VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:27:28 10/22/06 Sun
Author: THE CORRIDORS OF POWER (Ali Cordoba)
Subject: Anwar Ibrahim: Shifting guns to remain afloat?

20/10: Anwar Ibrahim: Shifting guns to remain afloat?
Category: General Posted by: Raja Petra
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Ali Cordoba



In a speech organised by the Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) addressing relationships with non-Western cultures in the US, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim made several crucial points that shows there may be a shift in his struggle. Is this directed by the need to remain trendy amid fears of being tagged an extremist or is the embracing of democracy as a universal value an apparent attempt at reaching to the West? World Futures Online (www.worldfutures.info) analyses Anwar Ibrahim, the man for whom many were prepared to lose everything during the heydays of the reform movement in Malaysia.

Has Anwar Ibrahim delivered what the thousands of demonstrators expected of him after his release? Or has he turned into a 'universalist' himself that the days of 'reformasi' and mass appeal are over and represents only a step in the elevation of the man from hero to Rai? (A Rai is the highest rank in the leadership post in ancient Egypt.)

At the onset of the speech made by Anwar Ibrahim, it is obvious that the Muslim leader is taking a strong stance in favour of democracy and human rights for several reasons. He appears to be doing that at the behest of Islamic ideals which he vehemently defended during his younger days. His new role as the Rai of Peace building bridges between the West and the Islamic civilisation has probably forced him to turn his back on his baby project the 'ABIM' and kept him away from most of the Islamic or one would sometime prefer to say Muslim capitals in the Muslim World.

It is understood though that he has to maintain his level of acceptance in the West. He realises that the West is an important partner in the future of the world and one cannot just deny its influence; economically, politically and militarily. To dismiss the West and its capitalist system that supports democracy and the excessive application of 'rights' and to say that Islam is the final solution for the Muslims would make Anwar Ibrahim another 'Osama bin Laden' and a member of the Al-Qaeda. Thus for the international western audience, Anwar Ibrahim is the Muslim leader who can transmit the message of democracy to the Muslims - though it is strange that Anwar is not speaking to Muslims in the Middle East or in Europe or Asia, etc.

The West has a flawed view of 'freedom' and 'rights' since its leaders and thinkers believe that they can think and say what they want and wear what they want (they can even accept to have people walking naked in their cities) but they cannot accept the right of the
Muslim women for example to wear the veil or the tudung and they cannot accept the Muslim men to think differently from them and to bow to their Creator five times a day. Is this not a form of ostracism that calls for changes in the 'mental' framework of the West itself? Is this not a blatant rejection of the 'rights' and the 'freedom' of the Muslims to be who they are? Such excessive application of 'rights' and 'freedom' in favour of Western culture is unacceptable and Anwar Ibrahim – since he is now the guru of the West-Islam dialog – has the moral responsibility to engage the West on these issues!

Locally speaking, in Malaysia he knows that things are bound to change and that his opponents in the UMNO and his political partners in the PAS are afraid of the 'new world order' where religion may have to become second fiddle and the notion of democracy will be enforced in Muslim countries. He still believes that the US will win the battle to impose democracy in the Arab land and hence, Malaysia will have to follow inevitably. Malaysia's democratic system is a controlled one and it is this control on the local democracy by the UMNO that has kept the Muslim majority in power since the country's independence.

This is a good time for Anwar Ibrahim to de-mark himself from his 'militant' Muslim past to jump into the band wagon of 'democracy at all cost'. In order to bring these changes in Malaysia, Anwar must win the sympathy, support and loyalty of those who are not in good accord with the current system in Malaysia. This means, he has to drop the Islamic issue and bring in issues like the 'universalism' of democracy as a balancing act to replace the 'lack lustre' Islamic values - values which does not appeal the large minority population in the country. By doing so, he may simply be gaining the support of a large section of the Malaysian population, such as the non-Muslims in particular and the 'UMNO' traditionalists who does not believe in strengthening Islam in Malaysia and are resisting Abdullah Badawi's 'Islam Hadari' on that matter in particular. Islam Hadari, which is none but a milder version of 'Islam Madani', is still confronted with adaptation problems in Malaysia and Anwar may be thinking that once the era of Abdullah Badawi is past, his struggle to impose the limitless democracy in Malaysia may become easier.

Indeed, it is unfair to say that Anwar is a democrat leader who is trying to hijack a developing situation in which, without adapting himself to the 'democratic wave' from the West, he might otherwise become useless. This is not the case here. Anwar is not an opportunist but he has his limitations too and these limitations are questionable on the stance that he is currently taking regarding the push for democracy and the call for an abandonment of Political Islam.

Anwar's supporters in Malaysia did not expect such a dramatic turn in the language and in the political stance of the former deputy Prime Minister. The Muslims in particular were hoping that Anwar picks up the pieces where he had left them when he was sent to jail in order to carry on the dream of turning the Malays into a super ethnic group in Malaysia.

However, lashing at the Muslims for their reactions to the offensive and sometimes 'cannibalistic' attacks on Islam by the West is not going to help his cause among the Muslims. Anwar Ibrahim said the Muslims cannot riot and cannot show their anger at the downgrading and distasteful attacks from the West on their faith, their holy book and their icon who is their Prophet. He insists that the universalism of democracy was such that the Muslims must accept these attacks and take it easy.

He also points out that Muslims should not ask for the closure of newspapers that publish offensive stories or pictures against the prophet of Islam; all this in the name of democracy. To many Muslims, it appears that Anwar Ibrahim is diminishing Islam's right to a response that fits the dirty minds who are behind these attacks.

Perhaps Anwar Ibrahim should add a bit of 'saucing and icing' in his statements for the defence of democratic rights by mentioning that Islam has the right to defend itself but it has to do so with less violence and more tact. The Muslims are waiting for its leaders (including leaders like Anwar) to react with tact and to tell them not to be violent but to deal with such issues with patience. They are also waiting to see a form of remonstration of the West by people like Anwar Ibrahim rather than kowtowing to the principles of the West. To the Muslims, this represents a bowing to Washington's desires of having the Muslim world tight-lipped, handcuffed, blindfolded and sent to the 'guillotine' of history as if they were all 'witches' that comes from an old age.

In the event Anwar Ibrahim believes that he must put democracy and the need to please the West ahead of the need of the Muslim population of Malaysia, then his political fate will be sealed 'too soon and too badly'. While there is no problem to befriend the champion of neo-conservatism in the US, it is also obvious that the Islamic world sees the former American deputy secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, as an enemy who plotted against Muslim countries.

Anwar seems to be departing from his old friends in Riyadh and in the Islamic world, a mistake that may cost him dearly in the future. The fear of being traded as a 'mujahideen' may be the reason why Anwar Ibrahim is staying away from Muslim capitals and is showing his faith in the Western system that has so far been pursuing a policy of the total destruction of Islamic values and Muslim nations in the world.

In Malaysia, there is a lot of talk of the wrongdoings of the NEP, yet we all know it is not the NEP that is wrong but the application of the NEP and the hijacking of the project by a group of cronies during the Mahathir Mohamad regime that has given a bad image to the NEP. The NEP started with the idea of assisting the Malays economically and socially with good education. The majority of the Malay population benefited from the education grants yet this did not bring them further ahead in the plan to make them strong economically since the NEP was hijacked and the billions invested through the NEP went into the hands of a few protected Malay families that abused the system.

Anwar was Finance Minister for a long time and he has knowledge of the abuse of the NEP by Mahathir and his cronies. At that time, the 'friends' of Anwar Ibrahim were crouching to beg for contracts while the cronies of Mahathir were landing all the huge projects. In the meantime, the Malays further down the ladder did not get most of the benefits of the NEP. They were made to believe that owning a proton car and a single-storey house or at best a double-storey house was better than living in quarters or one-room flats and that they were better off with the NEP. All this while, the few who were dilapidating the NEP's funds were either in the camp of Mahathir or were eying to support Anwar in his bid to dethrone Mahathir from the Prime Ministership. When Anwar failed in his attempt to remove Mahathir, the cronies rallied behind the former PM and gave him the economic and political support he badly needed to fend off the waves of 'reformasi' in the 1999 elections.

Mahathir accused Anwar of trying to sell the country to the IMF and the World Bank while UMNO said Anwar was a henchman of the Americans. Somewhere in Masjid India, writings on the wall by UMNO supporters read as follows: Anwar boneka America - Hidup Mahathir. This irritated many in the 'reformasi' movement as they firmly believed Anwar was an Islamist who was fighting not for his release in jail but for the betterment of the Malay middle class and for their right to a better life in their own country. They believed Anwar was the man who would bring a fair distribution of the economic pie and righteousness would be part of the daily life of Malaysia.

Anwar has always been against the NEP as it is crafted today. Well before his downfall from the DPM's post, he spoke against the NEP and suggested a revamp of the economy while he made calls for the Malays to abandon the crutches and to grow bolder. At that time, it was Mahathir who was opposed to his calls for a fazing out of the NEP. Mahathir would call the NEP a national endeavour that could not be touched since it was the political guarantee that the Malays would vote UMNO in any circumstances. In 1999, the NEP was of little use to Mahathir who almost tasted defeat to the PAS-ADIL-DAP coalition. The battle was tough and the opposition tenacious and the government had to resort to undemocratic practices to win the elections.

Anwar was responsible for that near defeat of Mahathir. He almost dethroned Mahathir while sitting behind bars. He had the support of the average Malay population since these people never believed that Anwar was really against the NEP, was a democrat and not an Islamist, and was struggling from behind the bars to free himself. They believed he was fighting in jail to dethrone Mahathir and to free the majority of the Malays from the shackles of UMNO. They also believed that he would deal with Islam differently, not the way Mahathir did. Most Malays believe that Mahathir is not an Islamist but they agree he is a great statesman.

It will not be easy for any government in Malaysia to dismantle the NEP without raising the ire and possible revolt of the Malays. This is what is making Najib Tun Razak, currently Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) cautious when it comes to the inevitable changes that Malaysia need to embrace in its thrust forward as a developed nation in 2020. To destroy the NEP and leave the community of Malay middle-class citizens in the lurch will be suicidal, politically, and will be the end of Anwar Ibrahim or any Malay leader for that matter. The solution for Anwar is to reconsider who shall gain under the NEP and how to 'redistribute' the economic gains Malaysia made in the course of its history, to the more needy people (primarily the Malays-Muslims) and to cut loose the rich and opulent Malays.

Democracy may never allow this to happen since democracy is a capitalistic approach to a civil society. It will always support the groups with the capital to invest rather than reach to the masses that can only demonstrate in the streets. Capitalism will not survive if democracy allows the cutting of the rich man's grass under his feet to feed the masses. Hence, Anwar will have to resort to Islamic principles. Yet Anwar is saying that he is not an Islamist, let alone a fundamental Muslim. It will be awkward to see Anwar, as Prime Minister of Malaysia, applying Islamic principles such as the Bait'ul Maal to salvage the majority of the Malay populace that has been betrayed by the ruling UMNO political class in the past.

Anwar's view of the World, the West and of Islam and their relationship look flawed in many ways. In the West, when Anwar attacked the Muslims for their 'violent' reactions to the anti-Muhammad cartoons, the Pope's direct attack on the Prophet, and the attempts by
America to democratise the Middle East, he became the rare hero. Though quality is more important than quantity, the Muslims are still human beings and they are emotional. It would be agreeable to be in awe if dogs and other animals were to react with smiles when they are tested in labs. Yet here we are talking of the faith of a large community of the world and of the evil and despicable attacks by the West on Islam and its icons. One does not expect the Muslims to react with laughter and walk away without any show of further emotions.

It is noble to try to bridge the West and Islam but not all noble causes are profitable or wise in themselves. Since Islam is under attack for its purity and sincerity, it is obvious that the attackers are definitely evil and a bunch of hypocrites who are hiding behind the veil of democracy to throw slander, bombs and abuses at the Muslims. Then we have an idea why democracy is not 'universal' We all know that democracy is flawed. It has failed America - where a non-White can never become President - and it has failed the Americans today where G.W.Bush was elected President on technicalities which would equal to corruption and vote rigging in any other democracies but not in America, the so-called berth of democracy. America is probably the worst democracy on earth today since it has adopted policies and principles that was applied in Malaysia and made Anwar Ibrahim himself the victim of abuse. Thousands of Muslims are abused daily in secret jails, without a chance for trial and accused without evidence. Guantanamo is a perfect example. The Home Security Act and the Patriot Act of the USA are no better than the Internal Security Act (ISA) under which Anwar Ibrahim was abused.

The press in the US is only a mirage of what freedom of the press should be, suppressed by the neo-cons to tip-toe to the Republican regime's evil designs against Islam. The Americans are not really free to question the Presidency, the authorities and the official explanations of events by the regime. If they do, they will be accosted by the FBI and may face jail altogether or they will be put on wire tapping and will be surveyed daily by the new Gestapo in America. Is this the West that Anwar wants to bridge with Islam?

The point is that the West must understand that Islam today offers more freedom, more respect of rights and more purity of the soul than democracy - which is by all means turning into an extreme form of capitalism unleashed by the Bush-Blair-Olmert triumvirate. (President G.W. Bush of the US is in alliance with Tony Blair, British PM and Ehud Olmert the Israeli PM).

Democracy is killing hundred of thousands in Iraq and it is progressing with the killing of thousands more in Afghanistan and soon Sudan or Syria and Iran. In Iraq alone, the democratic gun that Anwar Ibrahim is trying to bridge with Islam has murdered or helped in the murder of 665,000 poor, innocent Muslims who just wanted to live their lives without western interference in their country. This does not need bridging. The civilisations are already way apart and Anwar Ibrahim is far too weak to connect the dots here.

The West knows what it is dealing with. It knows what Islam is about and it is childish to believe that the West is ignorant of Islam and of what it is. The Muslim leaders are probably ignorant of what the West knows about Islam. Hence, both sides are ignorant. And the sayings of the Prophet of Islam comes to light when he said in some of his traditions or Hadiths, that there will come a time when the ridicule will rule the world. This will be the time when the ignorant and the 'stupid' will rule the 'intelligent' masses. As long as the West plays the ignorant on Islam and the Muslim leaders plays the ignorant on the intentions of the West, what is there to bridge?

If the Pope can say that the Islam is a peaceful faith - he said that in many of his speeches before his last attack on Islam - and if Bush himself can break fast with Muslims at the White House in a victorious show of his success to bend some Muslims - then why claim that the West is ignorant of Islam? This hypocrisy must end and for it to end, the Muslims need people like Anwar Ibrahim to hint at the West that the Muslims are aware of the game of ignorance played by Western leaders.

The Muslim World does not need Anwar Ibrahim as an ambassador of peace to enlighten the West on Islam. What the Muslim World need is a strong leader who will shut the mouth of the West and make them accept the fact that democracy is failing them and that they should not hide behind the veils of the so-called freedom of expression and of the press to attack Islam.

They must be made to understand that Islam is freedom of expression and that Islam is democracy by itself and that Islam is also communist in many ways or socialist in its fundamentals. That is because Islam is complete and is a solution to many problems and is not at the heart of the problem created by the West.

Anwar claims that democracy is universal whereas Rasulullah said Islam is universal and Mao said communism is universal while Carl Marx and Engel said capitalism and democracy is demoniac. Which is which then? Does Anwar really believe that democracy a la Bush-Blair-Olmert is universal? To put it bluntly, it appears that Anwar is professing a form of Americanism that is destructive to democratic principles and is the enemy of Islamic principles.

This is not the Anwar Ibrahim we all fought for in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, on the Internet super-highway with all its dangers, and in discussions in direct confrontation with anti-reformists in Malaysia. Many people lost their jobs, their businesses, their promotions, their wives or husbands who left them because they supported Anwar Ibrahim. Others have lost their chance to become Malaysian citizens or to gain their Permanent Residents since their special branch report to the Interior Ministry said they were 'Orang DSAI'. These people do not want Anwar Ibrahim to be the pawn in the Western game of ignorance of slander. They want the Anwar Ibrahim who can speak up for Islam and stand by Islam for what Islam truly represents. Website - http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/corridors.php?itemid=226

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.