Lim Kit Siang

Will Datuk Seri Najib Razak call a snap general election at the end of next year or early 2010 to get a full mandate and legitimacy as the sixth Prime Minister and to put behind him all the many serious allegations now hounding and haunting him?

This is an option Najib will have to give serious consideration when he takes over as the sixth Prime Minister next March.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dissolved Parliament in March 2004 four months after taking over the premiership while Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad dissolved Parliament in March 1982 eight months after becoming the fourth Prime Minister, both scoring landslide victories in the “first flush” of a new Prime Minister with the 2004 general election victory the most unprecedented.

Will Najib take a leaf from Abdullah and Mahathir and plan for an early snap general election when he takes over as Prime Minister next March, whether end of next year or early 2010?

This is the first strategic decision Najib has to make as Prime Minister, whether to craft a national euphoria when he assumes the premiership and go for early polls whether end-2009 or early 2010 or complete the bulk of the 12th Parliamentary term to hold the 13th general election in 2011 or 2012.

Najib and his core advisers must now be weighing the pros and cons of having early snap polls.

The arguments for early snap polls are the same reasons why Abdullah and Mahathir chose the option – to take full advantage of the “honeymoon” goodwill as well as the political euphoria that could be generated by a new Prime Minister, which cannot be sustained if Najib completes the full term of the present Parliament.

Furthermore, a convincing victory in an early polls will have the great benefit of giving Najib the necessary legitimacy which he will lack when he becomes Prime Minister in March, as unlike the other five Prime Ministers, Najib will be starting his premiership hounded and haunted by many serious allegations of impropriety raising grave questions about his fitness for the high office.

[Read full article...]

Farish A Noor

Now that the level of euphoria over the victory of Barack Obama has settled somewhat, it would pay to consider some of the ramifications of his recent victory as the latest occupant of the White House and by extension the most powerful man in the world.

In the lead-up to Obama’s victory, much was said and written about the man’s promise and hope of a new America; an America that would be proud of itself, confident in the world and able to address the challenges of today. There was much talk about the restoration of American pride and prestige and to regain the moral credibility that was squandered away after two terms of Bush junior in office.

But before the dust had settled and the last piece of confetti touched the earth, there were already disturbing revelations about the man and what he might or might not do as the President of the United States. Obama’s appointment of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff did not bode well with many who know of Emanuel’s strong ties with Israel and the pro-Zionist lobby in the USA. It is also well known that Emanuel’s father, Benjamin Emanuel, was a member of the Irjun gang in the 1940s and in an interview with the press had bluntly stated that his son would try his best to ensure that American foreign policy under Obama would be pro-Israel and seek to secure the safety and security of Israel at all costs.

Perhaps those who were supportive of Obama were themselves glued to the TV screens and mesmerised by the image that he had created for himself, as the embodiment of hope and a new future for America and the world. But there precisely lies the problem: that living as we do in this unequal unipolar world where the power relations between the developed North and the developing South are so stark, the future of the United States as the sole hegemon in the world today is intimately linked to the future of the developing world as well. If America coughs, the whole world is affected, but never vice-versa.

We should not forget that the historical forces that have led to Obama’s victory are the very same forces that have created the military-industrial complex of the neo-imperialist America we see today. Obama’s victory in the US Presidential elections was seen and cast by many (particularly non-American outside observers) as a sea-change in American politics, a radical shift that has interrupted the continuity of American political discourse and culture.

[Read full article...]

Lim Kit Siang

Star Editor-in-Chief Wong Chun Wai in his blog yesterday on “The realities of Malaysian politics” wrote:

“Anwar Ibrahim has revealed a signed document between himself, DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and PAS’ Hadi Awang that none of us have heard of until now - an agreement to uphold the rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The Sept 8 agreement pledged to uphold Malay rights and the status of Islam as the official religion.

”Anwar also said that the social contract between the races were already agreed upon by all members of the coalition. He also revealed that the four-paragraph agreement could not be changed by any party, according to The Star.”

The imputation that I had signed on behalf of DAP a “secret” compact with the other Pakatan Rakyat leaders to uphold Malay rights and the status of Islam as the official religion as provided in the Federal Constitution is baseless, mischievous and unworthy of a professional journalist.

This is because Wong’s insinuation imported the innuendo that the DAP and I had all along opposed these two constitutional provisions but in a most opportunistic and dishonest act of political expediency, I had agreed in Pakatan Rakyat to a secret document “none of us have heard of until now” to support them.

The September 8 joint statement by Pakatan Rakyat leaders which Anwar referred to in the Star report yesterday, “Anwar: Pakatan committed to ensuring Malay rights”, which was signed by Anwar as the PKR leader, Datuk Husam Musa as PAS National Vice President and myself on behalf of DAP, was issued to all media, including the Star. I put it up on my blog the same day.

[Read full article...]

Farish A Noor

The electoral victory of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States of America is long overdue, and many of us are thankful for it. No, its not because the rest of us are racists who hate white men; and no, its not because we are captive to the essentialised idea that black Americans are all victims and are necessarily good and innocent, in toto. Its simply because change is refreshing and we believe that change is good and healthy for the nation and humanity in general.

I recall taking a flight from Frankfurt to Kuala Lumpur once, when the pilot spoke to the passengers before take off. Suddenly there was a collective gasp of surprise when we realised that our pilot was a woman! I was suddenly gripped by an overwhelming sense of relief and curious pride, for somewhere in my settled conscience the idea had been sedimented that all pilots (like all doctors, scientists and Presidents) had to be male. Throughout the flight I had to resist the temptation of bursting into the cockpit to congratulate her, and to tell her how proud I was to be flying in a plane piloted by a woman for a change. (Though of course because I’m Muslim I would have been arrested immediately and handcuffed for fear of being a terrorist!)

That’s how change happens. It takes us by surprise and in a second its over and the historical moment has passed. But it requires that one vital element that makes change possible in the first place: human agency. There would not have been a woman pilot on my flight if this woman had not pursued her ambition to become a pilot relentlessly, never giving up on her dream despite the obstacles she may or may not have faced.

[Read full article...]

Lim Kit Siang

I had hoped against hope that the Second Finance Minister, Datuk Nor Mohd Yakcop, would come to Parliament today to give the first full and proper accounting of Valuecap’s performance in the past five to six years.

I was dead wrong. Nor Mohd staged an “avoid and evade” play, fully agreeing when I interrupted him that Valuecap needs to be more transparent, but when pressed to give a full and proper accounting of Valuecap’s past performance, pleaded that he did not have the time to do so during the debate.

This prompted my question asking what is the use of him agreeing that Valuecap should be more transparent but refusing to be transparent when asked specifically?

Although Nor Mohd said he did not have the time to give an accounting on the past performance of Valuecap during his winding-up speech, this did not prevent him from going on and on on other subjects – to the extent that I walked out in disgust!

[Read full article...]