Read more


Read more


Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is carving out a new role for himself as a liberal reformer after pledging to scrap the country’s harsh Internal Security Act, but he still has one big problem in selling his case to the rest of the world—the continuing sodomy trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Mr. Anwar, a 64-year-old father of six with a goatee mustache and snappy glasses, denies the charges, saying they are a political plot to destroy any threat to the ruling coalition that has controlled Malaysia for over half a century. Mr. Najib and his government deny setting him up. If Mr. Anwar is convicted, he faces going to prison for the second time after being jailed in 1998 for allegedly sodomizing two other aides before an appeals court overturned his conviction.
The outcome could help determine bigger issues in this majority-Muslim, multi-racial nation of 28 million people, which has been struggling to break away from its system of race and religion-based politics that many analysts believe have retarded growth in one of Southeast Asia’s most important economies.
Although Mr. Najib is opening up the country’s political system to head off the kinds of stresses that have destabilized parts of the Middle East this year—on Thursday he announced plans to repeal harsh laws that allow for detention without trial and pledged new freedoms for the country’s closely controlled media—he faces a potential push-back from opponents in his ruling United Malays National Organization party. Some analysts view Mr. Anwar’s multi-ethnic opposition alliance as perhaps better placed to pursue a more aggressive liberalization policy—that is if he can stay out of jail and get elected to office.
This time around a difference is emerging compared with Mr. Anwar’s last trial, or so Mr. Anwar hopes: The importance of forensic evidence that could be partially attributed to—the widespread following here for fictional television cops such as Horatio Caine of the show CSI: Miami.
Political analysts say that in 1998 Mr. Anwar was convicted on witness testimony, but this time the prosecution relies heavily on new technologies such as DNA testing and other forensic-investigation techniques. That, Mr. Anwar told The Wall Street Journal during a recent recess at his trial, gives him fresh hope of being acquitted.
“Last time there was no medical report and no medical evidence—nothing but the word of mouth,” Mr. Anwar said during a lengthy discussion about anal swabs, data samples and the survival time of sperm cells. “But now the case is all about the science—and that’s where I have a chance.”
A Malaysian government spokesman says it has no comment on Anwar’s remarks, saying it is a matter for the courts.
During recent testimony in the marathon trial, Mr. Anwar’s lawyers presented a series of expert witnesses who raised doubts about the credibility of the forensic evidence presented by prosecutors. Australian forensics expert Brian McDonald told the court that the DNA testing and labeling wasn’t up to international standards and was riddled with errors. Dr. McDonald said it was unclear where some samples came from.
Some of the testimony could help Mr. Anwar’s case, especially in the court of public opinion, analysts say.
“I think it will resonate,” says Bridget Welsh, a professor Singapore Management University and a close observer of Malaysia’s political drama. “People in general don’t trust the system. That feeling is endemic in Malaysia and Mr. Anwar is trying to capitalize on it.”
It helps that shows such as the CSI franchises are so popular, especially the Miami-based version famously spoofed by comedian Jim Carrey on the David Letterman show. Malaysians closely follow the adventures of Lt. Caine and his colleagues as they try to bring down criminals using advanced forensic techniques and a spot of fisticuffs when appropriate.
“We know about forensics. Nobody can fool us about that. We’ve all seen CSI,” says one keen viewer, Rizal Osman, from Pahang, central Malaysia.
Bloggers, among others, often discuss plots from shows such as CSI and Special Victims Unit to discuss what’s going on in Malaysia. One person, Gerard Samuel Vijayan, wrote to the Malaysiakini portal to describe an episode of Special Victims Unit that featured a conspiracy to fabricate DNA. He said Mr. Anwar might be facing a similar problem. “Given the holes in the prosecution’s case, there is sufficient doubt to acquit the accused,” Mr. Vijayan wrote.
Either way, as the trial moves toward its conclusion—Mr. Anwar is scheduled to continue making his defense on Monday —Malaysians can expect to hear more about DNA, and in forensic detail, in the weeks and months to come.
Claiming he is unable to get a fair trial, Mr. Anwar unleashed a tirade against Malaysia’s judiciary recently, liberally quoting from Nelson Mandela, Shakespeare and the Quran to buttress his allegation that the judiciary and government are conspiring to put him away—something Mr. Najib denies.
If Mr. Anwar is ultimately convicted, “I hope the forensic evidence lingers in people’s minds,” he says. “It’s worth the effort and expense of debunking the prosecution’s entire case.”
In the meantime, Mr. Anwar’s political party is claiming the credit for forcing Mr. Najib to unlock Malaysia’s political system. Mr. Anwar took to microblogging site Twitter after arriving on an overnight flight from England to say Malaysians must remain vigilant. “We have to be wary whether the freedoms are now guaranteed and what laws will replace” the Internal Security Act.

Read more


Read more

They’re sneaky. They lie. They’re evil. They think everyone else is an animal and therefore without souls. They’re the most despicable people on the planet to say the least. These evil doers are behind Hollywood, the porn industry, race mixing,the homosexual agenda …. you name it … and they’re the ones orchestrating it.?



Helping the Malays  Mahatir style Read more


Is this the man?
The custodian of the dying ember?
The man who generations to come will remember as the last man standing, before the new dawn set in?
Is this the man who is going to set in an even more harsh regime?
To ensure he and his team will have a long run on the nation?
Driven by chauvinism, and detested by the international as well as the domestic society?
Is this the start of a dynasty in the Malaysian Public Life?
Does this mean that we Malaysians are so incapable that we need a select few families to tell us how to live our lives?
Are we so dependent that all aspects of our lives need to be controlled?
Are we so handicapped that we need these political dynasties to teach how to interact with each other?



Najib Razak, the Malaysian prime minister, has abolished two controversial security laws and lifted licensing curbs on the media.

The government will abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinance, a relic of British colonial rule which allow indefinite detention without trial, and replace them with new anti-terrorism laws that ensure protection of suspects’ fundamental rights, Najib said in a televised address on Thursday.
“It is time for Malaysians to move forward with new hope,” he said.
“Let there be no doubt that the Malaysia we are creating is a Malaysia which has a functional and inclusive democracy.”
Police laws would also be amended to allow freedom of assembly according to international norms and the government will give more freedom to media groups by scrapping the need for annual printing and publishing licenses, he said.
Calls for reforms
Najib’s speech marked Friday’s anniversary of the 1963 union of peninsula Malaysia with Sabah and Sarawak states on Borneo Island – six years after the country’s independence from British rule.
It comes two months after more than 20,000 people demonstrated in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital, for electoral reforms.
At the time, police fired tear gas and water cannons and arrested more than 1,400 people for taking part in what they said was illegal activity.
Thursday’s policy changes are Najib’s boldest since he took office in April 2009 and are seen as a move to bolster support for his ruling coalition ahead of general elections.
“There may be short-term pain for me politically, but in the long-term the changes I am announcing tonight will ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for all Malaysians,” Najib said.
National Front, Najib’s political coalition, has been working to regain public support after suffering its worst performance in 2008 polls.
The opposition alliance wrested more than one-third of seats in parliament amid public allegations of government corruption and racial discrimination.
The elections are not due until 2013 but are widely expected next year.
‘Significant step’
Amnesty International, the UK-based rights monitor, described Najib’s announcement as a “significant step forward”.
“The ISA is a notoriously repressive piece of legislation that has stifled peaceful dissent in the country for over 50 years,” Sam Zarifi, the group’s Asia-Pacific director, said in a statement.
“The thousands of people still detained under these preventive detention laws must be either charged with a recognisably criminal offence, or be released immediately.”
Najib proposed two new laws to preserve peace and public order and combat terrorism.
“Any new legislation must comply with international human rights standards,” Zarifi said.

The wave of protest and change sweeping the Middle East has produced many firsts. Among them is Middle Eastern governments’ reluctant foray into human rights politics. The early Arab response to Libya, though riddled with contradictions, was groundbreaking.

The Arab League decision to support a “No Fly Zone” over Libya in April, pledges by its Secretary General to pursue an investigation into Libyan human rights abuses in May, and Qatar’s extensive support for Libya’s opposition on humanitarian grounds effectively broke an unspoken pact that Arab states did not pose overt human rights challenges to each other as giving the framework increased credence could be detrimental to them all. Even more democratic Turkey was averse to risking the strong relations it was steadily developing with its neighbours by bringing up awkward human rights conversations.
The unprecedented move of denouncing a neighbour (that was not Israel) for its use of violence against a disaffected population in the Libyan case was last month followed by a chain of condemnations of the Syrian regime’s repression of protestors challenging its rule. Although political calculations rendered the Assad regime more difficult to desert than Gaddafi’s, the Arab League, the GCC, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, the PLO and, much more astoundingly, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have all moved to issue public rebukes of Syria’s brutal crackdown on its citizens.
King Abdullah’s recalling of the Saudi Ambassador from Damascus while declaring that what is happening in Syria is “against values and ethics” and “unacceptable to Saudi Arabia” can hardly be viewed as a dramatic change of heart since he sent troops to crush Bahrain’s protest movement. As several commentators have observed, more likely, it was a highly calculated step to bolster domestic legitimacy by tapping into popular outrage over the bloodshed, exploit the sectarian element of the conflict, counter Iranian influence in an increasingly imaginable post-Assad Syria or any combination thereof.
Regardless of its motives, the Saudi king’s intervention was significant. Ultimately, he was forced to manage, respond to and validate a discourse that could sooner or later be used to undermine his own grip on power.
Middle Eastern double standards

Taking this leap into human rights politics inevitably means opening the doors to popular and civil society demands to live up to the rhetoric being deployed and justify differential treatment of human rights violations in other contexts.
This dynamic has begun to take shape in the Middle East. Syrian embassies in several parts of the region, most notably Cairo, have been the site of popular protests expressing solidarity with Syrians or demandnig their government expel Syrian ambassadors. Further, ever since the Arab League took its bold stance on Libya, Arab civil society has been demanding that it takes equally bold action on Bahrain and Syria. In April a group of 12 human rights NGOs wrote a scathing letter accusing the Arab League of “double standards and selectivity” in its support for Syria’s bid to join the UN Human Rights Council after having voted for Libya’s expulsion from the same body and the institution of a “no fly zone” in Libya  on human rights grounds. Arab governments, which over the years have become experts at decrying Western double-standards on human rights, now had to respond to the hypocrisy charge themselves.
Not only has the Arab League dropped its support for Syria taking a seat on the Human Rights Council, recently the four Arab states with seats on the UN body voted for a resolution condemning Syrian human rights violations and urging the Syrian government to cooperate with UN investigations of its human rights abuses. While in statements at the special session Saudi Arabia called on Syria to “cease all forms of violations of human rights” and Qatar referred to the need to uphold citizens’ rights, it was Kuwait that made the most dramatic statement. In textbook UN human rights language, the Kuwaiti delegate affirmed Kuwait’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reminded Syria of its obligations under international human rights treaties to human rights norms, and concluded by quoting from the part of the UN Charter which states, “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”.
For those who have seen Arab delegates sit before the same body and make statements simply congratulating each other on their human rights achievements in the face of “challenges” and “constraints” in their ability to fully adhere to international human rights norms, the Arab delegates’ statements were almost surreal.
Although tepid and often devoid of the explicit invocations of “human rights” heard before the Human Rights Council, the Arab Spring seems to have forced many of the region’s governments into engaging and affirming human rights norms. This is a significant departure from simply proceeding as if the repression simply did not exist, or treating charges of human rights violations as irrelevant or imperialist interventions. Middle Eastern governments have in effect opened the door to a new era in the region’s human rights politics, one not centred around charges of Western double standards and hypocrisy, but equally around charges of Middle Eastern double standards and hypocrisy.
Human rights entanglements
Arab states are not the only ones with noteworthy human rights entanglements in the Middle East these days. When Turkey finally began placing more substantive diplomatic pressure on the Assad government several weeks ago, it issued Damascus a “ten to fifteen day deadline” to institute reforms. Soon thereafter Assad initiated a brutal attack on Latakia using tanks and gunboats. In solidarity protests held elsewhere in the country, Syrian participants reportedly held signs reading “Thank you Erdogan. Two weeks is enough time to slaughter all the Syrian people”. This type of shaming and criticism may have contributed to Turkey subsequently issuing a “final warning” – this time demanding an immediate end to the violence.

As the region’s autocratic rulers likely foresaw, the field they have entered is fraught with traps for them and new openings for activists to push the envelope on human rights. The more they condemn repression, the more expectations and norms around the range of acceptable positions they can take shift.
When the violent crackdowns in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria began, many feared that they would provide a dangerous alternative to the Tunisian and Egyptian models. In fact, at many points over the last few months, this seemed to be the unfortunate direction that the region’s disparate protest and change movements were heading. But the severity of the Assad regime’s violence in the face of the Arab Spring’s aspirations seemed to have been too much for people in the region to accept.
Confronted with shaming from a slew of internal and international actors and pressure to weigh in from their own populations, Middle Eastern governments have now twice moved to rebuke an authoritarian neighbor. Having condemned Gaddafi and Assad’s methods so dramatically, they have made it more difficult for themselves to resort to the same violence in the future.
The entry of Middle Eastern governments into regional human rights politics has prompted mounting demands and new expectations for increased and more consistent treatment of human rights. Although clearly not a panacea for the region’s many human rights ills, it is a promising development.
Shadi Mokhtari is Assistant Professor at the School of International Service at American University. She is the author of After Abu Gharib: Exploring Human Rights in America and the Middle East and Editor in Chief of the Muslim World Journal of Human Rights.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s