretted not putting his foot down to object the construction of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang and the Bakun dam in Sarawak
“Some said that I should have been more firm but I wasn’t. But if I had done that, I would have been sacked in 1993,” said Anwar, who is now the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser.
*** Asked to comment on International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz’s statement that Malaysia was still an attractive destination for foreign investors, Anwar accused her of being in “a state of denial”.
**** And most significant of all, IMHO, Anwar also spelled out at length some of the economic reforms the country must undertake in order to regain its competitiveness, which included the dismantling of the 35-year-old New Economic Policy.
A day before, Part 1 of Malaysiakini’s report said that Anwar was of the opinion that
“… he does not expect Najib to mount a challenge against Abdullah because the DPM is too “guarded and calculative” to take advantage of the on-going crisis within the ruling party. ‘
“He is never known to have strong views. We would probably have to consult (Najib’s wife) Rosmah on her views too… but I don’t foresee this sort of challenge,†he quipped.[...]
“…Najib has always been seen to follow this feudal tradition… he’s not the new liberal Malay except for the facade.
Anwar, however, said Najib’s statements of support for Abdullah has been “far from convincing”.
DESIDERATA: I believe Najib has had a life handed on a “silver spoon” from the ascension into Parilament (following the demise of his father, Tun Abdul Razak) at a yoiung age (interrupting his studies in London…), later became the “youngest state Menteri Besar, of Pahang”, and of course, I had relared Razaleigh’s “unfortunate” tasting of Najib’s bending with the wind politics or “fence-sitter”, as an astute foreign journalist recently noted!
Anwar also alleged that Umno, which he was once part of, had amassed a cash horde of RM8 billion. He said this was done through an opaque system of Umno-linked tycoons and companies holding the money on behalf of the party.
Anwar also noted that there was a tinge of racism in Mahathir’s criticisms against the Singapore government, especially on the crooked bridge issue. Quote:
“This is Singapore, our neighbour - setting aside that it is a difficult neighbour - but still the subtle racist undertones to my mind is very irresponsible on his (Mahathir’s) part,†said Anwar…
“Not only (he raised the issue of) nationalism but (he) also (spoke) against the Chinese and Singapore (whom he claimed are) trying to act tough against the Malay leadership and that they (the Chinese leadership in Singapore) should be taught a lesson.
DESIDERATA: My reading tells me that the present (former PM) Dr Mahathir-Pak Lah (current PM )FACE-OFF will take to a higher level — so approprate between former DPM (Anwar Ibrahim) and current DPM (Najib Razak.
Sdr Anwar was also coincidently in Australia when Pak Lah went for his long holiday (cum sinus operation) — I believe the two could have “accidentally” met up, as Oxford-trained Khairy Jamaludin can be relied on to set up such incidents.
Regarding Pak Lah’s son’s involvement in business, there is an “old” write-up dated
Thursday, March 03, 2005 entitled
Scomi Group Berhad: Malaysia’s new ‘hungry ghost’
which you have top take the trouble to read, but as I say, since when have Malaysians been surprised with political scions to leverage advantage in politics and business? Just a few paragraphs:
“Scomi Group Berhad first hit the radar screens when it became known that one of its subsidiaries, Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd (Scope), was being investigated by both the Malaysian and international police with regards to its links with a Dubai-based Sri Lanka businessman, BSA Tahir, over his alleged involvement in the supply of nuclear technology to Libya. Suddenly Scomi became a household name and it was then that Malaysians became aware that this oil and gas group was linked to the family of Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
In the end, the investigation cleared Scomi of any wrongdoing, though Tahir himself was not so fortunate. ”
To reiterate, What do you expect of UMNO politics-corporate nexus? It won’t end with Mr Nice Guy’s ascension to PMship, but I believe he’s the lesser opf the evils represented by Najib supported by Mahathir!
It’s just changing of the guards — more of the same, perhaps with robber baronry and seepage on a lower level because of closer scrutiny, not least from Bloggers! — but I hope the blardy Opposition gathers some Economic ThinkTank to focus on the BIG picture and fighting for nation’s priorities, not partisan gamemanship! (like some of the BN components have, but their objective is to MAXIMISE INCOMES for the party&cronies! Just mention UMNO (pro-Najib) Baginda Razak, Gerakan’s Khoo Khay Peng, and Sabah’s Jeffrey Kitinggan…).
Before parting temporarily to await ACT 2 of the Epic Play, may I share an observation or two with thee?
Reading about Anwar’s “dig” at Najib’s wife, can I just add that the “wife” factor does indeed play a BIG part in the present Acts. It is commonly known that Pak Lah’s late wife, Datin Seri Endon Mahmood, (may her soul rest in peace) got on pretty well with Anwar’s wife Datin Seri Wan Azizah, PKR President. And we wall know while Endon and Rosmah had attended some functions together, they tried darn’d hard NOT to establsih eye-contact. Sorry for Raja Petra-style story-spinning, but that’s all I can say at the moment.
In the coincidence of Pak Lah and Anwar being in Australia at the same time, do you think they would have met up to exchange greetings?
In the coincidence of Najib’s hurried trip to the UK when Dr Mahathir also adjourned there from his European holiday, do you think they would have met up to exchange greetings?
posted by desiderata at 9:33 AM | 0 comment(s)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006Epic Play: The Keadilan — JUSTICE — Option
This is the first part of my thesis on why Anwar is the only viable option on the people’s plate.
The Barisan Nasional will serve the Rakyat more of the same — only the degree of corruption will decline under Pak Lah, theoretically if his moves to clean up are fruitful. Let’s him have another 2 years to prove himself — WALKING THE TALK!
I had bemoaned the role of DAP, and Islamist PAS, as opposition leaders; they can’t deliver nationwide. And they will never go to bed together, not after DAP’s disastrous showing at the 1999 polls, with PAS emerging much strengthened, just for a term capturing Terengganu, very much due to the deposed as DPM ANWAR AFCTOR.
So what’s the option left?
PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT
For reformation and change.
To replace the present Status Quo.
Let me take you back to tumultuous times in Malaysia’s history which led to the budding of a new party resembling some real efforts among the masses crying for “reforms”. Maybe the Filipino victory that saw Corazon Aquino sweeping to power with People’s Power did bring some winds of change to Malaysain shores then.
A Deputy Prime Ministry was recently dismissed on alleged charges of being unfit morally for the next high ofice — Prime Minister, and the then PM made his decision only after a few months earlier saying he and his deputy were “getting on fine”. He even asked the media “Do you want me to hug and kiss him in public?” — words to this efect — in order for the press to dismiss the rumours of their “enstrangement”.
I wrote an entry dated Sept 19, 2005 entitled: “Five years ago, Today”
Relevant Exerpts with some editing follow:
“Be true to your work, your word, and your friend.” — Henry David THOREAU
“Time is first a neutraliser, then an eraser, and for most Malaysians, memory fades rather quickly. Desiderata likes to treasure the Nuggets in writing as From Moment to Moment, as “momentous” means something or event of import or impact that registers in our consciousness that much longer compared with the ordinary events — normally mundane and inconsequential.
Five years ago today I wrote a two-part article of which I am very proud. A writer in his professional output will always look back and stand tall on certain works he has had crafted. Today on Sept 19, 2005, I reprise a NUGGET to share with those not in the kNOw, and for those who have read it before, it’s a re-visit which Desi feels is worthwhile, because it is about Malaysia’s important crossroads.
It was significant because I believe the nation took a quantum leap into maturing as a democracy, the main Players pursuing political agendas, yet with others pursuing their dreams, main and bit parts players, like in a Shakespearean Play, caught in the current that swept them along, some as passersby, and some as victims Desi would categorise as The Unsung Heroes. The Bard had likened the world as a stage, and all the people are the actors (actresses are contained within the ‘actors’:)
I just pray my EsteemedReaders won’t choose to remain as mere spectators. Cos Malaysia belongs equally to everyone of US — which includes You and Me. We have equal stakes in the present, and the future, in this land called MALAYSIA — NegaraKu.
Summary of a review of:
Face Off, the book by Sabri Zain chronicling the Reformasi, truly traumatic times for a young nation of 43 years.. I couldn’t help but recall a film I had seen “The Year of Living Dangerously”, in which the protagonist was also a newsman.
Sabri’s chronicles benefit from his journalism background as most of his paintings and narratives were objective enough, though the choice of words, emotive and descriptive ones, clearly reflects the bent of his loyalties to the burning issue of the day: the reformation movement spawned by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.
For those who missed the “action” where it happened, centred mainly around Dataran Merdeka (Independence Square) and its vicinity starting in September two years ago, Sabri brings the readers to the arena where the episodes of Malaysian history were played out. The writer’s baptism that led him to cross Anwar’s path - that Abim kid, his term of endearment - was that moment in 1974 where it started with a
demostration exactly 26 years ago - led by that “Abim kid” highlighting peasants’ plight in Tasek Utara, Johor.
For whom the bell tolls
Key figures revolved around Anwar and his family and, of course, the puppet master or script writer or political conductor himself, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in person, or via his proxies, and the band of Malaysians that visiting American vice-president Al Gore proudly described as “brave Malaysians”. Most importantly, the less heralded players, nameless yet exalted, faceless and unobtrusive yet endearing and enduring, are the ordinary Malaysians whom Sabri observed and recorded their “involvement”. These bit players cared, and stood up to be counted. To me, the diarist has done them justice by his anecdotes of the true Malaysians … the sum total of their contributions will form the substance of the reformasi, not just the rhetoric of politicians, though their roles should not be under-estimated.
In “Shopping For Justice” (Oct 10, 1998), Sabri notes:
* “Despite the attacks on demonstrators in the weeks before, despite the warnings almost every day this week that the authorities would crack down on any form of demonstration, despite the fear, despite the
threats, despite the solemn pronouncements by the powers-that-be that the Reformasi … movement is dead - tens of thousands of Malaysians came out today - defiant and free.”
The Birth of ADIL (Justice)
In the chapter titled “The Eye Of Justice” (April 4, 1999), Sabri records the graduation of social justice movement ADIL into a full fledged political party - Parti Keadilan Nasional or the National Justice Party, at the Grand Ballroom of the Hotel Renaissance, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur … the party’s mission is crystal clear: to uphold truth and justice.
* “Everywhere (at the hotel) - on the walls, on tables, on posters, even along the staircase banisters - the blue-and-white “eye” of the Keadilan logo stared out at you.
Then came the moment everyone waited for. The whole room rose to its feet in wild cheers as Dr Wan Azizah walked to the podium to deliver her first-ever speech as the leader of a political party.
‘We’re gathered here to fulfil a demand from the people - they are demanding justice. We are here to fulfil the demand of the Malaysian race - bangsa Malaysia. They are demanding the dignity of their race. And we are fulfilling the demands of our changing times - the time has arrived.
‘Ten years of rapid development has given us confidence. But for some, that confidence has turned to arrogance. Our economy was driven by ego and the desire to show off. Crony capitalism dominated the New Economic Policy. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism grew like an cancer. Massive mega-projects eroded our economic fundamentals and shook the stability of our banking system. The lust - nafsu - for mega-projects left our defences weak. Because of these weaknesses, the currency speculators attacked.’
She explained the party logo, which consists of a white sphere on a sky blue background, representing a pure cause, and a smaller blue sphere on the white, representing justice for all. “At first sight, you might think it looks like an eye. There are reasons for that.
‘Firstly, I am an ophthalmologist!’ she quipped, to peals of laughter and applause from the crowd. ‘Secondly, it’s to remind us of the infamous black eye,’ she added, more seriously.
‘But it also has a deeper meaning,’ Dr Wan Azizah continued. ‘It is our mata hati - our inner eye that helps us distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. It is a symbol of our quest for truth and our struggle for justice. It is the ‘eye’ that seeks justice.’”
(ends extracts:)~~
The rest, as they say, is HISTORY.
A DPM Anwar almost punched to a pulp while under detention, by none less than the chief police officer in the land.
Two lengthy court trails which many had said resembled OZ, oops,not Aussie, but “kangaroo” courts.
I think the unfolding saga on the PWTC Stage now going on will come full circle with the central figure — retired former PM DR Mahathir, engaged in another Confronttion with the Deputy he had sacked, imprisoned, now released just serving out a five-year time “bar” from politics. But this time Anwar will have the implicit support of the current Prime Minister, and he will not face Mahathir in person, but Mahathir’s proxy, the current DPM, Najib Tun Razak. But a direct confrontation between Mahathir and Anwar awaits at the Court, and this time around I’m sure the “defamation” suit would be before a Paul or a Jaka.
:
:
:
Anwar on sabbatical, but…
Though Anwar was holding visiting Fellowships at British and American universities the past two years, he had ocasionally returned, and Anwar has been going around the States delivering political speeches. (Desi attended a rally in Port Dickson plus another function at a club in Ulu Kelang.) The PKR adviser was mainly urging the party members to organise themselves, spread the party’s ideology on the platform of Justice, Democratic and Open Governance, Accountability, and yes, Fighting Corruption. What impresses Desi most is his call to do away with THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY, which has bred much Cronysm, Nepotism and daylight robbery OF THE COUNTRY’S RESOURCES, as summarily narrated by Wan Azizah in her maiden political speech.
ALL THESE WERE/ARE HAPPENING WHILE ANWAR IS SERVING A TIME-BAR OF FIVE YEARS FROM POLITICS. A “Time-bar” under Mahathir would have seen Anwar thrown behind bars yet again — for indeed Anwar was not “exactly” put on time-out under Pak Lah, and that’s another primary reason for Mahathir’s anger towards Pak Lah. So I have cited two main reasons. The earlier one — more significannt — was Anwar’s release from prison after a successful final appeal against the alleged “sodomy” charges. And this would never have happened if Mahathir was still around as CEO, my humble reading, though you can beg to differ! okay!
What could be other foreseeable reasons on the horizon leading to the FACE-OFF?
That a “repreive” could be given to Sdr Anwar — no, DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM.
It’s an anachronism that a “convicted” person still maintains his Royal title. I know of one other person in a similar situation, also once an aspiring MCA politician; served time for CBT? in prison, but still keeps his Royal title of Datuk. Poor ex-boss ex-MCA President never had any such prefix in front of his Presidential name, but that’s another story. Another night, for such stories can only be whispered in the dark. But it demonstrates the “humanity” in Pak Lah that endears him to the Rakyat, also earning him the diminishing-in-value “Mr Nice Guy” moniker.
Pointers to the common ground between Anwar and Pak Lah
Back to the Chinese Datuk; his saving grace was “helping out” Pak Lah when the latter was in political wilderness, and UMNO princes and princesses wouldn’t like to be seen in his company. (Most of them were not far-sighted to know Pak Lah would go on to become PM; otherwise, they would have sent lorry of durians to…Ah, I digress.)
But do you know Pak Lah was driven to selling off his only house during his “low period” in political wilderness?
Yes, a VVIP driven to such financial straits, which only those who have tasted well-nigh bankruptsy — like the late Tun Ghafar Baba — could empathise with. It shows that Pak Lah was indeed a “decent” fellow, clean like an angel amongst those crocodiles and sharks, what do you call them, ….putras?
Like can I suggest that Anwar Ibrahim might just be about to face a similar fate — forced to sell off his “humble” home in Damansara Heights? For a former DPM, Desi thinks many corporates living in that neighbourhood are at several rungs higher living in luxury than Anwar — so can you beleive all those rumours about him having acquired millions during his time in Cabinet?
Come on, put on your thinking caps. Have an open mind. Use your unique bran that God has given everyone of us. I am directing this at many sceoptics who would not give Sdr Anwar a “chance” to prove himself — on the ground he had been “part and parcel” of the UMNOP regime under Mahathir.
I re-state here an important eye-opener — former MAS boss Tajudin Ramli in court papers recently had already given some vivid paintings about the former regime’s shenanigans — telling the nation he was forced to borrow RM1.8billion to but control of the national carrier as a form of national service. He claimed that the PM offered him a money-back guarantee in the form of an “Over-riding Agreement”. THe information was revealed when he counter-sued the Government and Danaharta for some RM13.6billion when Danaharta sued him earlier for some RM500million.
Obviously in the current FACE-OFF, Pak Lah had no choice but resort to court proceedings to uncover the Pandora’s boxes, ONE BY ONE. No need to repeat the cases here, okay, oytherwise, you would be reading half a book which UPM has not CONmissioned Desi to write, nyet. (A little DDC okay, Mave SM, Helen of Troy?)
And most importrant of all, the highest appeal court in the land had absolved Anwar of his earlier conviction of what he consistently had claimed to be the “trumped up” sodomy charges (he alleged by Mahathir “to kill him off politically”). This was the greatest “injustice” done to a fellow Malaysian that roused the rage of many right-thinking Malaysians. That’s such a thing called Honour among thieves, and here Politikus claiming they serve national intetrests behaving below the levelf of vermins. WITHOUT CONSCIENCE.
I would surmise this was the primary reason why Mahathir started to find fault with Pak Lah — for Anwar on the return to politics would be a “most dangerous” ex-PM, compared with Musa Hitam, the late Ghaffar Baba before Anwar met his “Waterloo”. And at the young age of 59, Anwar at an age just one or two years older than his once-Mentor Mahathir started his premiership.
What Goes Around Comes Around
I recall Parti Keadilan Rakyat or its supporters had petitioned the Rulers for a “royal pardon” for Anwar, for his conviction on corruption charges (purportedly interfering with the police force who were investigating him on the sodomy/corruption charges.
But Anwar still maintains his royal title “Datuk Seri” — which means Pak Lah and the majority of the royal houses are sympathetic to his cause. Yes?
Just as Pak Lah is sympathetic to a “Friend in need is a friend in deed”, Yes?
So an important forthcoming surprise would be a National Day’s announcement of a “Royal Pardon”, is my educated guess, to enable Anwar to come out officially to lead PKR. The wife, being an MP
In the article a huge thank you all for the cause, a lot of people are using