Malaysia: Playing with Religious Extremism Fire

July 5, 2016

by Michael Vatikiotis

http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160714-VIRTUAL-GETS-REAL/Politics-Economy/Michael-Vatikiotis-Islamic-extremism-threatens-Southeast-Asia

People attend a candlelight vigil for the victims of the July 1 terrorist attack in Dhaka. © Reuters

The holy month of Ramadan saw terrorist attacks claimed by the Islamic State take almost 400 lives around the world. The targeting of Bangladesh and Malaysia in particular has revived fears that with IS under military pressure in Syria and Iraq, its shadowy planners are looking at resorting to the old al-Qaida model of networked terrorist cells operating in Muslim-majority Asia.

This means that in addition to the many thousands of foreign fighters who made their way into the ranks of IS in Syria and Iraq returning home with the motivation and the skills to carry out terrorism, it is possible that IS has begun helping them recruit and organize spectacular attacks.

 Although evidence of a formal shift in IS strategy toward Asia remains sketchy, there is no shortage of conducive social factors and permissible environments for the incubation of a new wave of Islamic extremism. For the first time, even Singapore has posted official warnings that an attack may be imminent.

Islamic militancy is a strong undercurrent in the Muslim-majority states of the region, fueled by social and economic injustice and well-financed Wahhabi and Salafist teachings. The recent surge in tension between religious communities — Buddhist against Muslim in Myanmar, Sunni against Shia in Indonesia — has helped highlight perceived threats to Muslims that lend impetus to militant teachings.

A club in Puchong, on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur, was the target of a grenade attack on June 28. © Reuters

Ethno-nationalist struggles in southern Thailand and the southern Philippines remain unresolved and offer permissible environments for Islamic extremist thinking and ideology. The failure to establish a productive dialogue process in southern Thailand or to make progress on implementing a comprehensive peace agreement in Muslim Mindanao is fast alienating a generation of youth who are open to extremist views.

There is also a resurgence of archipelagic regionalism gaining prominence in mostly Muslim maritime Southeast Asia. Since last year, a specific Malay-speaking unit within IS, known as Katibah Nusantara, has amassed a force of 500-plus fighters hailing from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. Katibah Nusantara’s social media presence is conducted in Malay, and its messaging openly solicits the “Nusantara” region — an old term for the Malay world. This group is an embryonic terrorist network that will become a conflict driver when it returns to the region.

Balancing Act

Inevitably, there are calls for harsher security measures. A new anti-terrorist law in Indonesia seeks to increase the period of detention of suspects without trial from one week to six months. However, this plays into the hands of conservative political forces that would use the terrorist threat to roll back democratic space and legal certainty in the region.

A far more effective, but admittedly challenging approach would be for governments and societies in the region to address the underlying factors generating the potential appeal of transnational Islamic extremism.

The first priority is for states to accept responsibility for the careful management of relations between religious communities. Growing tensions between religious minority and majority groups have accompanied the general trend toward more open, democratic politics. In Indonesia, political parties have sought to exploit these tensions, rather than tamp them down, in the quest for votes. In Myanmar, Buddhist nationalism was exploited in the run up to last year’s democratic election, resulting in violence against Muslim communities.

A protester wears a “Jihad The Only Solution” T-shirt in Kuala Lumpur on Jan. 23. © Reuters

In Malaysia, the government has carelessly allowed conservative Islamic views to upset the country’s delicate ethnic and religious balance. Just a week or so before the first IS attack in Malaysia, a leading member of the Islamic clergy declared that non-Muslim members of a leading opposition party could be slain because they opposed the imposition of the Islamic criminal code.

Second, greater attention must be paid to the external sponsorship of religious education. The virtually unfettered access to funding from Wahhabi foundations in Saudi Arabia has cultivated less tolerant conceptions of Islamic faith in the region. This in turn exposes young Muslims to an austere, exclusivist version of Islam at odds with the traditionally moderate and open-minded brand of mostly Hanafi-school Islam practiced in Southeast Asia for hundreds of years.

This is not simply about promoting moderation or balancing religious and secular curricula, but speaks to the need to actively recover the region’s distinctive adaptation of Islamic dogma and teaching, which over centuries has enabled Muslims and non-Muslims to coexist harmoniously. In the 1980s, Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious Affairs considered adapting Islamic law to the specific Indonesian context; today, Islamic scholars in Indonesia and Malaysia are arguing for the replication of laws and conventions that governed society in 7th century Arabia.

It is too late to simply make rhetorical appeals for moderation. There is an urgent need to control or shut off the foreign funding and preaching that, even in prisons where extremists are held, conducts the poisonous message of hatred toward nonbelievers and the isolation of Muslim communities.

Thirdly, for Muslim areas of southern Thailand and the Philippines, the absence of a credible political dialogue and meaningful political empowerment for the populations in question creates a real risk that difficult (but ultimately resolvable) ethno-nationalist conflicts will be displaced by barbaric terrorism dominated by groups with whom dialogue is far more problematic.

Growing Impatient

Unfortunately, the approach taken by central governments in Bangkok and Manila to date has prioritized the safeguarding of territorial sovereignty at the expense of either meaningful dialogue or sincere commitments to autonomy.

They reap what they sow: The Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which has negotiated in good faith with successive Manila governments for almost 20 years, is awaiting passage of an implementing law through Congress so that a mutually agreed model of special autonomy can be implemented in Muslim Mindanao. Meanwhile, according to the group, thousands of young Muslim Moros grow impatient with the absence of a peace dividend and are susceptible to extremist ideology streaming through their smartphones and tablets.

On the nearby islands of Sulu and Basilan, a network of well-armed criminal gangs inspired by al-Qaida 15 years earlier use IS propaganda and alleged affiliation to inspire a new generation of militants — though mainly in the interests of making money by kidnapping innocent sailors and tourists. The alleged complicity of local government and security forces in this lucrative business makes it hard to imagine an effective campaign to prevent IS from establishing a beachhead in the area.

Taken altogether, smarter approaches to social and education policy, as well as the political management of marginalized people, can make it more difficult for IS to recruit or sponsor its violent messengers of hatred.

 

The biggest obstacle to making the rapid adjustments needed is that Southeast Asia, where more than 300 million Muslims reside, is still very much a sum of its parts. No Malaysian government will take kindly to being told about the dangers of giving conservative mullahs free rein; no Myanmar official appreciates being told how to treat Muslims better; no Thai government wants to be pushed into a sincere political dialogue to end the conflict in southern Thailand.

Until the region takes a truly collective view of its own security and starts to put aside selfish concerns of sovereignty in the interests of the common good, it seems only a matter of time before Southeast Asia once again becomes a significant target of terror.

Michael Vatikiotis is the Asia regional director of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

Listen to Zunar–Malaysia’s Gutsy Cartoonist and Freedom Expressionist

July 15, 2016

“I don’t know if I will win or lose, but if I don’t fight, I’ll definitely lose.”

These are the words of Zulkiflee Anwar Haque, a cartoonist who goes by the name Zunar and who is facing charges under Malaysia’s Sedition Act and a possible 43 years in jail for speaking out against his government.

He is one of the most persecuted artists in the world.In February 2015 he was arrested for a Twitter post criticising the court’s ruling that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was guilty of sodomy.  In June 2010 five of his books were banned, with the Barisan Nasional  government claiming that the cartoons in it could “influence the people to revolt against the leaders and government policies and are detrimental to public order.”

Printers and suppliers of his work have been harassed, with his office raided several times. Zunar is also one of the few Malaysian cartoonists to target public figures, including Prime Minister Najib Razak, and address issues like corruption and abuse of power. But is he a serious threat to national security or even the stability of the Malaysian government?

In this interview for New Mandala Zunar chats to Dr Ross Tapsell about freedom of expression in Malaysia, his work and pending sedition charges.

Watch the interview in the player below.

Can a cartoonist bring down the Malaysian government?

South China Sea: ASEAN remains divided International Arbitration Decision

July 15, 2016

by Megawati Zulfakar

http://www.thestar.com.my

ASEAN is quick to issue statements on matters in other countries, but cannot agree to address an issue in its own backyard.

Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and his Chinese Counterpart Wang Yi

AFTER an international arbitration tribunal at the Hague ruled that China has no historical rights claim to resources within the South China Sea on July 12, Laos which is ASEAN chair this year sent out a note to ASEAN members asking whether they should issue an ASEAN statement on the ruling.

That Laos note gave a deadline of noon yesterday (Wednesday, July 13) for ASEAN to decide whether it should come up with a statement.But there was no accompanying  draft statement  to agree on to begin with.

The Philippines, which brought the case against China to an arbitration tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), issued a statement immediately after the issuance of the award.

Malaysia, in the meantime, issued a statement seven hours later, asking claimant countries including China to find constructive ways to develop healthy dialogues, negotiations and consultations.

Back to the Laotian-proposed ASEAN statement, a check with ASEAN officials revealed that they are still working on a statement. This only points to one thing: there may not be an ASEAN statement on the award at all because the grouping could not reach consensus.It is understood Cambodia is not too keen. Some see this as pressure from the China-friendly nation. Others want to study the ruling first.

In the case of Laos, it is also seen by many as pro-Beijing, so it is a half-hearted attempt, really, to pacify other ASEAN countries that they are doing something as  the current ASEAN chair to address the disputed maritime claims.

It is a pity that while ASEAN countries were quick to reach a consensus to issue statements to address the terror attacks in Istanbul and Dhaka recently, they failed miserably to be united on an issue in their own backyard. It is also deja vu following the fiasco over an ASEAN statement to be issued after the China-ASEAN meeting in Kunming last month.

Bumbling Wisma Putra

Najib compromised as China bailed him out on 1MDB

It became global headlines after Wisma Putra issued an ASEAN statement, only to retract it just a few hours later saying urgent amendments had to be made after a wire agency ran a story quoting the statement that ASEAN has “serious concerns” over recent events in the disputed South China Sea.

Wisma Putra came out with a clarification a few days later, insisting that the statement “enjoyed” the consensus of all countries.

The South China Sea issue is a thorn in the flesh among ASEAN countries, of which four ASEAN nations – namely Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam – are claimant countries.

“It is already a hot issue for us. Next week it will be hotter,” admitted an ASEAN official.

During this annual meeting, ASEAN Foreign Ministers would hold meetings with their dialogue partners, including China and the United States. “You can expect strong statements from many parties on the issue,” said an official.

While all eyes will be on how Laos will conduct itself because as ASEAN chair which is expected to be impartial on the issue, many will also be keen to see what the Philippines would do next.

With a new President in Manila and a new Foreign Minister appointed, any statements or re­­marks from them will be analyzed.Manila already said it will release “a complete and thorough interpretation” in five days.

We shall wait for the Solicitor-General’s interpretation of the ruling,” Presidential Com­munica­tions Secretary Martin Andanar had said.

China has already rejected the ruling, blaming the Philippines for stirring up trouble. Beijing issued a policy paper yesterday calling the islands in the South China Sea its “inherent territory.”

It will be interesting to see how China will conduct itself in the area, especially when ASEAN and China have long been working on a binding code of conduct (CoC) to address numerous issues faced by claimant countries.

So far only a Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC) was finalised and signed in 2002, which reaffirmed the parties’ commitment to UNCLOS and other international laws on state-to-state relations.

The DoC also states that ASEAN members and China should resolve disputes “by peaceful means, without resorting to threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations”. So the big question mark is whether China will still be committed to the CoC process.

As the saying goes, it is a slow boat to China. But the stage is set next week in Laos when the Foreign Ministers meet.

The Chilcot Inquiry and Report–The Legacy of Blair, The Bush Poodle

July 15, 2016

By Meera Badmanaban

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

In 2003, the former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, led his country in a US led invasion of Iraq, with devastating long term consequences. The war and post war occupation of Iraq stretched out for many years, leading to catastrophic loss of lives and leaving Iraq, in the eyes of many, worse off than before the invasion.

The Chilcot Inquiry, after almost a decade, published its report last week. It pronounced a scathing verdict on Tony Blair by concluding that his decision to join the US in the invasion of Iraq was not justified. Sir Chilcot delivered a damning blow on Blair, by stating that :

“We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

What this means is that Britain did not actually have to go to war. Blair made the deliberate choice of invading Iraq before exhausting other peaceful options. He could actually have avoided war instead of playing pet poodle to the US. In fact, Chilcot concludes, contrary to Blair’s claims, that UK-US relations would not have been jeopardised if UK had stayed out of the war.

Liar Blair?

So, did Blair lie ? I suppose it depends on what one considers to be a lie. Somehow politicians seem to have a different definition for it. Is a lie an untrue statement? Misleading the public and parliament? Giving the impression that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, the then leader of Iraq, was far graver than it actually was? By presenting that Iraq possessed a quantity of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which, if in the wrong hands, could jeopardise the security of the UK? If these are tantamount to lies, then Blair is guilty, surely. Because the evidence clearly points to the reverse : that he deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; the decision to invade itself was made in haste and “in unsatisfactory circumstances”, without much thought or planning for the aftermath and consequences of war. And the shame of it all – that till today the world is yet to find these so called weapons of mass destruction. What a horrific waste it has all been.

No imminent threat from Saddam Hussein

If one was concerned with global threats, be they chemical, nuclear, or biological, wouldn’t countries such as North Korea, Iran or even Libya have posed more of a threat at the time? The Chilcot Report revealed that there were a series of blunders by the British intelligence services which produced “flawed information“ about Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMD, which was the main basis for going to war with Iraq. The Report also concludes that the UK military were not really well equipped for the monumental task of going to war with Iraq. Chilcot felt that British forces had “wholly inadequate” planning and preparation for the aftermath of war. The Report said that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was over hasty and planned the invasion in a great deal of rush; so much so that they were not fully prepared for security threats on the ground, especially the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that led to the death of many British troops (not to mention the number who were maimed and crippled).

In short, the government simply had no postwar invasion planning or strategy. There were vague assurances that there would be a US led and UN authorised force in operation in Iraq, but no one really seemed to know what was happening. A recipe for the subsequent chaos; sectarian conflict and violence that inevitably ensued. Some commentators have even argued that herein were sown the seeds of hatred, revenge and violence that would ultimately grow to become the poisonous fruit of deformed growths such as Al Qaeda and the IS. People displaced from their homes; people who had lost their families and loved ones ; a devastated and angry country torn by war and sectarian strife. The seeds of disaster were sown. Sometimes we look at the Middle East and the terrorism that we say is breeding there – but the so called liberal and democratic First World, led by the USA and Britain, are not totally free of guilt. They too have a part to play in this – for they have helped to sow the seeds of discontent in a war that many now see as illegal.

Tony Blair’s Reaction

In a reaction to the report, Tony Blair hung his head (a little) and said in a suitably sombre tone of voice that he felt sorrow and regret beyond what “people may ever know” at the loss of life. He even accepted that intelligence had been at times wrong and that the British post war planning had been poor. That would have been easy for him to do, of course, because the “mistake” belonged to someone else. How magnanimous of him. However he remained astonishingly unrepentant of going to war in the first place, insisting like an adolescent schoolboy that what he did was still right. Despite the damning evidence, he persisted in saying that he did what he thought was the “right thing” at the time and that he still believed that Iraq was “better off” without Saddam Hussein. In his exact words:

“The world was, and is, in my judgment, a better place without Saddam Hussein”.And then he went on to say :

“Secondly, I will never agree that those who died or were injured made their sacrifice in vain. They fought in the defining security struggle of the 21st century against terrorism and violence … and their sacrifice should always be remembered with thanksgiving and honour.”

I wonder how he would have felt if one of his own sons had been sent to Iraq, and never came home? Would he still have made that statement? It is easy to speak of the nationalistic glory and patriotism; the pride of fighting in the name of Queen and Country; but these are other people’s children he has sent to their deaths.

The Legal Basis for a War

Iraq was a sovereign country with an equally sovereign leader in 2003. The US and Britain invaded because they felt like it for self serving reasons of their own; got rid of Saddam Hussein, and imposed their own rules in the conquered nation. And who says colonialism has ended ? One cannot help but wonder – would they have tolerated this kind of behaviour had it been the other way round ? If Saddam Hussein had felt that the US or Britain were doing something sinister; and if Iraq had invaded them instead, wouldn’t it have led to a so called “illegal war” and would Saddam not have been hauled off to stand before an International Court (such as the International Criminal Court (ICC)) for “war crimes “? The double standards and hypocrisy of the countries involved are highly questionable and unethical. At least in the UK there has been the Chilcot Inquiry and Report, damning the PM.

What about in the good old USA? Bush must be enjoying his retirement and golden years in pastures green. I still sometimes wonder what his famous phrases which he used time and time again to justify military action outside the US : “axis of evil” and “war on terror” actually mean. He coined them up himself in a grandiose manner in a so called global war against terrorism. And he got away with it.

I guess what ultimately constitutes a “war crime” or “an illegal war” depends sometimes, on the eyes of the beholder. Like “justice” or “liberty”, it can mean different things to different people at different times. International law has failed us, for at the end of the day it is subject to politicisation by the leaders of the most powerful countries in the world. As the Chilcot Report said, the circumstances in which Britain decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were “far from satisfactory”.

The exact grounds on which it was made was unclear and in fact it may be argued that what the UK did actually constituted a threat to the security of the world; by undermining the authority of the United Nations. If one examines the UN Charter, it places responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government claimed to act on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”. But did they actually have a majority supporting this decision ?

Misleading Parliament

There are also many grave constitutional implications from Blair’s conduct as Prime Minister. Questions arise whether he actually consulted his Cabinet about these key decisions that he took in relation to the invasion. There appeared to be a lack of regular cabinet committee scrutiny. Was Parliament adequately informed? Were all aspects of intervention debated and calculated in Cabinet and Parliament ? It appears not. The final decision seems to have been taken by Blair; not his cabinet or the government’s legal officers.

The Secret and Personal Memo to George Bush : “I will be with you, whatever”

What was this? Surely even hardcore romantic fools; or partners in long term relationships / marriages do not make such promises of undying loyalty. But here it was in black and white, a secret and personal memo from Blair to Bush eight months before the invasion; offering his unqualified and unwavering support for war. Bear in mind that this was well before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their investigations on WMD. Yet Blair pledged that “I will be with you, whatever”. It was one of 29 letters Blair sent to Bush and its contents were released as part of the Chilcot Report. What undying loyalty and commitment from an unconditional ally. And astonishing, too.

Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability : Myth or Reality ?

At the end of the day, what are the consequences of the Chilcot Report for Blair? Chilcot emphasised that their committee was not a court, and they were not a jury. They were not set up to make any legal findings. They were an independent inquiry. Whether or not Blair will face any “punishment” is another question altogether. Whilst the Report itself must be applauded for clearly exposing that the war itself was not justified; that it was a fiasco in many ways; in reality this was actually something everyone already knew. Yet the Report was still a necessary thing, in order to mete out the principles of ministerial responsibility; accountability; transparency; and disclosure of information to the public. The notion is that the PM is also subject to the same rules as other Ministers and must be answerable to the public who have a right to know.

Whether or not Blair could face a motion of contempt in the House of Commons over the invasion of Iraq in the future remains to be seen. John Prescott, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the invasion in 2003, has now come out and said that he believes that the Iraq war was indeed illegal.

The Chilcot Report may hang as an albatross around Blair’s neck for the rest of his life; but he will live. The same unfortunately cannot be said for the British and Iraqi soldiers; innocent children; women and citizens who lost their lives in Iraq. For them and their families, it is all too little, too late.

Beijing manipulates Malaysia’s foreign policy to its advantage

July 14, 2016

by Philip Bowring (June 15, 2016)

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/1mdb-behind-malaysia-asean-capitulation-to-china/

Although China claims vast areas of sea within Malaysia’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone and the Spratly Islands, some of which are occupied by Malaysia, China’s purchase of assets from the scandal-ridden 1MDB has enabled it to manipulate Malaysian foreign policy to its advantage. –Philip Bowring, Asia Sentinel

Malaysia is succumbing to China’s efforts to undermine the solidarity of other littoral states in standing up to China’s aggressive claim to almost the whole South China Sea. Just at the point when China seems likely to face a judgment against it in the case brought by the Philippines in the Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Although China claims vast areas of sea within Malaysia’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone and the Spratly Islands, some of which are occupied by Malaysia, China’s purchase of assets from the scandal-ridden 1MDB has enabled it to manipulate Malaysian foreign policy to its advantage.

ASEAN Solidarity is also being eroded by the election process in the United States, which is bringing into question the American trade and strategic commitments to East Asia, without which none of the ASEAN countries will resist Chinese pressure for long.

On the face of things, ASEAN Foreign Ministers took a firm line with China at their just-ended meeting in Kunming. Their statement after the meeting said they “express their serous concern over recent and ongoing developments that have eroded trust and confidence, increased tension and which may have the potential to undermine peace, security and stability in the South China Sea.”

“We stressed the importance of maintaining peace, security, stability, safety and freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea,” the Ministers said. This, they said, was in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

ASEAN retraction

However, the statement was then retracted by the Ministers in an amazing about turn engineered by Beijing with the help not merely of its usual client states, Cambodia and Laos, but also Malaysia. The retraction was also an astonishing embarrassment for Singapore and its Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. Singapore is current coordinator of the ASEAN-China dialogue.

The Malaysian move followed a remarkable article in The Star newspaper a day earlier by the Chinese Ambassador to Kuala Lumpur, Huang Huikang.  Huang used this platform for an open attack on the Philippines, supposedly a friend and ally of Malaysia. President Benigno S. Aquino III was described as having “acted as a pawn in an outsider’s political strategy” and described the arbitration case as a “farce.” Aquino’s “political legacy will only be a pile of pills from the tribunal.”

Huang went on to praise Malaysia, describing relations with China “the best in history” and urging the incoming Philippine President to follow its example in dealing with China.

President-elect Rodrigo Duterte is wavering in his attitude to China. He clearly wants Chinese money for infrastructure projects that would be forthcoming if he gives ground the sea issue and agrees to bilateral talks, and possible joint resource development. On the other hand, he can hardly walk away from any decision in Philippines’ favor, nor go back on his commitment to the Philippines claim on the Scarborough Shoal, which lies just 120 nautical miles off the coast of Luzon.

Arrogant abuse

The arrogance of Huang in abusing his diplomatic position to attack the President of a neighbor and ASEAN partner should have drawn immediate condemnation from Malaysia. But Huang is accustomed to getting away with this kind of behavior, which suggests he already regards Malaysia as a Beijing tributary and himself as the proconsul. In September 2015, Huang made a highly publicized walk through KL’s Chinatown to indicate that China would look after the interests of its ethnic brethren in Malaysia. Beijing has thereby reversed China’s longstanding commitment not to interfere in other countries internal affairs or use ethnic Chinese minorities for its own political purposes. These are now being used to enhance Chinese interests in claiming a sea whose coastline is only about 25 percent Chinese.

Beijing views Malaysia as the weakest link in the solidarity of maritime states partly by using the position of the Chinese minority as leverage, and partly through the power of money to influence decisions made by the UMNO-led government. The 1MDB case arose at a particularly opportune moment for Beijing, enabling China to come to the rescue of embattled Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Beijing has long focused its military attentions on Vietnam and, more recently with its seizure of Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines. Malaysia has been left alone for now. But Chinese claims are now less of a threat, encompassing as they do waters already exploited by Malaysia as well as others with oil and gas potential, not to forget islands such as Layang-Layang where Malaysia has an airstrip and dive resort. But do not imagine an UMNO government cares about national interests over its own power and money needs.

Hollow Washington

Meanwhile, the US provides little encouragement for a reliable and long-term ally. The emergence of Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee is a poor advertisement for western democracy. His anti-Muslim attitudes are offensive to much of Asia, Malaysia included. And his isolationist attitudes suggest that his presidency would see a reduction in the US presence in the region and the withering of the network of cooperation with countries from Japan to Australia and India and including many ASEAN members. President Obama’s “rebalance” Asian rather than Middle East interests would be forgotten.

A US turn away from its traditional promotion of free trade is also a concern. Not merely is Trump critical of free trade agreements but Hillary Clinton too now says she opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the cornerstones of the US tilt towards Asia to meet the challenge of China’s rising influence.

Related Stories:

• Domestic Politics Impel Malaysia into South China Sea Squabble
• Malaysia’s Chinese Dilemma
• Fact, Fiction and the South China Sea

 

 

Justice Ginsburg apologized for her ill-advised remarks about Donald Trump

July 14, 2016

WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court on Thursday apologized for her recent remarks about the candidacy of Donald J. Trump, saying they were “ill-advised.”

Justice Ginsburg on Tuesday called Mr. Trump “a faker” who “really has an ego” and said he had been treated too gently by the press. Mr. Trump, she said, “says whatever comes into his head at the moment” and has no consistency in his thinking. She also made critical remarks in interviews with The New York Times and The Associated Press.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Justice Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Mr. Trump had lashed back at the justice in recent days, and she was also criticized in editorials and by legal ethics experts.

“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Mr. Trump said in a telephone interview with The Times on Tuesday. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court, and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

Continue reading the main story

RELATED COVERAGE

Donald Trump Rebukes Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Deriding His Candidacy JULY 12, 2016

Donald Trump Calls Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Remarks a ‘Disgrace to the Court’ JULY 12, 2016

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term JULY 10, 2016