Colonial Britain, Neocolonial America and UMNO with RACISM we Divide and Rule

Rais Yatim Making a Fool of Himself
on National Television

WATCH:

 readmorehttp://malaysiaonlinetoday.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-master-in-idioticracy-uncultured-minister-datu

Rais Yatim,
Malaysia’s Minister for Information, Communications and Culture
Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is apparently disappointed with Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim for lodging police reports against several bloggers. 

The premier, who used the term “terkilan” (disappointed), said that a dialogue would have been a more reasonable approach.

“He said he will personally ask Rais to explain what many saw as an unnecessary action taken when other means of finding a solution could have been conducted,” stated the Barking Magpie blog.

Rais had filed the police reports against blogger Ahirudin Attan, who runs the popular Rocky’s Bru blog, BigDog and TnT. The reports were related to the allegation that Rais’ son was one of the beneficiaries of the ministry’s RM1 billion grant to improve broadband access within the nation.

Another blog, Apanama, also reported that Najib had expressed disappointment with Rais, and warned that the latter’s political future could be at stake.

“Our friend Dr Rais Yatim appears to be in trouble and may need the services of a real (I mean medical) doctor soon. He might also need a ‘political’ doctor to save his career, apart from the dumb spin-doctors who have successfully dragged him into the pit. Rais’s decision to lodge the police reports could just be one of his biggest mistakes in his tenure as a minister and politician in Malaysia,” read the posting.

Meanwhile, Ahirudin said the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), which falls under Rai’s ministry, had called him for another round of investigation relating to the matter.

“I doubt they’re meeting me to return my (seized) laptop, though,” he said.

Ibrahim Ali whom the media also never misses to tag as ‘the lawmaker’. His bare-all, self-styled chest-beating 
Rais Yatim Making a Fool of Himself
on National Television


trade mark in fighting for the rights of the Malay community in Malaysia has become a political brand. He too has seized on the rope to swing a kick on Joh Malott’s criticisms on Malaysia. It is yet to be seen how far he will be allowed to go to butcher the US ex-Envoy who has unmistakably, wide influence.What do all these translate in terms of national reputation? What would be APCO’s public relations advice to the PM Najib?Indeed Malaysia has entered a dramatic chapter in its political journey. It will take more than mere public relations strategies to ensure that the nation will be able to successfully sieve the scum out from the substance.To do so, we will need leadership which appears to be the most eluding factor for us all. Ultimately that fate unfortunately rests in the hands ofthe rakyat – the voting citizenry, and not on any ruling or opposition party.
Unfortunate because looking at all the past General Elections, we can summarily conclude that voters are easy prey for corrupt thoughts and feelings. They are gullible to the nice things one can get during campaigning.
Unfortunate because the larger rural voters also do not see the world of tomorrow in the same way as how a corporate employee views the future. The Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ levels are distinctly different for the two segments of rural and urban population. And this the politicians will exploit to the hilt.
Unfortunate because the leadership in Malaysia is webbed within the System that forms the framework of Malaysian politics. Even the Tun Dr M2 recently admitted this when he claimed that the ‘Ops Lalang’ was way beyond his leadership and control.Whether we wear the lens of Clinton, Malott or Ali, the one central point that emerges is that Malaysia is going through difficult times politically. We really cannot see a rising star among the existing politicians. We cannot see a System of governance that is bold, clear, corrupt free, and strong.  We cannot see a System emerging to beat a pathway in this new age world order that is driven by true democracy and civil liberties.
Hence, we can only prepare ourselves to continue to wallow in the tides of the thoughts in the likes of the Clintons, Malotts and Alis.All these may sound negative. It may be interpreted as unfounded. It may be appearing to be sheer hopelessness.But look, what else can it be?
Are we not fighting along race-based political economies and religious dichotomies today? Are we not anchored on sex and sin slanders and character assassinations to demonstrate who is worthier to be a leader? Are we not threatening to suffer ‘crushed bodies’ and ‘lost lives’ if another political adversary wins the elections? Is not  our social currency one of corruption and greed?Information Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim on Friday described as outdated the criticism hurled at Malaysia by former United States ambassador to Malaysia John R. Malott, and said the latter's intention was purely dirty politics.He said that as an envoy, Malott should not take sides or adopt a stand which clearly reflected his political leaning."When he was the ambassador in Kuala Lumpur, Malott enjoyed the modernity and progress of our country. Of course, he preferred to associate himself with the opposition. We abhor such an envoy."We have to regard him as a political practitioner who is nothing more or less than (Opposition Leader) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim or as one of the members of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) in Kuala Lumpur," he told reporters after MIC President Datuk G. Palanivel had called on him at his office, here.Dr Rais was asked to comment on Malott's article titled "The Price of Malaysia's Racism", recently carried in The Asian Wall Street Journal, critical of the 1Malaysia concept initiated by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.Malott had said, among others, that racial and religious tensions were higher today than when Najib took office as the prime minister in 2009.Dr Rais said Malott's criticism was baseless because the judicial system, the parliamentary system and the national education system moulding 1Malaysia denizens were realities which people like Malott did not comprehend.
"I am amazed that The Asian Wall Street Journal was willing to publish such an article," he said.
He said the intention behind the article was dirty politics.
-- BERNAMA

"There are religious and racial tensions in every country, but I wanted people to know that in the case of Malaysia, the Government itself is condoning and even provoking those tensions."
RELATED ARTICLE
http://kotachitter-786.blogspot.com/2011/02/hang-asshole-bastard-narendra-modis.html

Appended below is the full text of the Q&A conducted through email:

(1) Chronicle: You have been accused of writing your WSJ op-ed for ulterior purposes - spinning was the word DPM Muhyiddin used. Is this true and why?

Malott: I had no ulterior motive. I have been thinking about this subject for a long time, and I wrote the article out of growing concern for Malaysia’s future. I don’t think I was spinning anything.  I tried hard to keep it factual. Years ago, when I wrote speeches and memos for the State Department, I learned that you will be challenged, so be sure that you are accurate and can prove everything you say. It is interesting that people say I was spinning or had my facts wrong, but no one has pointed out anything that was incorrect. People can disagree with the analysis and my conclusions, but the examples and statistics I gave are all documented.

It is not at all unusual in the US for former government officials to write or comment on their areas of expertise. When you watch CNN today, there are plenty of former US Ambassadors and State Department officials talking about the situation in Egypt, for example. There is no ulterior motive. They just want to help people to be better informed.

(2) Chronicle: Both the DPM and Ibrahim Ali have accused you of having links or being sponsored by Anwar Ibrahim. Is this true? If not, why do you think they made such conclusions?

Malott: I am not sponsored by Anwar, I do not lobby for him, I am not his advisor, he does not tell me what to think and say, and no one pays me to do what I do. I never consult with him or anyone else before I write about Malaysia. He sees my articles when everyone else does.

My wife and I became close to Anwar’s family after I left the State Department, during the time that Anwar was in jail.  We stayed in touch by phone and email, but it was all personal and not political. We wanted them to know that someone cared and that they were not forgotten. I am sure that the Special Branch was monitoring Azizah’s phone and emails, so we would never talk politics. I did not want to put her in a difficult position. We would call up the daughters on their birthdays and send cards and so on. My wife even wrote a book about Azizah, called “Struggle for Justice.”

As most people know, I was very vocal in those days, supporting the call for Anwar’s freedom. As the Ambassador at the time he was arrested and beaten up, I knew what the truth was, and when I became a private citizen in 1999, I decided that I would speak out. To my mind, Anwar was a political prisoner, and I knew that a great injustice had been done. I was not going to remain silent, especially at a time when so many others were afraid to speak up. Nobody could arrest me, because I was in America. I would tell people that my goal was Anwar’s freedom, but it was up to the people of Malaysia what his political future would be.

When I was Ambassador, I knew Anwar only on a professional and official basis, just like the other Ambassadors did. When he came to Washington to be a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown, it was the first time that I got to know him personally. Anwar was traveling a lot in those days, making speeches, so we did not see him as much as we did the family. Sometimes the girls would come over and we would barbeque chicken together, or Hiroko would teach them how to make sushi.

Anwar refers to Hiroko and me as “family friends.” But we have no professional or official relationship with each other. Since some people in Malaysia like to call him an American agent, I think the last thing he would want is to be connected to me in other than a personal way. We are friends, but I do think we share a common vision of Malaysia’s future and the kind of country it could be.   


(3) Chronicle: What was the real motivation for your article? Given the responses so far, do you think you have achieved your objective? Did you have an objective when you wrote the story?

Malott: As I said earlier, I am very concerned about developments in Malaysia. The growing racial and religious tensions are one part of that. I had something that I wanted to say, and I said it. I also think that the Malaysian economy should be growing faster than it is, that its competitiveness is declining, and it is losing its attractiveness for foreign investors.

If anyone is spinning today, it is the Malaysian Government. There are few foreign experts on Malaysia, and it is rare for the foreign press to report on Malaysian developments. I thought it was important for people outside Malaysia to know that there is a real gap between the image they are trying to convey overseas and the reality on the ground. There are religious and racial tensions in every country, but I wanted people to know that in the case of Malaysia, the Government itself is condoning and even provoking those tensions.  Even today I read that the Government’s Islamic Affairs Department wants to ban Valentine’s Day because it is a Christian celebration. I don’t know any Christian who thinks that Valentine’s Day – exchanging cards or giving someone chocolate -- is a religious ritual.

I have been surprised by the positive reaction to the article. It has gotten more attention than anything I have ever written. And I am very pleased to see so many Malaysians engage in a good discussion of the issues in the comments sections. Of course there are a few cybertroopers who are bashing me, but just like Ibrahim Ali, they just rant and rave and call names, but they don’t have anything to say about the substance of the issue, and they can’t point out anything that is incorrect.

(4) Chronicle: Some commentators have said you wrote from the point of view of only the non-Malays and did not take into account the sensitivities and struggles of the Malays? Do you think there is some basis to this view and why?

Malott: I agree with criticism that I did not focus on the attitudes that some Chinese and Indians have towards Malays. But that is all at the private level. We cannot stop people from believing what they believe. But what I was talking about, and the examples I gave, were the words and actions of the Government and its senior officials. They were not speaking as individuals or like a “man on the street.” They are the Government. In addition, the government, as a matter of policy, has institutionalized some forms of discrimination, like the two examples I gave -- the 30% set-aside for stock and housing discounts.

Toward the end of the article, I pointed out that there are now two clear and different visions of Malaysia’s future – are we a Malaysian country or a Malay country. Those differing views are also held within the Malay community. In a way Mahathir represents both views. Years ago he was Mr. Bangsa Malaysia, and now he talks about Tanah Melayu.

When I read the comments on the different websites, I saw that there were many Malays who wanted me to know that it was not just Chinese and Indians who are leaving the country, but also Malays who feel that their personal future is bleak. But I don’t know whether that is because of the economic slowdown, or because getting ahead is still all about connections and who you know rather than what you know, or because they side with the opposition and not the Government.

As for the struggle and sensitivities of the Malays, I have been following that discussion. But it seems that just as not everyone can agree on Malaysia’s future, people also cannot agree on Malaysia’s past. I don’t think I could contribute much by jumping into that kind of internal discussion. I am not an expert on that part of Malaysia’s history.

(5) Chronicle: Given the feedback that you have received in the past two days, do you still stand by your story and would you retract any particular part or make any amendments?

Malott: No, I am very happy with the article. I would not take out or change anything. Like any op-ed, there is a limit on the number of words you can write. In some places I wish I could have said more, but there wasn’t enough space.

I saw that the New Straits Times had an op-ed criticising what I wrote. I read it three times but still don’t understand what the writer was trying to say. But I did send an email to them saying I would be happy to write an op-ed for them, explaining my views. Of course, I am sure they will never agree.  But I do feel like I would like to say something more on this subject, at the right time. I already have a title in mind – “There Once Was a Dream Called Malaysia” – that’s a takeoff from the movie “The Gladiator.” But the editors always write the titles, not the author. The editor at the AWSJ wrote the title over my op-ed. I thought he summed up the article very well. There will be a price to pay if the Government doesn’t change its actions.


(6) Chronicle: You spent several years in Malaysia and we understand you keep very close contact with the country and the developments in the neighboring nations as well. What sort of immediate political future do you see for Malaysia when the next GE takes place? Who do you think will win? Also, a lot of people have predicted Egypt and Tunisia scenarios happening here, do you think so?

Malott: There is an American baseball player, Yogi Berra, who is famous for saying, “I never make predictions, especially about the future.”  There also is another saying, “a week is a lifetime in politics,” meaning that things can change very rapidly. So I really don’t want to predict the outcome.

I think that BN and PR present very clear alternatives for Malaysia’s future. Even between the two Malay parties, UMNO and PAS, I think there is a clear difference. All Malays are Muslims, but I think UMNO is more about race and being Malay, and PAS is more about being Muslim. Race is the starting point for UMNO, while Islam is the starting point for PAS.

Malaysia now has a credible opposition for the first time in its history. I think the Malaysian people will be given a real choice about their country’s direction.  It is up to the Malaysian people to choose.

As an outsider, my concern is that the elections should be fair. I have seen and studied elections in many countries. I think it is hard for the opposition in Malaysia, because they have to campaign with one hand tied behind their back. The Government controls the airwaves, and opposition newspapers cannot be sold to the general public. The police can deny permits or harass political gatherings, as we have seen.  The Election Commission is not truly independent, and so on.

I don’t see a Tunisia or Egypt scenario playing out in Malaysia. In general I think Malaysians are a very patient lot, and other than 1969 there is no real history of political violence. If anything starts to happen, I think the RMP would not hesitate to crack down, as they have in the past.

(7) Chronicle: Lastly, could you tell us if you hold any official role currently?

Malott: No, I do not hold any official government position. I left the State Department in 1999, and I don’t have any intention or desire to return to government. I am happy with what I am doing today. 

(John Malott, who was U.S. ambassador to Malaysia from 1995 to 1998, is now the President and CEO of the Japan-America Society of Washington DC)

The United States has pursued a self-defeating client king strategy in the greater Middle East. It failed in Iran in 1979 and it has failed now in Egypt. It has failed because the global spirit of the age has changed, and America has not yet changed with it. This is an issue of practical strategy and not an idealistic hope. We need to get with the global program or risk an historic loss of authority on which our entire world position depends.

To understand what has happened we need to compare our approach to Egypt to what long-ago Victorian Britons did.

The British regime in Egypt lasted 70 years (1882-1952). A strong Consul-General ran the government. Paper Egyptian front men held the titles, while the ministries themselves were run by British officials. Solid Victorian rule-of-law rooted out corruption. In the "Veiled Protectorate" the British set about "building capacity." A mutinous army was disbanded and a very modern model created, complete with pips and collar tabs. Finance was reformed, and a program of development and internal investment vigorously pursued.

Furthermore when Egyptians grew restive the British balked in fairly short order, abolishing the protectorate and establishing an independent Kingdom of Egypt. The mass demonstrations in April and May of 1919 in fact look eerily like the protests of the past few weeks, almost as if recent video feed represents DNA-encoded democratic political expression, Egyptian-style.

Compare Britain's three generations in Egypt to our one. No colonial protectorate for us, no proconsular eminence grise. No, Mubarak was our "friend and ally in the region." No American military forces "in-country," and lots of guaranteed good U.S. aid, averaging $2 billion per year since 1979.

But almost all the "aid" went into the pockets of Mubarak's crony-elite, and especially his armed forces. Where real wages doubled under Nasser (1960-1970), income growth for working Egyptians has been frozen since. Moreover the state under Mubarak has been vicious in its suppression of political dissent: It is a regime that rules by torture. Such is their professional attainment in this delicate art that the U.S. has rendered many, many "detainees" to Egypt for treatment. A European Parliament report cited over 1,200 CIA flights using European airspace between 2001 and 2005.

So where does this leave us? Strict comparison would incline to prefer the British colonial to America's client king model. But how can this be? European colonialism represented a truly repugnant, even loathsome paradigm of subjugation rationalized through racism. So how do we confront the truth that British rule in Egypt led to a far more positive and civilized outcome than the despotic parasitism nurtured by the U.S. "alliance relationship?"

Perhaps we should flip the question. The answer does not imply that we should go backwards, it is rather to suggest that the United States government has deliberately and in full possession of its senses pursued a longstanding relationship with another state that created, even institutionalized, political tyranny, torture, and corruption on a national scale. We have not simply been complicit. We have not simply looked the other way. We did not simply "enable." We created.

But our experience in Egypt has deep roots. Our veiled American alternative to visible colonialism has been with us for a long, long time. As lovers of liberty we cavil at the thought of outright occupation and administration, so we have come to prefer cozy clientelism -- even if the result is uncontrollably vicious and corrupt. While Lord Cromer was working enlightened Victorian magic on Egypt, Americans were conquering a very large and very rich Caribbean island. But the U.S. chose not to occupy and administer Cuba after 1901. Instead we nurtured a client republic, seeking out military men who would do our bidding for nearly 60 years.

The fabulous corruption of the Batista regime -- put in power by a US-engineered coup -- has even passed into cinematic lore, for those who have seen Godfather II.

Truth is we are inured to client king imperial management. It has been an American norm for so long we no longer even feel a twinge. It is a bipartisan handclasp in the halls of Congress. Hence Charles Krauthammer confides that the Egyptian military should "guide" the nation, while Richard Cohen avers, "a democratic Egypt... is not in our interests." Of course they applaud the impossible prospect of a democratic republic, impossible because it must have no Islamists. However delicately parsed their words, the Washington establishment prefers military guardianship for Egypt. Back to the future.

Yet what is so wrong with looking out for our own interests, even at the expense of the welfare and liberty of whole peoples? The answer to this question need not be "idealistic." In fact it is today's establishment "realists" who are living in a backward-looking world of idealized fantasy. Idealism is the new realism, and here is why.

We live in a world now of globalized consciousness -- and the consciousness of humanity is changing before our eyes. Today's spirit of the age is more about people than ever before, and the feeling against tyrants is greater that at any time in history.

You, world power -- however big and awe-inspiring you are -- cannot buck the spirit of the age. Consider the British in Egypt just for another moment. When the Victorian Force was with them they were unstoppable. In the 1880s it was not only possible to argue that Britain was a global civilizing force, everyone would agree and urge you on. In 1919, after betraying this spirit in a war that nearly destroyed civilization, world consciousness shifted. Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points contained these electric words: "Political independence." Mass demonstration of the Egyptian people -- in 1919 like today -- was a sign that the world zeitgeist had shifted forever.

It shifted again at the end of World War II. But this time the British were strangely out of touch. When Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 the British led an invasion of Egypt. But this was 1882 no longer. Ironically, the U.S. stayed the British-French-Israeli neocolonial enterprise, but then undertook an enterprise of its own, for much the same reasons. The Bay of Pigs in 1962 accorded us the same humiliation bestowed on Britain over Suez.

Today the spirit of the age has shifted yet again, moving yet further away from memories of a Victorian imperial age. With every autocrat the U.S. enables, we create, not "stability," but rather the seeds of democratic enmity against America. Moreover everyone in this humanity can see what is happening and what we do. That may rankle with a Washington establishment that seeks to make transparency a crime, but it is too late. It is too late to hide inconvenient truths. It is too late to control others for our own self-interest.

To persevere in our stately course of client kingship is to go over, inevitably, to the dark side -- and in history's course, this must also be the losing side.

WATCH: