From Aljazeera

In the prologue to The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, the author Josephus tells us that works written earlier by others “were marred by inaccuracies and prejudice” and that he “hopes to comfort the conquered and to deter others from attempting innovations”.

Josephus’ classic account is indeed a gripping story evoking powerful emotions and leaves us in no doubt as to where our sympathy lies: As the mighty Romans lord over the powerless Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem perpetuating cruelty and injustice, the story is as old as mankind. The oppression of human beings by fellow human beings is not a tale told by an idiot but by the chronicle of time. And as this history repeats itself, the once oppressed can easily become the oppressor. Where once it was the all-powerful Romans against the downtrodden Jews, today it is the high and mighty regime of Israel against the helpless Palestinians.

Adding to this state of oppression is the deadly flotilla attack by Israeli commandos under the Netanyahu government, in which nine people were killed – with at least seven having been handcuffed and shot in the back of the head. Yet the latest United Nations report on the attack has completely gone off the mark by concluding that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was a legitimate act of self-defence.

According to the Palmer Commission’s report, the legitimacy purportedly arises from Israel having to take necessary steps to protect its people from violent acts by Palestinian militants in Gaza, such as the firing of illegal rockets into Israel.

While no one condones violent acts that threaten the security of the people of Israel, the purported rationale for self-defence in this case flies against the facts, the most telling of which is that a unilateral ceasefire by Hamas had already been in place since early 2009. Bereft of this pretext, the entire edifice for the perpetuation of deadly force by Israel crumbles.

But that is cold comfort for the 1.5 million Palestinians being incarcerated in Gaza, who are now at the mercy of Israel’s land and naval blockade, which continues to deny them their right to move freely within and between all countries. Sanctioning such a military siege against a helpless civilian population is to turn the global rule of law on its head. And this is a community that has already been so dispossessed. As Edward Said once said, few national groups have been stripped of their humanity in the eyes of the world more blatantly than ordinary Palestinian men and women.

The attack on the humanitarian flotilla can neither be sanctioned nor rationalised. Apart from violating international maritime law, it was an act of ruthless aggression against an innocent party. No sovereign government can allow such a transgression to take place with impunity.

When two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah, Israel invaded Lebanon. Nine Turkish citizens have been brutally killed in international waters, and no one should expect Turkey to sleep over the death of its citizens. One of those killed was also an American citizen, the 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, about whom the Obama administration has kept silent. Turkey is therefore right in unequivocally rejecting the UN report and all attempts to justify the military siege of Gaza as legal.

Netanyahu’s announcement that Israel will not apologise to Turkey demonstrates his dereliction of responsibilities and a particular callousness towards a nation that used to be a military ally. He is completely misreading the dynamic of the new Middle East, in which justice, not oppression and authoritarianism, will shape history.

More significantly, it has missed a golden opportunity to further the prospects of peace through an enhanced collaboration with democratic Turkey under Prime Minister Erdogan. There is no better time than now, particularly in the wake of the Arab Spring, for all parties to move towards a more enduring peace in the Middle East driven by universal ideals for freedom, democracy and justice.

Anwar Ibrahim is currently opposition leader of Malaysia and was formerly the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

From Asia One.com

THERE is a high chance that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim may be convicted of sodomy – his second in 10 years.

That was what Mr Mark Clark, then political counsellor at the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur, said in a 2009 confidential note to US authorities.

The note was part of a batch of confidential documents released by whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.

The note said that Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and the Umno elites might decide that the political cost of prosecuting Anwar was “acceptable” and pursue the matter aggressively in and out of court, reported Malaysiakini.

The cable said jailing Mr Anwar and removing him permanently from politics was the top priority.

“While asserting that this is purely a law enforcement matter, the government exerts political pressure as necessary, accepting reputational risks in the process, and achieves a conviction after months of high-profile drama in the courtroom,” said the cable.

It was sent to the US State Department in Washington by Ambassador James Keith.

“The courts will hear and reject Anwar’s appeals in an expedited manner, well ahead of the next national elections in 2012 or 2013,” said the cable.

The leaked cable, titled Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy Trial II – A Primer, gave two other potential scenarios to the outcome of the court case.

Scenarios painted
The second scenario: The Malaysian government would proceed with the prosecution, but would not use pressure to achieve conviction because the trial itself would have done enough damage.

The third “plausible” scenario: The government might withdraw the case against the Permatang Pauh MP because the political cost would be too high or the Anwar threat had diminished, the cable said.

Mr Anwar’s sodomy trial, now in its second year, will resume next month with further testimony from defence witnesses.

He is charged with sodomising his former political aide, Mr Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, in a Kuala Lumpur condominium unit on June 26, 2008.

Another leaked US embassy cable talked about Mr Najib’s wife, Ms Rosmah Mansor.

Dated three years ago, it said it was implausible that she was at the scene when Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered.

The Mongolian was the mistress of MrAbdul Razak Baginda, an associate of Mr Najib. Mr Abdul Razak was acquitted of charges of abetting her 2006 murder.

A Malaysian blogger alleged in a sworn statement that Ms Rosmah was at the scene of the killing trying to cover up the murder because it was linked to Mr Najib.

There was no proof to the allegations and the blogger, Raja Petra Kamarudin, fled the country after being charged with defamation.

The cable said that though baseless, the allegations “nevertheless will have resonance with a Malaysian public that does not have confidence in the integrity of the Altantuya murder investigation”.

The leaked cable noted that political observers had remarked that Raja Petra had “put himself at great risk, and therefore they speculated that he must have some evidence in hand”.

“If this is a bluff, it will cost him and his family, one MP remarked,” added the confidential cable.

Raja Petra later distanced himself from the sworn statement.

This article was first published in The New Paper.

PhilStar.com
By Delon Porcalla

Peace talks between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) will resume today in Malaysia, more than two weeks after the meeting between President Aquino and MILF chairman Al Haj Murad Ibrahim in Japan.

The MILF is expected to offer its proposal for a sub-state in Mindanao, which some of its leaders say is a “reframed” version of the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD) that the Supreme Court struck down in 2008.

The government peace panel, led by Marvic Leonen, is also expected to make its counter-offer.

The GPH and the MILF peace panels are scheduled to meet today until Aug. 24 in Kuala Lumpur for their 22nd formal exploratory talks.

“The net effect of these peace talks is that we will be able to submit our proposal, and the issue with regard to the real status of (renegade MILF leader Ameril) Umbra Kato will also be discussed,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.

Valte said the consequences of a lost command in the MILF, like that of Kato’s Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) will be raised during the talks.

Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Deles said the issue on Kato would be definitely discussed by both panels.

Deles noted the issue on Kato could jeopardize the peace talks.

Kato, who was a senior commander of the MILF, took about 300 of his men to continue the 33-year Islamist insurgency that has claimed some 150,000 lives.

Kato rejected the talks and accused his former comrades of abandoning the fight for an independent Muslim homeland in Mindanao.

While the government action on Kato would hinge on the MILF’s explanation of how it was planning to deal with his faction, Deles said a military response was possible.

She said the government may invoke an earlier agreement with the MILF calling on both parties to help each other arrest or capture lawless elements operating in areas under its control. (more…)

Lecture by Anwar Ibrahim at the University of the Philippines-Diliman, Manila Aug 5, 2011

If I may begin with Indonesia’s poet laureate, the late Chairil Anwar:

“Sometimes within these dank prison walls
A warm fragrance fills the air
And I forget the drudgery of my being
Floating instead, higher and higher
Above the present, totally unaware…”

They say that art imitates life, and that it true most of the time but sometimes as captured in this short stanza, life seems to imitate art. I say this of course from personal experience, as I myself have many a time come face to face with such a situation – as I’m sure those who have had the privilege of being incarcerated for an extended period would have experienced it too.

So, while in solitary confinement when these reveries were rudely broken by the uncompromising sting of the mosquitoes, I found myself grabbing hold of Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere, indeed a worthy companion particularly for political prisoners. Or Rizal’s other master piece, El Filibusterismo. Speaking of leadership, who, for example, cannot but be moved by the profound sentiments articulated in just this short passage, one which I’m sure all of us are familiar with, but bears repeating:

“Within a few centuries, when humanity has become redeemed and enlightened, when there are no races, when all peoples are free, when they are neither tyrants nor slaves, colonies nor mother countries, when justice rules and man is a citizen of the world….”

Freedom and justice and an end to tyranny, these are the recurrent themes which no leader worth his salt should ever lose sight of. Above all, the courage of conviction to pursue one’s ideals to the very end. And so it was to such a cause that Jose Rizal was steadfastly committed.

Not unlike Rizal, Ninoy Aquino too had that unflinching courage of conviction. And both paid the ultimate price for it. One by firing squad, the other by firing assassins. Both sacrificed their lives on the altar of the greater good, for the people and above all for humanity. Both their martyrdoms ignited the fire that would galvanize the people to fight against tyranny and oppression for freedom and justice.

This may well be a tall order but the moral to the story of these two heroes whose humanity transcends their race even nationality, is that great leaders should be able, willing, and ready to seek justice for the people at the expense of their own lives.

Many can have intellectual prowess and many too can be great orators; but without the capacity to say “I am prepared to meet my Maker, if that is what it takes to take my people from oppression and suffering” most of us will remain leaders only in name. For where is that courage of conviction that is able to separate ourselves from our egotistical designs? By what measure can we use to tell ourselves that yes, we are true leaders and not leaders merely by default?

Again, justice, freedom and the war against tyranny, these are themes that would resonate with all civilized societies. Now more than ever before, when the winds of change are sweeping across the deserts of the Middle East and stirring up thunderstorms in various parts of Southeast Asia, these themes must remind us that power cannot and must not be used for personal gain. And this lesson is totally in sync with the bigger picture when we talk about the influences of Rizal and Ninoy.

To my mind, our leaders could do well to remember that the idea of the dignity of man which indeed was a major theme in Rizal’s writings is an idea which translated into the language of today, is a theme which has now been enshrined in the concept of fundamental human rights. Ninoy too in his journalistic essays made it clear that tyranny of men over his fellow men was an affront to our dignity. Regardless of race, creed, or culture, or even wealth, this theme is certainly something that all those who cherish freedom and justice can relate to.

Then there is the school of thought particularly current in ASEAN member nations that says that political stability is something that ought to be protected even more than human rights. To this we say that political stability by itself is meaningless if it is not utilized to widen the practice of democracy and to enhance the institutions of civil society. If political stability is touted purely on the platform of economic prosperity, then autocrats and dictators can get away with murder.

This is the tyrant’s refrain, a time-honoured tool to be employed every time the people clamour for greater freedom. But as we are beginning to witness, the extended warranties on these tools have expired and the rising tide for freedom and democracy cannot be stopped.

While in the past, the blame was rightly on the colonizers, having attained independence, we have only ourselves to blame for the tyranny we have imposed on ourselves – the despotism, the autocracy and even the dictatorship that we have witnessed in the past three decades in almost all the ASEAN countries.

The use of the word revolution may cause some leaders sleepless nights no doubt but revolutions may come about without a shot being fired. For example, the People Power Revolution is clear testimony that effective regime change can be carried out through non-violent means. No doubt it is usually preceded by violence committed by the powers that be – leaders clinging on to power and the violence they unleash on the people but why blame it on the people?

Though it is true that not all such regimes resort to violence in dealing with the people’s grievances, strong arm methods continue to be deployed in an attempt to silence dissent. The Asian values mantra of societal stability and paternalism remain the convenient excuse to drive home the argument that authoritarian systems were better suited towards achieving economic objectives.

Western notions of human rights and freedom were a stumbling block in the eradication of poverty and the path to modernization and global competitiveness. This ideology of a strong paternalistic government being the better alternative to liberal democracy however has received a severe blow in the recent elections.

The numbers trumpeting enhanced GDP growth, standards of living and competitiveness have lost their dazzle. Because what use are these numbers if social inequities continue to divide the voices of dissent are not allowed to be heard? Hence, in the last elections in Singapore, the theme of social justice ran deep in the campaigns by the opposition parties.

We have seen how Thailand has had her democracy come under siege many times. Thanks to the ASEAN creed of non-interference in the domestic affairs of its members, the question of legitimacy of the just voted out administration had never been raised. If only that administration had learnt the basic lessons of Rizal and Ninoy, they would have known that pretending that you’re regime is legitimate doesn’t make it so.

Why go so far, some may ask. Yes, it is true that even after People Power, the forces of reaction threatened to turn back the clock. A few years ago, we saw the possibility of democracy being allowed to vanish by a stroke of the pen. Of course, the people did not let it happen because you take your freedom and democracy very seriously. Indeed, the struggles of Rizal and Ninoy, and if I might add, of Cory too, have not been in vain.

And just more than a decade after the EDSA Revolution, the people of Indonesia rose against the tyranny of Suharto’s dictatorship. Blood was spilt and shots were fired but by and large apart from the atrocities committed prior to the revolution, this was again non-violent. In any event, it was not some kind of revolutionary mob – as the powers that be are wont to tell us – that caused the violence. It was once again those hell bent on clinging on to power that had wanted to strike fear in the people in order to stem the tide of Reformasi.

Today, Indonesia’s democracy rests on a sound footing where the checks and balance on governance are getting institutionalized. Rule of law generally prevails while institutions of power are held to account as can be seen in the increasing number of corruption cases. Yet, it suffers from the same ASEAN malaise – the so-called policy of non-intervention based on the principle: “I’ll stay out of your backyard, if you stay out of mine”.

Coming closer home, we find democracy being used as a façade for the aggrandizement of power and wealth. It is a strangle-hold on all the institutions of power – the police, the prosecution, the anti-corruption agency and the judiciary.

Safeguards placed in the constitution are treated as inconsequential as judges interpret the law not according to well established principles but directives issued from up high. So here again, the lessons of Rizal and Ninoy are lost. We know that democracy crumbles when the judiciary caves in under the pressure of the executive and the legislative branches of government. But the writing on the wall is clear – the highest judicial position has been given to someone who used to be a senior member of the ruling party. How then can we expect judges to be independent of political authority when appointments to high judicial office are conducted in such audacious fashion in blatant disregard of basic principles of governance?

Good governance remains illusory where the judiciary is unable to function with impartiality and courage of conviction. When the judiciary continues to display signs of perversity in their judgments in cases between the state and the people, in matters which affect their fundamental liberties, good governance flies out the window.

Addressing the multicultural texture of our societies, issues of freedom of religion and conscience loom large. There is the question of the legitimate expectations of minorities to have their rights and liberties safeguarded against encroachment. The balancing of minority interests with the majority requires ingenuous commitment from both sides as represented by their respective community leaders. The empowerment of one cultural group at the expense of another in any society would only lead to a clash of interests. These are not academic issues that can be solved merely through intellectual cogitation. They are pressing issues that have serious consequences if left unchecked.

Here, another enduring lesson from our heroes is the need to transcend cultural specificity. Just last week, someone holding high office in government, twittered some very offensive words to attack my character, something I must confess it is not so out of the ordinary. But unfortunately in doing so, she also sullied the good name of Rizal calling him names which should not see the light of day. In one fell swoop that personal attack on me has exposed her bigotry and cultural jingoism.

The source of the attack – on me – was apparently my so-called track record of participating in forums such as these and in particular my penchant for paying tribute to Jose Rizal. This is very sad and most unbecoming. It is indeed shocking that in this day and age, there is still this sense of cultural superiority among people which makes them feel that they are more civilized than others.

Now if there is yet another lesson for the powers that be in ASEAN, it is that a vibrant opposition is essential as the bulwark against the tyranny of absolute power. They must allow the Opposition to flourish as the people’s conscience, because they hold them to account when they go astray and to remind them that power is trust, not might. I see it happening here, and also in Indonesia, even Thailand. But alas, I can’t say the same about the situation back home.

The persecution against Opposition leaders is unprecedented in the history of ASEAN. Character assassination continues unabated even as they are being dragged to kangaroo courts to face completely unsubstantiated charges. Some are incarcerated without trial, some are incarcerated after a sham trial and some are incarcerated after having been released from incarceration.

To the perpetrators of such tyranny we call on them to search within themselves and as Rousseau once said, “listen to the voice of our conscience in the silence of the passions.”

Some may listen but there are others yet who will not heed the call for reform in governance, or the electoral process, or for freedom and democracy. And there are some who make a show of it by engineering ingenious public relations programs, and spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money to gain access to international media to make themselves look good. Well, they can spend all they want, but truth is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. As they say, you can’t fool all of the people all the time.

So, at the end of the day, when we set them against the freedom calculus of Rizal and Ninoy, these leaders come off as far below expectations, if not altogether unmitigated disasters. As governments that come to power not by free and fair elections but from foul and unscrupulous means, they fail miserably by any measure. But as ASEAN moves on and more and more of its member nations embrace freedom and democracy not just in name but in practice, the prospects are more than likely that these errant states will find themselves increasingly isolated and one day will succumb to the tide of reform. Let us hope that that day will come sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

From PhilSTAR.Com

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim thanked the Filipino people yesterday for continuing to support the fight for democracy in Malaysia.

“Thank you for supporting freedom and democracy, it means a lot,” Anwar, a former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, told editors and columnists during a visit to The STAR office in Manila.

He also expressed gratitude for the support of officials of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, the United States, and the European Union.

Anwar arrived in Manila Thursday to give a lecture today at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City on the influences of Dr. Jose Rizal and Ninoy Aquino on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leadership.

He will also meet his friend, former President Joseph Estrada, over breakfast at Club Filipino in San Juan this morning.

Anwar said he had once met President Aquino whom he praised for fighting corruption and upholding democracy like his mother, the late President Corazon Aquino.

The Malaysian opposition leader believes that democracy is deteriorating in Malaysia.

“You are right, democracy is in decline. We don’t have free elections and the media is not free,” he said.

Anwar said that his trial on new sodomy charges would start on Aug. 8 and it could be drawn out until the next parliamentary elections in Malaysia, which is expected to be held in November.

“They (Malaysian authorities) would convict me before the elections, to deny me participating in the elections,” he said.

He said that the Malaysian authorities might cheat to put the party of Prime Minister Najib Rzak back in power.

Anwar said they received reports that 200,000 Indonesians have been registered to vote.

He said that some Filipinos in Sabah are also allowed to register on the condition that they would vote for the ruling party.

“I believe in the people of Malaysia. The Malaysian media and the government may have labeled me as a threat to the country and accused me of being a pawn for Zionists and the United States, but I believe the people can’t be fooled,” said Anwar.

A Malaysian court has said sodomy charges against Anwar are “credible.”

He is accused of sodomizing a former male aide in a Kuala Lumpur hotel in 2008. Anwar denied the charges. If proven guilty, he could go to jail for 20 years.

Sodomy is illegal in Malaysia, even among consenting adults.

Anwar was imprisoned on separate sex and corruption charges in 1998, and freed on appeal in 2004.

Malaysian envoy’s wife denies Twitter message

Meanwhile, the wife of Malaysia’s top diplomat in the Philippines disowned on Wednesday a Twitter message criticizing Philippine national hero Jose Rizal, saying it was a “set-up” aimed at putting them in a bad light and harming relations between the two countries.

In an interview, Datin Seri Dato’ Zainab Abd. Kader, wife of Ambassador Dato Seri Dr. Ibrahim Saad, clarified that the Twitter message from the sender @BikMama2U was sent to her.

Dato’ Zainab, reacting to the article of STAR columnist Jarius Bondoc on Aug. 1 “Rizal doesn’t deserve this,” cited a Twitter message attributed to her criticizing and labeling Rizal as an “infidel Malay.”

She said she was not the sender of the message, noting that the message showed she was the recipient since the sender asked her to send her regards to her husband.

“BikMama2U is pretending to be on my side. It was his or her who said that about Rizal, not me. BikMama is a fake twittter. We presumed it’s a picture of the Prime Minister’s wife. It’s a fake ID. It even said don’t forget to send regards to your husband,” Dato’ Zainab told The STAR.

In a letter, Dato’ Zainab said, “I wish to categorically deny the accusation against me that I called Jose Rizal an ‘Infidel Malay’ via Twitter, or via any other medium for that matter. I wish to also deny in the strongest terms that I had insulted Jose Rizal in any manner whatsoever.”

The ambassador and his wife questioned the timing of the release last Monday of the July 16 Twitter message article attributed to her, saying it was only a few days before the visit to Manila this week of Ibrahim.

“It’s even worse for a diplomat’s wife to say something like that. What surprised me is who alerted of the Tweet and why was it written a few days before Anwar Ibrahim arrived in the Philippines to give a talk. It was meant to smear my name,” Dato’ Zainab said.

When asked about the Twitter message that caused a stir in Kuala Lumpur political circles last week, Anwar said, “Well, not much is really necessary because I didn’t see the content. I wish she could give her side on the issue since I know the family, and for the sake of good relations we just clear the air and since she denied (it), I think it is a good move because Jose Rizal is a Filipino hero to us, (he) is my hero and a hero of Asians.”

Jakarta Globe
By Nivell Rayda

He praised former presidents B.J. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Sukarnoputri for their roles in helping the democratization process in his country, but Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim stopped short of adding incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to the list.

Speaking at a public lecture at the Indonesia Jentera School of Law on Saturday, Anwar noted the Yudhoyono administration’s silence on the Malaysian government crackdown on the July 9 opposition-backed rally for electoral reform in Kuala Lumpur.

On that day, about 8,000 protesters defied riot officers in the Malaysian capital to push toward a stadium where they had initially planned to hold the rally, prompting the government to seek to seal off parts of the city.

Police descended upon the rally, firing teargas canisters.

Malaysian police said 1,667 people were arrested during the protest. As police stations became overwhelmed with detainees, the government began rounding up protesters in sports facilities.

Anwar himself was injured in the protests and his bodyguard hit in the face with a teargas canister.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other rights groups condemned Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s approach to the rally, organized by a group calling itself the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, or Bersih 2.0, and his heavy-handed policing.

Despite being this year’s chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), Indonesia’s leaders remained silent on the issue.

“I understand that Indonesia is engrossed in domestic problems,” Anwar said in response to a question posed by an audience member about Indonesia’s role in promoting democracy in Malaysia.

Anwar said that without directly intervening in Malaysian politics, the Yudhoyono administration could make an impact on the region and the Muslim world by safeguarding the outcomes of the reformasi movement that ousted President Suharto.

“Indonesia is a fine example of how a regime change can happen and democracy [can be] established without bloodshed, military intervention or foreign pressure,” he said.

He expressed regret that 13 years since the fall of Suharto, many Indonesians felt the reform movement was straying from its purpose of clean government, and were beginning to think life was better under Suharto’s 32-year rule.

“Indonesia owes it to the people who poured their tears and sweat and blood for democracy. They also owe it to many developing countries who see Indonesia’s struggle for democracy as an inspiration,” he said.

Teuku Faizasyah, the president’s spokesman for international affairs, said Indonesia was focused on domestic issues.

“Indonesia does not want to interfere other countries’ internal problems. There is also a lot going on domestically [in Indonesia] and they are our main priorities,” he said.

The president, as chairman of Asean, had only been engaged in issues in other countries that had potentially damaging implications for the region, such as the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia and promoting democracy in Burma, he said.

Hariyadi Wirawan, an international relations expert from the University of Indonesia, said recent tensions between Indonesia and Malaysia had forced Indonesia to take a neutral stance.

“Local politics is always a very sensitive issue and intervening could see relations between the two countries further deteriorate,” Hariyadi said.

Indonesia’s ties with Malaysia have fluctuated over the years, dating back to the time of the country’s first president, Sukarno, who protested the establishment of then Malaya in 1961, calling it “a puppet country of the British empire.”

In recent years, the ill-treatment of Indonesian migrant workers by their Malaysian employers, as well as border spats and Malaysian claims to items of Indonesian cultural heritage have fanned the flames.

Last year, a survey by the Indonesian Survey Circle found that 59 percent of respondents in 100 villages across Indonesia disliked Malaysia, higher than the 46 percent who harbored negative views of the United States.

But Anwar said he believed the international community would support Malaysia’s struggle for electoral reform.

“The principle of justice is universal. I believe that for the same reason I have supported people like Aung San Suu Kyi [in Burma] and Nelson Mandela [in South Africa], the international community will not tolerate injustice, anywhere in the world,” he said.

Despite the violent crackdown on anti-government rallies, Anwar said Bersih would not give up its struggle.

“The crackdown is a turning point and more people are considering that political reforms are the only way forward. That is what people in Malaysia are saying on social media,” he said.

“I believe in the people of Malaysia. The Malaysian media and the government may have labeled me as a threat to the country and accused me of being a pawn for Zionists and the United States, but I believe the people can’t be fooled.”

By Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star)

A Twitter message caused a stir in Kuala Lumpur political circles last week. Two reasons. It sullied the Philippine national hero Jose Rizal. And it allegedly was tweeted by Dato Zainab, wife of Malaysian envoy to Manila Dr. Ibrahim Saad.

Translated from Bahasa Twitter-speak, it went “That’s usual. Anwar Ibrahim is clearly pro-Christian, an admirer of Jose Rizal the infidel Malay! Oh yes, don’t forget…”

(Original: “@BikMama2U: @datozainab Biasala tu, @anwaribrahim mmg pro-Kristian, pemuja Jose Rizal si Melayu kafir tu! Oh ya, jgn lupa…” See http://twitter.com/datozainab/status/92163428017373184)

The tweet spoke of Anwar Ibrahim, former deputy prime minister, now Malaysia’s Opposition head. He is visiting Manila to lecture Friday at the University of the Philippines-Diliman. Topic: the influences of Rizal and Ninoy Aquino on ASEAN leadership. The event is timed with the yearlong celebration of Rizal’s 150th birth anniversary. August marks the martyrdom of Ninoy (1983) and the passing of wife President Cory (2009).

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s long-ruling party loathes Anwar so, and is striving to deflate his political clout. In 1999 Razak’s mentor, PM Mahathir Mohamad, charged Anwar with corruption and sodomy. In jail Anwar was so inspired by Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo that he read the novels twice. The court acquitted him in 2004, but with a caveat to shun politics for five years. He sat out the 2008 federal election, yet his party won unprecedented five of 13 states. Weeks later he was indicted anew for sodomy. (more…)

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah dijemput untuk menyampaikan syarahan yang berjudul : “Transformasi Demokrasi di Dunia Islam”. Syarahan tersebut akan dihadiri wakil wakil media dan organisasi swadaya masyarakat (NGO). Acara itu akan berlangsung seperti yang tercatat pada butiran di bawah:

Tempat: Pejabat Majalah Tempo, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Masa : 5.30 petang waktu Jakarta.
Tarikh: Jumaat, 29hb Julai 2011.

Malaysia Chronicle
Written by Wong Choon Mei

The July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally for free and fair elections is a landmark event in more ways than one. Not only has it galvanized many Malaysians into action against a system that has long been described as decaying, eaten to the bone by corruption and abuse of power, it has also made many in the influential First World wonder about the political leadership and future of the country.

One such person is John Malott, a former US ambassador to Malaysia, who is still widely regarded for his knowledge of the country and its political dynamics. In the wake of the Bersih rally, he was asked for his assessment by a think-tank East-West Center established by the US Congress, and he offered his opinion in an analysis entitled Malaysia’s Political Awakening: A Call to US Leadership.

The analysis was published in the Center’s Asia Pacific Bulletin, which is delivered directly to over 1,500 leaders of the US foreign policy community, including Members of Congress and their staffs; officials in the White House, US State Department, and US Defense Department; and will influence leaders in US think tanks, university research centers, and the media.

In his article, Malott minced no words, opining that the idyllic image many top US leaders still held of Malaysia as a “democratic, booming, tropical paradise” was no longer true, and in fact, a reverse situation had been taking place. He shared the opinion of another expert Clive Kessler that this situation has now reached a “most fluid and dangerous” point. Kessler is the Emeritus Professor, Sociology & Anthropology, School of Social Sciences & International Studies, The University of New South Wales.

“The purpose of writing this article was two-fold. One, to get the American foreign policy community to “wake up” to what has been happening in Malaysia and shake off any idealized notion of Malaysia as a democratic, booming, tropical paradise. Two, in the words of Amnesty International, to say that America cannot be a “spectator” as the political situation in Malaysia evolves,” Malott told Malaysia Chronicle in a recent interview.

“The United States has many interests in Malaysia, including supporting those members of civil society who are calling for electoral reform and greater democracy. We need to go beyond mere lip service and make sure that we stand on the right side of Malaysia’s future.”

A more vocal US

Given the impact Bersih has made on the international community and as more analyses such as Malott’s are distributed to specific and specialised audiences in the US, there is likely to be some adjustment in Washington’s perception of Malaysia going forward. It is possible the US may be more vocal about their support for democratic development in Malaysia, a signal that should not be missed by the alert in the government and business sectors.

In the interview with Malaysia Chronicle, Malott explained what he meant by “US leadership” and stressed that US concerns did not lie in who formed the government of Malaysia but about the continuation of and support for democracy in the Southeast Asian nation.

“I called for US leadership. By that I mean, we need to be more visible and vocal in expressing our concerns about developments in Malaysia. We need to be more supportive – moral support and encouragement – of those members of civil society in Malaysia who want Malaysia to become a true democracy and have the same freedom that we and others have. We should support the call for electoral reform. It is not up to America who forms the government in Malaysia. But we should be concerned whether the playing field is level,” said Malott.

But serious though the current situation is, Malott does not think that Malaysians had reached “boiling point”. He also believes it is possible for the BN government to regain control of the situation.

“I don’t believe that the situation is near the boiling point. Malaysians don’t boil. They are a very patient people. That is why July 9 was such a remarkable event. The temperature went up, but it is nowhere near the boiling point. But if people don’t follow through – if the leaders of civil society, the opposition and others don’t follow through, the temperature will go down. If the government carves out more space for those who don’t agree with them, they also could lower the temperature,” said Malott.

Two different eras – Mahathir and Najib

He warned the imbalances were real and discontent would continue to fester if reforms were ignored. And while concerned, foreign investors and businesses had not reached the stage where they would shun Malaysia. In the past, especially during the time of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysians and investors put up with his ham-fisted rule because the economy was booming. But not anymore.

“As long as the economy was booming, a lot of the underlying racial and social tensions could be contained. Plus people were willing to grant Mahathir the right to wield his political iron hand in exchange for the economic benefits that the country was getting. Despite the occasional scandals and the cronyism, the Malaysian “man in the street” thought that he had benefited greatly from Malaysia’s growth, and he was right. But now for over a decade the economy has slowed, and investment is down. Many college grads are unemployed. And the Government has removed subsidies on everyday items. So I think the man in the street – the Malaysian middle class, the people who live in the cities — don’t have the same feeling they had before. They don’t see the same level of economic progress for themselves. They don’t see the government delivering on all the promises it has made.”

Malott was also scathing about the way Prime Minister Najib Razak handled the July 9 Bersih march, where more than 1,600 people were arrested, thousands more injured and one died from the excessive police crackdown ordered by the authorities.

“The actions of the government, before and after July 9, backfired against them. Matthias Chang wrote that they acted with sheer stupidity. The Government still has a chance to turn this around, but that would require them to give more political “space” to those who don’t agree with them, and to make sure that the people get to enjoy the rights that the constitution guarantees them. Will they? I have my doubts. This is a government – even though they have spent millions on PR firms and management consultants – that keeps shooting itself in the foot. The deportation of the French lawyer is only the latest example. Now, for the first time, all the juicy details of that scandal – including the model who was murdered by the PM’s bodyguards – have appeared in the Washington Post. It just adds to the confusion among people here – what kind of a country is Malaysia, anyhow? And is Najib really the person that he has portrayed himself to be?”

Malaysia Chronicle appends blow the unedited full-text of the interview with John Malott, ambassador from 1995 to 1998 and is currently the president of the Japan-America Society of Washington DC

Chronicle: In your article, you mentioned that the Malaysian people showed they would no longer be intimidated by their government. Given the severity of the pre-rally crackdown and the police scare-mongering and yet tens of thousands defied the ban, would you say this feeling of ‘defiance’ so to speak is deep-seated, has been growing and is reaching boiling point? And why?

Malott: I think that this discontent has been growing for sometime. But the heavy hand of the government in the days leading up to the July 9 rally, and their strange statements and actions – like saying that Bersih was trying to overthrow the government and banning the color yellow – caused many more Malaysians to wake up and pay attention.

Chronicle: If you agree that the feelings of ‘discontent’ or ‘unhappiness’ so to speak are deep-seated, does this imply that the political or living conditions in Malaysia have been and are repressive and do not encourage the truth to be openly raised or discussed. And why?

Malott: I don’t know how deep-seated or widespread these feelings are in Malaysia. That’s why I wrote in my analysis that the question for the future is whether the momentum can be sustained. Will an increasing number of Malaysians wake up and understand the status of democracy and political freedom in their country, or will it go back to business as usual, where it is just activists in civil society and the opposition who are vocal. As I said, the actions of the government, before and after July 9, backfired against them. Matthias Chang wrote that they acted with sheer stupidity. The Government still has a chance to turn this around, but that would require them to give more political “space” to those who don’t agree with them, and to make sure that the people get to enjoy the rights that the constitution guarantees them. Will they? I have my doubts. This is a government – even though they have spent millions on PR firms and management consultants – that keeps shooting itself in the foot. The deportation of the French lawyer is only the latest example. Now, for the first time, all the juicy details of that scandal – including the model who was murdered by the PM’s bodyguards – have appeared in the Washington Post. It just adds to the confusion among people here – what kind of a country is Malaysia, anyhow? And is Najib really the person that he has portrayed himself to be?

Chronicle: If you agree that the ‘defiance’ so to speak is not an overnight or sudden swell-up but has been building up through the years, does this imply the policies – both social and economic – adopted by the BN federal government have not been appropriate, in the sense that they did not treat the wants and needs of the people? And why?

Malott: When I was Ambassador, we always believed that as long as the economy was booming, a lot of the underlying racial and social tensions could be contained. Plus people were willing to grant Mahathir the right to wield his political iron hand in exchange for the economic benefits that the country was getting. Despite the occasional scandals and the cronyism, the Malaysian “man in the street” thought that he had benefited greatly from Malaysia’s growth, and he was right. But now for over a decade the economy has slowed, and investment is down. Many college grads are unemployed. And the Government has removed subsidies on everyday items. So I think the man in the street – the Malaysian middle class, the people who live in the cities — don’t have the same feeling they had before. They don’t see the same level of economic progress for themselves. They don’t see the government delivering on all the promises it has made. Meanwhile, they read about diamond rings and fancy yachts and $27 million condos in New York. It seems like it is business as usual at the top. One of the articles in your website today (Sunday) said something like ‘Malaysia is now being run not for the benefit of the people or even the Malays. It is being run for the benefit of the UMNO elite.’

Chronicle: Do you think these feelings of resentment so to speak are anywhere near boling point, close to boiling point or have already boiled over and what are the implications for the ruling BN coalition, the opposition, long-term investors and the people? And why?
For example, is this a wake-up call for the BN, opportunity knocking at the door for the Pakatan, a stay-away call for investors? As for the people, do you foresee the start of a new trend for peaceful assemblies, protests ala Thailand? Or in your words – a political awakening – but in what shape and form will this likely take?

Malott: I don’t believe that the situation is near the boiling point. Malaysians don’t boil. They are a very patient people. That is why July 9 was such a remarkable event. The temperature went up, but it is nowhere near the boiling point. But if people don’t follow through – if the leaders of civil society, the opposition and others don’t follow through, the temperature will go down. If the government carves out more space for those who don’t agree with them, they also could lower the temperature.

On foreign investment, I think that foreign businessmen are smart. They will not be scared away from Malaysia because of one demonstration. What concerns them most is corruption, the lack of transparency in awarding government contracts, the ease and cost of doing business in Malaysia compared to other locations, whether Malaysia’s market is growing fast, its competitiveness, the independence of its courts, the availability of skilled employees, and so on. It is those kinds of practical questions that mean the most to them. As the statistics show, over the last decade or so, Malaysia’s share of all the foreign investment coming into ASEAN has been declining. From the point of view of a foreign investor, they have many choices. There are many countries they can invest in. So the question for the Malaysian government is, what do we need to do to increase our attractiveness to foreign investors, compared to our neighbors?

Chronicle: You quoted another expert who used the term “most fluid and dangerous” to describe the situation in Malaysia today. How extreme can the situation become, for example is it possible for Malaysia to regress to a non-democratic state where elections may even be discarded, military or police rule the new order, a ‘closing of doors’ so to speak? And why? In such a case, who would be the prime-movers – PM Najib Razak and his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein, other factions led by DPM Muhyiddin Yassin or ex-PMs Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Badawi or UMNO, the party as a whole? I do not mention the other parties in BN because it is clear they do not have the clout, do you agree? What would happen to the opposition in the country then? And for how long could an extreme situation last?
You also mentioned in your article, the Economist Intelligence Unit says Malaysia is a “flawed democracy”. If this is so, then if in the swing towards a ‘full democracy’, Malaysia collapses into a police regime – to many who have been following the situation closely, this would not be surprising or be an unlikly possibility at all. But for those who still see the country as per its postcards of sunny skies and ideal racial harmony, this would come as a rude shock. Do you agree and what sort of odds would you give to the worst scenario happening? And why? What other scenarios do you seen? And why?

Malott: Clive Kessler, who knows infinitely more about Malaysia than I do, wrote an analysis recently (which you had on your website) in which he raised the prospect that rather than lose an election, UMNO would declare an emergency and not hold elections. As a former State Department official, I don’t want to comment on Wikileaks. But when I read the latest leaked cable, in which our Embassy said three years ago, in effect, that UMNO would do “whatever it takes” to remain in power, including subverting the institutions of state power to its own purposes, including the police and the courts. Malaysia has seen Operasi Lalang, it has seen the Sedition Act and ISA used liberally, and more recently it has seen denial of service attacks on the alternative media to keep people from reading what the Government doesn’t want them to know. I hope it doesn’t come to that. I am not Clive Kessler, and I don’t want to make a prediction. But I would not rule out the possibility that something like that might happen. What is the probability of it happening? I don’t know. But if it does happen, then as you said, it will come as a great shock to everyone who has been holding a very different image of Malaysia. That is why I wrote my piece. I think the American people need to wake up and understand what is happening in Malaysia today, and to express our concern.

Chronicle: From your article, it looks like the United States is still in the postcards-and-sunny-skies group? Is this view still very entrenched or have there been significant shifts of late? Given the very sizeable investments the US has in Malaysia, should not American foreign policy makers make better efforts to assess the situation? Should they not take some action or send stronger signals to help keep democracy alive in Malaysia? In other words, has not the time come to take sides? What are the things that US bodies could do?

Mallot: I think to the extent American think or know about Malaysia, most of them are still in the picture postcard stage of awareness. So that is why I sent my wake-up call. Let’s see what happens. Some of us – all friends of Malaysia — will continue to do everything we can to keep up awareness. Amnesty International said America “should not be a spectator,” and I agree. I called for US leadership. By that I mean, we need to be more visible and vocal in expressing our concerns about developments in Malaysia. We need to be more supportive – moral support and encouragement – of those members of civil society in Malaysia who want Malaysia to become a true democracy and have the same freedom that we and others have. We should support the call for electoral reform. It is not up to America who forms the government in Malaysia. But we should be concerned whether the playing field is level, and whether all the parties have an equal chance to access the media, and so on. RTM and Bernama belong to all the people of Malaysia, not to UMNO. They are paid for by all the people of Malaysia, not just those who voted for UMNO. Bersih’s demands all seemed quite reasonable to me. When Najib arrived home from Rome the other day, he held an airport press conference and said that Malaysia’s elections already are free and fair, and that UMNO has never cheated in an election. Does he really believe that? That is not what all the independent academic studies have to say. And then he went out to meet the people, and according to an article in Malaysiakini, he proceeded to pass out white envelopes with 200 ringgit inside to the people who were there.

Chronicle: Cleaning the Malaysian electoral system and making sure it reflects accurately the wishes the majority seems to be the best way or one the best ways to ensure human rights, cvil liberties and democratic practises prevail. Do you agree and how can the US help to promote such a practise in Malaysia given that the existing BN federal government is insistent that nothing is wrong and is likely to resist efforts to revamp?

Malott: I read that the European Union office in KL is going to recommend that the EU send observer missions to the next election. That is good. That is leadership. I think that some of our organizations – the National Democratic Institute, the International Republic Institute, the Carter Center – should prepare to do the same. The Vice Chair of the Elections Commission said that foreigners would never understand Malaysia’s election laws. That was an offensive statement. And it also was strange, since his boss the EC chairman was at that very moment in Bangkok, monitoring the Thai elections.

We should be very visible in our support of Bersih and its goals. I hope that our Embassy and the academic and think tank communities in the US will help our policy makers and opinion leaders understand what the true status of democracy and elections in Malaysia is. For example, an American think tank could invite Ambiga to the US so she can explain directly to us what Bersih is all about. It would be useful to benchmark Malaysia’s electoral laws and rules against those elsewhere in the world. For example, how many countries allow their citizens living overseas to vote? What is the minimum age for voters in most countries? How do other countries handle postal ballots – who is allowed to use them? In other countries with publicly-owned television and radio networks – Japan, Britain, America, Australia, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. – how do they ensure that political and election reporting is balanced? How do they provide access to opposition candidates? How do other countries ensure that their election commission is independent? Malaysia needs to make sure that what it does matches the prevailing international standards in other democracies.

I am sure that the Government will resist this. But we should not give in. They can resist, and we should insist.

Chronicle: Do you see any similarity between what is happening in Malaysia and the so-called Arab Spring?

Malott: Well, Malaysia is certainly not Libya or Syria or Yemen. Najib is not a Qaddafi. But still, I was surprised to see that Najib is still saying that the Bersih movement is a veiled attempt to topple his administration through street demonstrations, like those that are now claiming Middle Eastern despots. He said, “It’s not so much about electoral reform. They want to show us as though we’re like the Arab Spring governments in the Middle East.”

Well, if that is Bersih’s goal, then why did Najib act like an Arab Spring government? It’s only a question of degree. The Malaysian police did not use lethal force, but the mentality is the same. Suppress whoever disagrees with you. Maybe you don’t use tanks, but you use water cannon. It’s not bullets, it’s tear gas. But the authoritarian mindset is exactly the same as the leaders of the Arab Spring governments. Just because you use non-lethal force doesn’t mean it’s OK. – ENDS

bloomberg.com
By William Pesek

Arab Spring, meet Malaysia’s summer of discontent.

That thought is surely on Prime Minister Najib Razak’s mind as the dust settles from Saturday’s botched demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur. By “botched” I mean the way Najib mishandled what should have been a ho-hum political-reform rally of little note by the international news media.

Public-relations experts would have told Najib to let the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections have their day in the capital. Let them wave signs and wear their yellow shirts. Instead, he tried to stop the rally, increasing its size. Then, he cracked down. Police fired tear gas and detained 1,697 people, turning the event into a top cable TV news story.

The over-the-top response did something worse: It enraged Malaysians who weren’t all that interested in rallying before Saturday. It also underlined the rise in political risk sweeping Asia, something that investors would be wise to track.

No serious observer expects an exact Asian rerun of the Arab Spring movement that saw uprisings topple leaders in Egypt and Tunisia and threaten regimes in Syria, Libya and Yemen. But then neither do serious people argue that Asia has done enough to enhance its democratic credentials during the past 10 years.

Political Change

Malaysia’s protest was the biggest since 2007 — roughly 20,000 people. It came amid rising calls for political change from Thailand to China. What these nations have in common is that the overhaul in domestic political systems lags behind economic and financial reforms.

Take Thailand, where voters this month ejected the incumbent Democratic Party, which had used soldiers to disperse opposition protests in 2010, leading to more than 90 deaths. The party had promised to attack the corruption and undemocratic ways of the government run by Thaksin Shinawatra that soldiers ousted in 2006. Last week, fed up voters went full circle, making Thaksin’s sister premier.

Officials in China are pulling out all the stops to clamp down on political activists amid the so-called Jasmine Revolution. Nothing unnerves the Communist Party in Beijing more than the specter of social discontent. The winds of change are even sweeping Singapore; its ruling party in May won its narrowest election victory since independence in 1963.

Common Threads

Although the causes of such tension differ from country to country, there are a few common threads. One is the frustration of the have-nots as they watch the haves get richer. Another is rising global commodity prices, which make it harder for many to make ends meet. Finally, political modernization has been slower than critics hoped.

Malaysia’s case is especially complicated thanks to the inescapable issue of race. The conventional wisdom is that Saturday’s protests will delay Najib’s pledge to dismantle a 40- year preferential program that favors the Malay majority. The policy makes it harder for Chinese and Indian Malaysians to find good jobs, and its quotas scare away foreign investors. It holds Malaysia back in an increasingly competitive world.

To me, Najib wasn’t moving fast enough before Saturday. Foreign executives considering whether to build a factory in Malaysia want a clear schedule: By Jan. 1, 2012, we will do this, and by Jan. 1, 2013, we will do that. Instead, Najib offered vague intentions without meaningful or specific goals.
Misplaced Priorities

It’s no mystery why. All that matters to the United Malays National Political Organisation is clinging to its five-decade hold on power. Such misplaced priorities explain why Malaysia has been slow to streamline the economy and encourage the kind of entrepreneurialism that creates well-paid jobs. It’s also why leaders are timid about scrapping productivity-killing policies that only benefit portions of the population.

The question now is which way Najib turns. At this point, he may avoid calling an early election this year — there’s just too much risk for him. Which direction he takes in changing policy is an even bigger unknown. On July 10, the Guardian newspaper carried comments by Najib in which he cautioned protesters not to test his party’s will. “We can conquer Kuala Lumpur,” he said.

What can we make of a leader who promised reform and moderation and now sounds like a Roman emperor? Can a nation that arrests almost 1,700 people, some just for wearing yellow shirts, still be called a democracy? Najib’s response even had Malaysians feeling sorry for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who was injured by flying tear gas canisters.

Events in Kuala Lumpur remind us that geopolitical risks are on the rise in Asia. Yes, growth rates are healthy even as the U.S., Japan and Europe limp along. The establishment of democratic institutions has been far less robust, though, and entrenched leaders may pay a considerable price. Maybe not in the Hosni Mubarak-sense, but the potential for upheaval shouldn’t be underestimated. There really is a bull market in the desire for political change.

Investors looking for places to put their money tend to lock themselves in offices combing through statistics, bond spreads, stock valuations and central-bank policies. In Asia’s case, more success might be had by looking out the window at the street demonstrations below

The Philippine Star
By Jarius Bondoc

Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make . . . Mad it was for Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to prime the police into thinking days prior that last Saturday’s opposition protest in Kuala Lumpur was illegal, and that seized firebomb stashes would have been used. Madder still, for him to have the 20,000 marchers tear-gassed and 1,667 arrested.

The rally was to call for electoral reforms, a domestic issue that attracted only the Malaysian press. But when riot squads aimed teargas canisters at opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s head, actually hitting his aide’s eye, and causing the fatal heart attack of one demonstrator, the event drew world attention. Now international groups are denouncing the mayhem as proof of Najib’s disregard for human rights. Worse, there’s sudden global interest in an imminent subpoena of Najib to a Paris trial on kickbacks in purchasing three French submarines in 2002, and the consequent murder of a Mongolian socialite in 2006.

Malaysia’s parliament will have no choice but to take up the brutal dispersal. Najib’s home minister’s claim has been debunked that police performed their duties “with bravery, fairness and integrity.” Narratives jibe that marchers were on their way to a downtown stadium from different parts of the capital when confronted with teargas and chemical-laced water cannons. Even if the storm does not affect next year’s setting of national polls, the fallout predictably will hurt Najib.

Najib allegedly has concocted sexcapades to bring down arch foe Anwar. Not only has the scheme backfired, Najib is now himself under fire for immorality. Trial is to begin of French arms giant DCN-Armaris for bribery in the 2002 submarine sale to Malaysia through then-defense minister Najib. Commissions supposedly came in three tranches: first euro 30 million upon contract signing, then euro 114 million subcontracted to an unknown firm owned by Najib’s security adviser Razak Baginda, and last euro 2.5 million. From reports, Najib, Baginda, and their purported shared Mongolian girlfriend Altantuya Sharibu motored around France after sealing the deal. Najib and now London-based Baginda will be summoned to Paris as soon as a judge is assigned to the case this month or next.

The bribery worsened into kidnapping-murder when Altantuya raucously tried to collect her euro 350,000-share from Baginda in 2006. Najib’s jealous wife Rosmah forbade the men from paying her a single cent, provoking Altantuya to picket their manor. Two Najib bodyguards abducted the pregnant Altantuya, shot her dead in the woods, and burned the corpse with military explosives. Party mates nevertheless made Najib prime minister in 2009. The bodyguards confessed and were convicted last year; Baginda was acquitted. Prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the judge were forbidden from mentioning the sleazy submarine deal during the trial. Still, Najib got an international black eye.

France has no power to compel the attendance of Najib or Baginda. But it can demand the truth from DCN-Armaris. The Malaysia Chronicle recently quoted Kuala Lumpur politicians as saying that if Najib snubs the trial he would in effect tell the world that he’s guilty as charged.

And the world will be watching, now that Najib has turned the spotlight on himself with last weekend’s tyrannical squashing of dissent.