Rejoice, for this is genuine Rule of Law


October 24, 2018

Rejoice, for this is genuine Rule of Law

Opinion  |  Dean Johns

 COMMENT | Feelings of schadenfreude, the expression for which we’re indebted to German, and is defined in English as ‘pleasure at learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures or humiliations of others’ may not be a terribly noble, but it’s a fact of life that this happens to be one of the many ways in which we humans are flawed.

Or at least I’m happy to admit that I am.

If there’s one class of fellow humans I hate, it’s liars, frauds and fakes. And thus I’m over the moon at the spectacle of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, former first lady of Malaysia Rosmah Mansor and current UMNO President Ahmad Zahid Hamidi facing their moments of truth.

Of course, none of them has admitted the truth of the countless charges or masses of evidence against them.Nor, admittedly, as some readers are sure to rightly remind me, are they required to do so, given their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A situation that is far more generous than prevailed back when fake UMNO-BN “justice’” was meted-out against innocent witness Teoh Beng Hock, who fatally “fell” from a 14th-floor window at MACC headquarters; Scorpene-scandal translator Altantuya Shaariibuu who was shot and then disposed of with C4 explosive and countless “suspects” summarily executed in suspicious “shoot-outs” with the police.

But these UMNO-BN suspects have at least been questioned, investigated, accused and charged, and thus I feel justified in feeling a small frisson of schadenfreude in anticipation of a far bigger one when they eventually face trial and thus the possibility of conviction and imprisonment.

And not just imprisonment, as that would be mere retribution. They should also be required to make restitution to Malaysia and Malaysians of all their fraudulently-acquired assets.

Unfortunately, such a desirable and indeed delightful result is way in the future for the few big fish the law has netted so far, but there are plenty of smaller-fry alleged UMNO-BN fraudsters for the forces of law and order to bring to book and thus sustain our schadenfreude in the meantime.

In fact, many of them, both already and yet-to-be charged, are apparently so incurably addicted to falsehood, fakery and fraudulence as to be beyond redemption.

Najib (centre in photo), for example, had the effrontery, not to mention the deficiency of any sense of irony, to claim that he turned up in court yesterday to lend Zahid his “moral” support.

And for his part, Zahid himself saw fit to engage in his customary fake piety, proposing that the same God he formerly credited with choosing him for high political office is now putting him to a test that he intends to pass by clearing himself of the charges he faces.

‘Trying times’

Meanwhile, as usual, his sanctimonious accomplices and supporters in his alleged preying on the populace were urgently praying and urging others to pray to the same God.

UMNO Vice-President Ismail Sabri Yaakob urged “all Malaysians, supporters and members of UMNO to stand firm (in support of Zahid) and pray.”

Image result for Wanita UMNO Chief Noraini Ahmad

And similarly, Wanita UMNO Chief Noraini Ahmad declared that “the movement was praying for Zahid in hope that God would help him through this (sic) trying times.”

 

Zahid’s wife, Hamidah Khamis  had a somewhat different take on the Divinity’s role in the situation, making the point that “calamities as a punishment from God would hit Malaysia if problems such as the LGBT movement and alcoholic parties” – as well, implicitly as Zahid’s prosecution – “were not prevented.”

All such fantasies on the part of the fraudulent are nothing but further fuel for us schadenfreude fans, of course. But, to finish this column on a more positive note, as dedicated as I and doubtless many others are at seeing as many frauds as possible getting their just desserts, we’re also delighted that lots of genuine people will benefit.

Our honest, upstanding friends in the legal fraternity, for example, who have years of prosecution and defence briefs to look forward to now that the genuine rule of law appears to be back in force.

Not to mention the majority of true, honest-to-goodness Malaysians who have spent so many years waiting, and some of them possibly even praying, for freedom at last from UMNO-BN-style lies, fraud, fakery and also far worse.


DEAN JOHNS, after many years in Asia, currently lives with his Malaysian-born wife and daughter in Sydney, where he coaches and mentors writers and authors and practises as a writing therapist. Published compilations of his Malaysiakini columns include “Mad about Malaysia”, “Even Madder about Malaysia”, “Missing Malaysia”, “1Malaysia.con” and “Malaysia Mania”.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

 

Rafidah Aziz : Time To End ‘Race Supremacy’


October 24, 2018

Rafidah Aziz : Time To End ‘Race Supremacy’

The New Malaysia must clearly be gender, colour and heritage-neutral, where the only priority is the good of the people and their nation.

Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz, The Sun Daily

https://thecoverage.my/news/rafidah-aziz-time-end-race-supremacy-resetting-button-malaysia-malaysia-malaysians/

I ALWAYS feel privileged and honoured that I am a Malaysian, having this blessed land, Malaysia, to call my own, to commit my loyalty and allegiance to, and to sacrifice for. My nationality is Malaysian, although my heritage, and ancestry, as far as I know, is of the Malay race.

As a Malay, I am actually ‘stateless’, because people of the ‘Malay stock’ are all over the place – as citizens of countries such as Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Cambodia, Philippines, and South Africa.

Their nationality, ‘kebangsaan’, would be of the country to which they belong and owe allegiance to.

Similarly, an Indian national is from India, not from Malaysia. As also a Chinese is a citizen of China, not of Malaysia.

Citizens of Malaysia are Malaysians, regardless of ancestry and heritage. That is the undeniable fact. I am proud to be a Malaysian. I am certain my fellow Malaysians must feel the same way.

The dawn of New Malaysia brings with it new hopes and aspirations, a new beginning. Our nation is so blessed.

What is needed is good social and economic governance by those in whom we, the Malaysians, have put our trust and faith, to steer our nation successfully, through challenges and headwinds, in the ever changing environment in which we operate into the next century and the distant future.

The reset button had been pressed on May 9, 2018, setting in motion the various processes and measures, which needed to be undertaken to put Malaysia back on the right track. Expectations are high. But Malaysians must be realistic. Development does not happen in a vacuum.

Still Remember Zahid Famous Quote?-“ Malaysians Who Are Unhappy With The Country’s Political System Should Leave The Country ” – Who Should Leave Now?

Malaysia is an integral part of the global economic community and civil society.

With the erosion of borders, catalysed by the pervasive influences and advancements in all aspects of information and communications technology, there are both domestic and external factors and imperatives to take into account.

Policies need to be adaptable and able to successfully meet new demands and situations.The government must govern, and not allow itself to be distracted by unrealistic, selfish and even petty demands of some quarters.

The voice of the majority must be allowed to prevail and not to allow the fractiousness of discord among the small minority to perpetuate.

Already such pettiness and inward-looking attitudes have begun to seep in, into various dictates and rules, which border upon intervention into personal freedoms.

While other countries, which seek to be highly competitive and advanced, find ways to innovate and reengineer, and to forge strong forward-looking mindsets there are moves already in Malaysia to reinterpret religion and social interactions, which will set us far back.

Image result for We are Malaysians

We mistake Arabisation for Islamic virtues, focusing upon attire and veneer – thin facades, instead of on positive mindsets and good universally accepted good values.

We must all begin thinking of ourselves as being integral parts of Malaysia, as truly Malaysians.

We must rid ourselves of prejudices arising from narrow-mindedness and subjective considerations, which give room for xenophobic tendencies.

 

We must avoid divisiveness and intolerance, and accept the diversities in our differences in religion and racial and cultural heritage, and forge national strengths and resilience from the diversities.

We must appreciate the fact that though we are different, yet in many ways we are one as Malaysians, with similar aspirations and dreams, and hopes for ourselves, and for those coming after us.

National policies must be based on needs. There are bound to be differences in issues and needs among us.

These should be addressed specifically and in effective, targeted ways and approaches, and never based merely upon race.

Regardless of racial heritage, the needs of specific target groups of Malaysians should be addressed.

In the context of education, it should be education for all. The only justification for differentiation is between rural and urban populations.

Emphasis should always be on needs and recognition must always be based on excellence and meritocracy, especially when justifying specific and special support and consideration. Young Malaysians must benchmark performance against the global best.

Surely the well-to-do and the already successful, from any racial heritage, cannot be expected to invoke any reason whatsoever to justify ‘special attention’ and ‘privileges’ to be given, or worse still, to continue to be given.

The government of 2018 cannot be expected to implement restructuring policies which were initiated by the government of 1970. The policies then were premised on the cogent and pressing needs and demands of that era.

We cannot afford to be divided as we live and operate in an increasingly challenging and competitive regional and global environment.

It is detrimental and counter-productive to Malaysia and its people if some among us continue to play the old ‘race supremacy’ tune. Supremacy must always be that of our beloved nation, Malaysia, not of any group, race or religion.

We, as Malaysians, will only be highly respected globally when, from among us, rise young Malaysian citizens who are competent and skilled, and whose performance and achievements in their chosen field of endeavour are regarded as excellent, when measured by global benchmarks and standards.

When they can be proud to carry the Malaysian flag and be recognised by the world as successful Malaysians.

The New Malaysia must clearly be gender, colour and heritage-neutral, where the only priority is the good of the people and their nation.

We must constantly distance ourselves from the influence of the narrow-minded who continue to operate in archaic soot-covered and smoke-emitting chimneys.

We must forge ties that build and strengthen national resilience. Avoid divisiveness and fractiousness as these are recipes for erosion of unity among us. Embrace the politics of unity and national development.

Endeavour to prevent and eradicate the politics of hypocrisy, which clearly can never be premised upon the common good in this unique and diverse spectrum we call Malaysia. Malaysia is for all Malaysians. Sejahtera Malaysiaku!

China’s Foreign Policy under Xi Jinping


October 24, 2018

China’s Foreign Policy under Xi Jinping

by Neil Thomas, University of Chicago

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/10/21/chinese-foreign-policy-under-xi-jinping/

  …”contrary to some recent commentary, it seems unlikely that ‘world power’ or ‘world domination’ are China’s priorities. The CCP observed the Soviet errors of external overreach and antagonism toward the US-led system during the Cold War. China now interacts with the international order like other major states: it complies with the order because to do so serves its interests and tries to influence this order where it does not”.–Neil Thomas

There is a risk of a ‘new Cold War’ between the United States and China. After decades of bilateral engagement and multilateral collaboration, the Trump administration’s first National Security Strategy (NSS) branded China a ‘revisionist power’ that seeks to ‘displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region’ and ‘shape a world antithetical to [US] values and interests’ in an age of renewed ‘great power competition’.

Image result for xi jinping foreign policy

 

Rising powers like China rattle ruling powers like the United States because their ascendance creates tension within existing structures of global power. US power lies in its unmatched military capabilities and the ‘international order’ of multilateral institutions, interstate rules and global norms that promote economic openness and rules-based dispute resolution. The charges of ‘revisionism’ levelled in the NSS show that the Trump administration fears that China will replace the United States as global hegemon and threaten the basic tenets of international order.

China has indeed become a more active participant in global affairs under the leadership of Xi Jinping, who took office in November 2012. Signs of China’s rising power, though, are a natural result of its growth. More important is what China intends to do with its newfound capabilities. Does Xi want to revolutionise Chinese foreign policy? Stop opening China’s economy? Overturn the international order?

International policymakers must study Xi’s words because he, as the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) General-Secretary and head of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission, is pivotal in setting the overarching orientations and strategies of China’s foreign policy. The most authoritative articulation of Xi’s policy agenda is his ‘Report’ to the 19th CCP National Congress in October 2017.

An analysis of Xi’s foreign policy discourse suggests that there may exist more continuity than often assumed between the strategies of Xi and his predecessors. This intersection between past and present is captured neatly in the foreign policy section of Xi’s Report: ‘Following a path of peaceful development and working to build a community of common destiny for humankind’.

Image result for xi jinping foreign policy

What’s new is that Xi stamped his authority on CCP foreign policy under his signature formulation of ‘building a community of common destiny for humankind’ — although Hu Jintao had used the phrase previously. The ‘community of common destiny’ is basically an international system in which deeper economic integration and political dialogue eases conflict and bolsters security. Xi is proactively ‘building’ this future through an intense focus on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and global governance.

What’s not new is that Xi retains the ‘peaceful development’ strategy articulated by Hu in the mid-2000s, which derives from the CCP’s ‘basic line’ of ‘peace and development’ in international relations that Deng Xiaoping introduced in 1985. In the Report, Xi framed the foreign policy achievements of his first five-year term, including the BRI and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, as ‘new contributions to global peace and development’. He has told Party leaders that the ‘peace and development’ strategy is ‘aligned with the fundamental interest of the country’ and is a ‘fundamental foreign policy goal’.

This ‘peace and development’ strategy reflects the belief that China’s economic development requires a peaceful external environment and cooperative relations with major powers. It replaced the Maoist creed of inevitable conflict between the capitalist and socialist worlds as the CCP’s official ‘assessment of the international situation’. Deng believed this strategy would help China ‘exert a much greater influence’ in a global system that the CCP perceived as dominated by Western powers.

Image result for xi jinping foreign policy

 

Xi’s policy statements imply that the overarching concern of China’s foreign policy remains the creation of a ‘more enabling international environment’ for China’s continued development. As China’s interests continue to expand, so too does its desire to participate in global affairs.

But contrary to some recent commentary, it seems unlikely that ‘world power’ or ‘world domination’ are China’s priorities. The CCP observed the Soviet errors of external overreach and antagonism toward the US-led system during the Cold War. China now interacts with the international order like other major states: it complies with the order because to do so serves its interests and tries to influence this order where it does not.

Xi’s Report also reaffirmed Deng’s ‘opening to the outside world’ as a ‘basic national policy’. ‘Opening’ for Deng meant China would integrate into the global economy, enter international institutions and improve living standards in a manner that sustained CCP control.

Xi has insisted that China ‘absolutely must not waver’ from ‘reform and opening’ because it is the ‘propelling force’ behind China’s ‘international status’. He even framed his signature economic policy — a ‘new normal’ focused on consumption, services and markets — as a ‘new structure’ of reform and opening that ‘improves its quality and level’.

Image result for xi and asean

Xi’s continuation of key strategies like ‘peace and development’ and ‘reform and opening’ suggest he may not have changed China’s objectives so much as the means by which the CCP pursues them. Xi’s China is ‘revisionist’ in the narrow sense of hoping for changes that reflect new realities but not in the existential sense of wanting to supplant the current order or global hegemon.

Until recently, White House views on China were quite consistent: the United States would ‘welcome the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China’ and ‘reject the inevitability’ of ‘confrontation’ if China acted within the international order. But the latest NSS said the ‘engagement’ strategy had ‘failed’.

The endurance of ‘reform and opening’ and of ‘peace and development’ in Xi’s foreign policy discourse imply that engagement is not such a failure. The continuance of these two key foreign policy concepts intimate that, while Xi’s CCP does want to project China’s power, it is still constrained by a belief in the benefit to China of global order and stability.

Image result for Trump is a nationalist

US relative power in global affairs is declining, but this trend is mostly the result of other countries’ embrace of the international order built by the United States, which nonetheless retains significant advantages in military, diplomatic, commercial, technological and cultural power. It would best advance its national interests by accepting but proactively managing China’s rise within an improved iteration of this order. We should avoid a ‘new Cold War’.

Neil Thomas is Research Associate in the Think Tank of The Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago.

This article appeared in the most recent edition of East Asia Forum Quarterly, ‘Asian crisis, ready or not’.

Malaysia takes a stand on–Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. It is an unacceptable act of tyranny


October 23, 2018

Malaysia takes a stand on–Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. “It is an unacceptable act of Tyranny”

by Bernama

The Face of an Arab Tyrant  

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has described the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi as an extreme and unacceptable act of tyranny.

He said Malaysia does not support the killings of government critics. “We all have someone we dislike, but we cannot simply kill him because we don’t like him. I used to be hated by many, and if we have the same system like Saudi Arabia’s, I probably won’t be here talking to you today.

“Alhamdulillah, we don’t see such acts of tyranny here in our country,” he said at the “Bicara Minda Bersama Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad” talk moderated by veteran journalist Johan Jaafar at Dewan Karangkraf in Shah Alam yesterday.

Image result for dr mahathir bin mohamad

The Prime Minister said this when asked about Malaysia’s stand pertaining to the murder of the journalist. Last Saturday, Saudi Press Agency reported that Saudi Arabia had admitted that Khashoggi was killed in its consulate in Istanbul.

The report stated that the discussions allegedly held between the Washington Post columnist and those he met in the consulate had turned into a fight which led to his death.

Following Khashoggi’s death, the international community began to put pressure on Saudi Arabia. Several countries have pulled out of the Saudi investment summit in Riyadh.

– Bernama

Sources claim envoy punished for not securing Jho Low’s sister’s release–Shame on Wisma Putra


October 24, 2018

Sources claim envoy punished for not securing Jho Low’s sister’s release–Shame on Wisma Putra

by Hariz Mohd 
Image result for ilango karuppannan

EXCLUSIVE | A former Malaysian High Commissioner, Dr. Ilango Karuppanan (pic above) to Singapore was purportedly recalled and placed in cold storage for refusing to pursue the release of fugitive financier Jho Low’s sister in 2016, according to highly-placed sources in Putrajaya.

The sources claimed that May Lin and her husband were detained by the Singapore Police in May of that year, and former premier Najib Abdul Razak’s aide had instructed the Malaysian envoy “to do the necessary” to secure the couple’s release.

Image result for najib razak

However, Najib told Malaysiakini that he had not issued any such instruction nor heard of the incident. “There was no reason for me to protect Jho Low. As I have explained to Malaysiakini before, Jho Low represented the Arabs, not me.

“The officer (who supposedly relayed the instruction to the then Malaysian high commissioner in Singapore) is no longer with me. He is in Wisma Putra now and part of the current government,” he said when asked to comment on the allegation.

According to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the high commissioner also received a call from May Lin’s father over the matter.

Malaysiakini was told that the attempt to secure May Lin’s release did not go through, however, due to the high commissioner’s “reluctance” to use his diplomatic access.

“The High Commissioner had contacted the Singapore Police, who confirmed they had May Lin in custody.

“However, they also put a request to him not to interfere as there was an ongoing investigation under the republic’s laws,” said the sources.

The sources claimed that when the High Commissioner refused to pursue the matter, Putrajaya withdrew him from the commission the following year.

Checks by Malaysiakini revealed that the High Commissioner in question was Ilango Karuppanan , who served in the Malaysian mission to Singapore from April 25, 2016 to April 30, 2017.

According to Wisma Putra’s website, Ilango had the second shortest stint among other Malaysian High high commissioners to Singapore. The shortest tenure was that of his successor Zulkifli Adnan, who was appointed on Oct 10, 2017 but had his service terminated after the Pakatan Harapan government came into power.

Sources said Ilango was reassigned to the National Institute of Public Administration (Intan) after he was recalled by Wisma Putra.

According to the sources, this was considered “cold storage” for someone of his stature in the civil service .While in cold storage, he obtained his doctorate from  The University of Malaya.

Meanwhile, Ilango declined to speak on the matter, saying that as a civil servant, he was not authorised to speak to the media. “I cannot tell you (the press) anything as I am a civil servant. I hope you understand,” he said.

Image result for Wisma Putra

Singapore Police have also chosen to remain tight-lipped regarding the purported arrest of May Lin and her husband.

“Dear Sir, I refer to your email dated 16 October 2018 directed to Singapore Police Force. We are unable to accede to your request for comments. Thank you for your understanding,” it said in a response to Malaysiakini‘s e-mail.

Low has been described as the mastermind behind the 1MDB scandal. Malaysian authorities have charged both him and his father in absentia over allegations of plundering the state-owned fund.

Malaysiakini had also attempted to contact May Lin for comments.

Brexit–David Cameron led us to this calamity.


October 23, 2018

 

“David Cameron is a former PM. He not only has the right to offer his solution but a duty. If he is to earn the right to a hearing, however, he must first find not only self-knowledge and courage, but an un-English seriousness of purpose he has evaded all his life.”–Nick Cohen

John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have warned of the dangers of Brexit. But where is the former Prime Minister who called the referendum that will blight Britain for as far ahead as anyone can see? Whatever happened to that likely lad? David Cameron doesn’t want to talk about it, one of his friends tells me. “He doesn’t defend the referendum, but won’t say he made a mistake either. Europe is like a family scandal. We know what’s happened but we don’t say a word: it’s his no-go zone.”

At a personal level, the consequences swirl around him. I may be exhausting your capacity for compassion but the smallest of the casualties of Brexit has been the good fellowship of the Chipping Norton set. Naturally, the Cotswolds’ wealthy Leavers are grateful. But Cameron must resent them. He must know that he has been the useful idiot who succumbed to the demands of Rupert Murdoch’s Rebekah Brooks, a member of the local nouveau gentry by virtue of her converted barn, in the crashingly stupid belief that no harm would come from his surrender.

Invitations to “kitchen suppers” from Remainers, however, can only include Samantha Cameron’s name – if, they are extended at all. Tania Rotherwick invited the Camerons to her pool at the magnificent Cornbury Park estate before she split from her husband and Cameron split Britain from Europe. She is now particularly contemptuous, I hear.

Cameron’s memoirs were meant to be published this month but have been delayed until next year. The early signs are ominous. A book has to be coherent if it is to find a readership: its opening must prefigure its conclusion. As described in the publishing press, Cameron’s effort will have no consistency. He will tell the story of the formation of the coalition, his contributions to economic, welfare and foreign policy, his surprise victory in the 2015 election and then – as if from nowhere – the conventional memoir will end with the author carelessly deciding he will settle the European question, without planning a campaign or preparing an argument and, instead, launching a crisis that will last for decades. Nothing will make sense. Nothing will hang together. It’s as if a romcom were to conclude with serial killers murdering the cooing lovers or Hilary Mantel were to have aliens invade Tudor England on the last page of her Thomas Cromwell trilogy.

The book Cameron cannot write would accept that his political battles and achievements were as nothing when set against his decision to appeal to the worst of the Tory party. It would begin with Cameron honouring the decision that won him the Conservative leadership in 2005. He would confess that he should have known better than to pull the Conservatives out of the centre-right group in the European parliament and align them with Law and Justice, the know-nothing Polish nationalists who are reducing their country to an ill-governed autocracy. The manoeuvre was pure Cameron: tactics above strategy; appeasement instead of confrontation.

The pattern continued throughout his premiership. He thought he could buy off the right by refusing to explain the benefits of EU membership to the voters. At one point in 2014 he threatened to leave the EU. He then turned around in 2016 and asked the public to believe that leaving would be a disaster and was surprised when 17.4 million men and women he had never treated as adults worthy of inclusion in a serious conversation ignored him.

If he were being honest, Cameron would admit too that Brexit ought to bring an end to a British or, to be specific, English, style that is by no means confined to the upper class, but was everywhere present among the public-school boys who ruled us.

‘One Etonian led the Remain campaign and another led the Leave campaign, and the English couldn’t see why that was wrong.’
Pinterest
‘One Etonian led the Remain campaign and another led the Leave campaign, and the English couldn’t see why that was wrong.’ Photograph: Frantzesco Kangaris for the Guardian

I mean the ironic style that gives us our famously impenetrable sense of humour (which we will need now the rest of the world is laughing at us). The perfidious style that allows us to hide behind masks and has made England superb at producing brilliant actors for the West End but hopeless at producing practical politicians for Westminster. The teasing style of speaking in codes that benighted foreigners can never understand, however well they speak English. The cliquey style that treats England as a club, not a country, and allowed Jeremy Corbyn to say that Jews cannot “understand English irony”, however long their ancestors have lived here.

 

Image result for Foolish  Theresa May

The deferential style that allowed one Etonian to lead the Remain campaign and another to lead the Leave campaign and for the English to not even see why that was wrong. The life’s-a-game-you-shouldn’t-take-too-seriously style that inspired Cameron to say he holds “no grudges” against Boris Johnson now the match is over and the covers back on the pitch.

The gentleman amateur style that convinced Cameron he could treat a momentous decision like an Oxford essay crisis and charm the electorate into agreeing with him in a couple of weeks, as if voters were a sherry-soaked don who could be won round with a few clever asides. The effortlessly superior style that never makes the effort to ask what the hell the English have to feel superior about. The gutless, dilettantish and fatally flippant style that has dominated England for so long and failed it so completely. The time for its funeral has long passed.

A politician who bumped into Cameron said he thinks the referendum result must be respected, but that Britain should protect living standards by going for the softest Brexit imaginable and staying in the single market. This is a compromise well to the “left” of Theresa May and Corbyn’s plans and is worth discussing. Whatever his critics say, David Cameron is a former PM. He not only has the right to offer his solution but a duty. If he is to earn the right to a hearing, however, he must first find not only self-knowledge and courage, but an un-English seriousness of purpose he has evaded all his life.

Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist