Gore and Wolfowitz, pretty far apart in domestic politics have come together in their condemnation and call for action by the American government. They also display some insight into matters in Malaysia and Anwar Ibrahim. Matters in Malaysia are by no means entirely black and white, but the heart of the matter is that abuse of judicial power to undermine democracy is wrong no matter what. As they formulate it:

Our views of Anwar Ibrahim have been formed completely independently of each other. We do not always agree with his views on foreign policy, but we do agree that as a political leader, statesman and intellectual, Mr. Anwar possesses qualities that encourage hope for the future. These qualities include lucidity and openness to debate and engagement; commitment to principles of accountability and good governance; and a serious concern for the future of his country and the world—not to mention his extraordinary courage in standing up for what he believes. We are convinced that he is committed to the values of pluralism, tolerance and freedom that are needed for Malaysia to flourish.In the end, what matters is not our opinion of Mr. Anwar’s character, but the opinion of his fellow countrymen. Malaysians should decide for themselves, through an open electoral process, who they wish to lead them. They should not be deprived of that opportunity by an abuse of judicial power.

Malaysia has a parliament and elections, but it is nowehere near being a working democracy. This week they have once again proven this with the censorship of MP and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar now faces possible suspension from parliament over a comment made during one of its sessions. He claimed that the nationalist campaign 1Malaysia, intended to boost national unity, is somehow related to Ehud Barak’s 1999 political campaign One Israel. The relation is the PR firm APCO that allegedly has been working for the government coalition Barisan Nasional.

Making connections to Israel is not trivial in Malaysia, a country with a Muslim majority and where religion is frequently politicized. Using a European analogy, this claim is roughly as controversial in Malaysia as if a British MP had claimed that Gordon Brown’s policies reeked of nazist ideology. It is probably a breach of parliamentary decorum worthy of a reprimand from the Speaker, but definitely not grounds for exclusion from parliament. In a democracy, we have to accept even remarks that we disapprove of. The threat of such extreme sanctions for minor infractions does not make for a climate of open and free discussion necessary for true democracy.

The government coalition has worked hard and played dirty to keep Anwar Ibrahim down. The censure against Anwar fits the trend nicely. As preposterous as the censure is, the remarks themselves clearly show that both sides know how to play that game. I don’t believe for a second that Anwar actually believes that the 1Malaysia policy is the result of conspiring with Israel. But the mere suggestion is enough to sow doubts in the religious, less educated rural Malaysia. He scores a double point when the government responds with trampling on free speech, aggravating the more secular urban citizens hoping for a more democratic Malaysia.

That both sides play dirty should surprise very few. It is also understandable that the opposition is willing to stoop to that level given that their opponents have the draconian arsenal of the government at their disposal. Perhaps they even have to in order to survive. But is this a good starting point for building a more vital Malaysian democracy? We can only hope that the level of debate will rise if the level of democracy increases.

Similar charges in 1998 led to Anwar being sacked as s deputy PM, imprisoned and quarantined from politics – also being the decisive blow against his economic reform program¹. It may have been a pyrrhic victory for the sitting regime as it also served as a rallying call for the opposition eventually leading to the creation of the current opposition coalition where such diverse parties as the Islamist PAS and the socialist DAP stand reasonably united with Anwar as their leader.

In the previous round, the allegations against Anwar were by many seen as a decisive low blow by a hegemonic leader (Mahathir Mohamad) against his reform-oriented deputy who was rising too fast in public popularity . In 1998 Mahathir sat on the pinnacle of a strong pyramid of patronage and media control. He needed to prevent Anwar from getting in the position for a possible hijack of this effective machine. In destroying an internal enemy he created an external one.

Under Mahathir’s successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, that pyramid became increasingly wobbly. He was unpopular, even with the Malay majority that had strongly supported Mahathir. He was also generally seen as incompetent, and failed to exercise the autocratic control over Malaysian politics his predecessor had. Not only did an organized parliament opposition appear, gradually increasing its political power, but oppositon also grew within his party UMNO and the government coalition Barisan Nasional was creaking at the seams.

Anwar’s political quarantine ended in 2008, and in the same year an electoral landslide made Barisan Nasional lose its traditional 3/4 majority in parliament. The internal opposition became strong enough to force the retirement of Prime Minister Abdullah, to be replaced with Najib Tun Razak the son of nation builder Tun Abdul Razak and member of one of the true power dynasties of Malaysia. Where there were only feeble attempts at criminal charges against Anwar at the end of Abdullah’s reign, they have now once again managed to drag him into court where he faces the possibility of a long prison sentence and a new political quarantine. His alleged offence is engaging in homosexual activity.

Reuters comments on the strong media bias that especially influences the poorer and less educated rural Malaysia. Still, The Washington Post suggests that this whole trial may be a bad move from the government. Indeed I agree that should he be convicted, it will be yet another pyrrhic victory for the leadership of Malaysia. It was a desperate move and a bad idea in 1998 and gave Anwar the martyrdom status necessary to become the opposition icon he is. And that was in a time when Mahathir’s autocratic control of the country was much stronger than Najib’s today. It is an even worse idea now. The opposition struggles with being an alliance of very diverse groups. Further martyrdom for Anwar will certainly give them renewed strength, provided they manage to find a new leadership figure without breaking apart.

Should Anwar lose the trial, it will also cast further shadows of doubt over the Malaysian court system. In the previous round, Anwar’s sodomy conviction was actually overturned after four years. The police and prison authorities were also strongly reprimanded for mistreatment of Anwar while imprisoned. The way the trial is conducted may tell us much about whether the independence of the court system has improved or worsened since 1998.

One way or the other, the trial will have great impact on Malaysian politics. The process and its outcome will be very interesting to follow.

1. I have previously published a student paper about this in the post Sex, lies and capital controls

This might be the result of a Scandinavian (possibly harmful?) naivité about such issues, possibly brought on by a very homogenous ethnic makeup.¹ It may also be the result of a society that has been able to advance beyond a harmful focus on race. I saw an example of the opposite up close when living in Malaysia, a thoroughly race-focused country where race and religion ar important for official categorization of people. It is the story of a massive affirmative action programme that has spiralled totally out of control and become the basis for widespread discrimination in society.

I may be wrong, but my impression as an outsider is still that focus on the concept of race appears to bring more harm than good. The problem in the US is as I understand it that large groups have low income, low social mobility, language problems, high unemployment et cetera, not that the members of these groups have a different skin tone. Language holds power, and official contributions to keeping racial divisions an active part of the language may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Am I just an naively idealistic Scandinavian with an unrealistic view of the world?

1. The CIA World Factbook lists the 2007 estimate as: Norwegian 94.4% (includes Sami, about 60,000), other European 3.6%, other 2%

After UMNO has been losing ground over the last few years, in 2008 in particular, the challenges for Najib will be great. While Malaysia is being hit harder and harder by the international financial crisis, Najib will have to reform and revitalize his party, the Barisan Nasional coalition and the government of Malaysia itself if he is to have any hope of holding the opposition coalition under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim at bay.

On taking office, the heredtary nobleman Najib is already shrouded in suspicions of corruption and scandal – none of which have been yet to stick in court, but are accepted by large parts of the population. His work is certainly cut out for him.

See also these posts:

• Najib’s challenges
• 10-minute guide to Malaysian politics

After the 2008 elections, the state parliament is divided almost 50-50 between the opposition alliance PKR and the government alliance BN. Until now, the state had a PKR government who ruled with a 3-member advantage in the parliament. So far pretty straightforward, but then it becomes complicated…

First: In august 2008 two assemblymen, Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman, were charged with corruption. On january 26th 2009 they disappeared from public view. The national leader of PKR, Anwar Ibrahim, claimed that this was a setup engineered by UMNO to force them to change sides.

Then suddenly, UMNO crown prince and Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak suddenly takes over as coalition leader in Perak, signifying that something important is brewing. He then leaks information that the two “missing” assemblymen will cross over from PKR to BN. This would have left BN only one vote short of seizing majority in the state assembly…

…if it wasn’t for the fact that in the meantime, UMNO assemblyman Nasarudin Hashim had defected to PKR, leaving the government coalition two votes short.

Then, on February 1st,  two letters arrived at the home of the Perak assembly speaker. They proved to be undated resignation letters from the two missing assemblymen. The speaker immediately accepted these two resignations with reference to the Perak constitution asking the Election Commission to prepare for a by-election to replace them. It appeared that PKR had been able to avoid losing power in the state.

But… suddenly one of the missing assemblymen resurfaced, claiming that the resignation letters were something they had been forced to sign when they were elected, as a safeguard against party defections. He wanted to continue to serve with no intention of resigning. The speaker still claimed that the resignation letters were legal.

The election commission, on the other hand, refused to accept the resignations and ruled against holding  a by-election. The state government now countered by announcing the dissolution of the parliament, a power that constitutionally lies with the Sultan.

Representatives from UMNO had also met with the sultan and informed him that the newly defected Nasarudin had now turned his coat yet again to return to UMNO along with another earlier defector. With Jamaludin and Mohd Osman who were now declared BN-friendly independents, this would leave BN with a majority. The Sultan refused dissolution and asked BN to form a new government. This was based on the state constitution that requires the Menteri Besar (Head of state government) to command an active majority in the state assembly.

Interestingly enough, the Sultan himself has written a book on constitutional monarchy in which he allegedly subscribes to the usual European constitutional practice:

Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of parliament. His role is purely formal.

In this case he clearly didn’t stick to that convention.

So… now we have the Deputy Prime Minister, now head of UMNO Perak, is looking for a new Menteri Besar, while the old one claims to still hold his post according to the constitution. The assembly speaker has accepted the resignation of two assemblymen who claim to still retain their seats…

An interesting case of constitutional law indeed. It doesn’t become simpler to follow with the lack of objective news sources. In Malaysia we have the choice between the politically censored mainstream press or the predominantly PKR-biased blogosphere. It takes quite a bit of reading of both to try and find a sort of middle ground presumably as close to the truth as possible.

Some relevant blogs and news sources:

• The Star Online: “How the Perak government fell.“
• Anwar Ibrahim: “A constitutional crisis caused by the sultan.“
• The Dandelions “Urgent appeal: Perak constitution crisis from misinterpretation of words?“
• Disquiet: “Perak, a constitutional crisis“
• Audie 61: “War of words now“
• Proud 2B Malaysian: “Wake up, Malaysia!“
• Roger Tan/New Straits Times: “Thorny issues that need attention.“

The jews did it

8. The current financial crisis which is destroying the economies of the U.S. Britain and in fact all the countries of the world is due to manipulations of banks, financial institutions and the monetary system by Jewish supporters of Israel. (chedet.co.cc)

And why is this interesting? Because this isn’t just some random crackpot blogger. This is the man who led Malaysia for just about three decades and has been seen as one of the more prominent moderate voices of the Muslim world. This is the man who crossed the IMF and handled the previous finance crisis in ’98 in his own way. This is a man many still listen to.

How the financial crisis helps Israel is still somewhat unclear to me.

September 16 2008, the opposition movement’s new national day, was announced to be the day the roots of the Malaysian establishment would shake and mass defections from the government coalition would be announced. The blogging community and opposition coalition leaks had the tally at more than 30 MPs ready to jump sides, and the Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition ready to sweep in and take power. But the day came and went with out much of the announced ruckus. Certainly no mass defections.

Within the UMNO ruling party change appeared to be brewing with a struggle for future leadership as the unpopular Abdullah Badawi reluctantly announced he would hand over power. But the great power struggle died in round 1, as the nomination process showed overwhelming support for the favourite, and no other candidate was able to get the required nominations. No surprises, no great change.

So did no change ever come, and has the opposition movement lost its momentum? I’m not so sure. Change might not come as fast as what many people had hoped and Anwar seemed to promise. The boldness of the first months might have needed to be tempered somewhat. I don’t think we’ll see anything like the colour revolutions just yet. That option passed with the September 16 deadline.

There has however been some movement. 2008 did see some important events that didn’t go in favour of the political establishment. The great landmark was the general election in which the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition lost its 2/3 parliament majority for the first time in the history of the young country. Then two much publicized by-elections have turned out in the favour of the opposition. A few defections there has been as well, most recently last week in Perak where a key parliament member switched sides.

Also, Abdullah Badawi has not been the defence player Mahathir once was. His feeble efforts at stopping Anwar from reentering the parliament, censoring online criticism and other issues have not been charactericed by the same decisiveness with which Mahathir cracked down on Anwar in 1998. He has simply not been able to apply the authoritarian measures of his predecessor with the same effectiveness. Election results and other signs seem to indicate that public support is slipping, and UMNO’s efforts to regain it just don’t have the punch they need to.

These are all among the things adding credibility to the opposition, and it looks like Anwar and his compatriots have been able to build the most credible opposition block Malaysia has yet seen. Not fulfilling outrageous promises of seizing power right away doesn’t seem to have killed the movement at the outset, but will they be able to avoid disilusionment and apathy as the months go?

It will also be interesting to see what happens when Abdullah Badawi steps down from power. Can the new UMNO leadership under Najib Razak bring the initiative back to the Barisan Nasional coalition, or will the game be kept on their half of the court?

Recommended further reading:

• Deborah Loh / The Nut Graph: “Testing time for Pakatan Rakyat“
• Deborah Loh / The Nut Graph: “Swing time in Kuala Terengganu“
• Deborah Loh / The Nut Graph: “Lessons from Kuala Terengganu“
• Leslie Lau / The Malaysian Insider: “Anwar Ibrahim, probably Malaysia’s greatest comeback kid“
• Richard Craince / Far Eastern Economic Review “Malaysia’s Authoritarian Resurgence“
• Zubaidah Abu Bakar / New Straits Times: “Kuala Terengganu is up in the air for now“
• M. Bakri Musa /Lim Kit Siang: “UMNO reform must begin with Najib Razak“

The first thing to know is the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, or National Alliance. This multi-party coalition has ruled since Malaysia’s independence in 1957, enjoying a 2/3 parliament majority until 2008. Malaysian politics is traditionally divided along ethnic lines, and the three original coalition partners are the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Asscociation (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). There are also several smaller parties.

Most important of these parties is UMNO, holding majority within BN, as the most important party representing the largest ethnic group in Malaysia, the Malays. The Prime Minister of Malaysia has always been from UMNO. One of these prime ministers is Tun Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled the party and Malaysia throughout the 80s and 90s.

In the late 90s, his deputy was Anwar Ibrahim. Unlike the conservative ultranationalist Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar was a young liberal, popular with the public arguing for reform. Among the reforms he wanted was the abolishment of the Bumiputra policy, a policy instated in the 70s bestowing economic and social benefits to Malay nationals which has allowed for the creation of a Malay economic elite in the country. In 1998 Anwar, by then a major threat to Tun Mahathir’s power, was accused of sodomy (a serious offense in the Muslim Malaysia) and corruption and imprisoned. This sparked riots by the so-called ‘Reformasi’ movement. The riots died out, but left a large group of middle class Malaysian discontents.

In 2003 Mahathir Mohamad, then age 78, stepped down from power handing the reins over to Abdullah Badawi, nicknamed Pak Lah (short for Uncle Abdullah). Abdullah has ruled UMNO and as PM since, but has proved a much less competent and popular leader tham Mahathir ever was.

2008 has so far been an important turning point in Malaysian history. First the BN suffered a great defeat in the parliament election, for the first time losing its 2/3 majority in the parliament. The big winner was the new opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat. Later, two minor parties of the BN from the provinces of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo broke away from the coalition.

Furthermore, Anwar Ibrahim’s ban from participating in Malaysian politics was lifted. His wife withdrew from parliament, creating the need for a by-election through which Anwar Ibrahim regained a seat in the parliament and took the position of opposition leader.

The troubles of the year have given fuel to a strong internal opposition within the UMNO party, and open criticism from its Supreme Council which has called for Abdullah’s resignation. He has promised to hand over power by the year 2010, presumably to his deputy PM Najib Tun Razak, but this has not been enough to quiet dissent. Calls have been made for his resignation already at the next general assembly of UMNO. As of the time I’m writing this, there is yet much speculation about what Abdullah’s next move will be. Rumours range from immediate resignation, through handing over power to any number of possible successors to just clinging to power for as long as he can.

In the meantime, Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat have been busy. They claim to have a list of as much as 40 MPs ready to defect from BN. In addition there are rumours of the possibility of the BN party Gerakan being ready to defect, and that Pakatan Rakyat will move for a vote of no confidence against the cabinet and form a new government, alternatively taking the matter to the Malaysian king. However, the fact that no move or publication has yet been made may indicate that the PR position might not be as strong as they claim.

One last important event. Important tools of Malaysian autocracy have been a strict media censorship and a law called the Internal Security Act (ISA), which have been the target of much criticism by human rights and freedom of speech groups. Both tools have been widely abused by prime ministers. The latter gives the PM the right to imprison anyone for extended periods of time based on any accusation of threat to national security. Lately, these two were used first to block the independent news source Malaysia Today to Malaysian users, and then to imprison its editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin, who has among other things accused Deputy PM Najib’s wife of connections to the murder of a Mongolian journalist. Several other activists were also arrested under the same act. The power of Malaysian bloggers, which are very numerous, is a big threat to the effectiveness of the media censorship and thus to the autocratic methods of the Malaysian leadership. So far, Abdullah appears unable to do much to limit this power.

Well, that’s my summary of 10 years of Malaysian politics in 10 minutes. Hope it might help clear some of the confusion. Keep in mind that this is just my limited analysis from an overseas vantage point, and that things are changing at a breakneck pace.

Further reading:

• Nachspiel at Polemarchus’: “Anwar Ibrahim returns to the Malaysian Parliament“
• Nachspiel at Polemarchus’: “Sex, lies and capital controls – How Mahathir painted himself into a corner.“
• Tun Mahathir Mohamad’s blog chedet.com
• www.anwaribrahim.com
• Proud 2B Malaysian: “What ifs in october” on what might happen this month.
• Malaysia Today: “Malaysian power struggle continues unabated“
• BBC News: “Malaysian writer in sedition trial“
• The Kuala Lumpur Traveller: “RPK: Deputy PM Najib’s wife Rosmah was at Altantuya’s murder scene.“