Is Lee Kuan Yew’s strategic vision for Singapore still relevant?

April 12, 2019

10 April 2019

Author: by Han Fook Kwang, RSIS

 

ttps://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/04/10/is-lee-kuan-yews-strategic-vision-for-singapore-still-relevant/

The thinking of Singapore’s late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew has shaped the country’s foreign policy since its independence in 1965. But the world is changing with the shifting geopolitical balance of power, disruptions caused by digital technology, the rise of populism and the backlash against globalisation. Is Lee’s thinking and strategic vision still applicable in this new world?

On the fourth anniversary of his passing, the question looms large for Singapore. As a small state dependent on the outside world for economic growth, and on larger powers to keep the regional peace, it is particularly vulnerable to how the international order is changing.

There are four elements of his approach to foreign policy that continue to be relevant but will also come under great pressure in the years to come.

First is the idea that a small state like Singapore needs a credible armed forces to deter would-be aggressors. It was a priority when the country suddenly became independent in 1965 and found itself having to build an army from scratch.

 

Lee’s firsthand experience of Japanese occupation in 1941 as well as the 1965 forced separation from Malaysia had a profound impact on his thinking about security. Singapore has since been unrelenting in building up its armed forces, allocating 30 per cent of government expenditure this year on defence, security and diplomacy.

Developing this military capability has also meant closer ties with the United States from which Singapore buys most of its military equipment, including advanced fighter aircraft. Singapore’s close security ties with the United States are a key part of Lee’s strategic vision but will also come under pressure as the balance of power shifts to a rising China.

Whatever happens, Singapore’s commitment to its own defence that Lee first defined will not change. ‘Without a strong economy, there can be no defence’, Lee asserted, ‘[without] a strong defence, there will be no Singapore. It will become a satellite, cowed and intimidated by its neighbours’.

The second pillar of Lee’s foreign policy stems from his realist view of how a small state can best survive in a world dominated by more powerful actors. Creating space for Singapore has been an unending effort for Singaporean officials, resulting in the many linkages the country has internationally, and its support of multilateral organisations such as ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Lee believed regional peace and stability was best achieved by having the major powers engaged in the region. Not just the United States but also China, Japan, Australia, India and European countries.

Despite the United States being the pre-eminent power in Asia throughout his years in office, he did not anchor Singapore solely in the US camp. Instead he worked hard to expand Singapore’s international space, for example working closely with Chinese leaders to expand economic and political ties.

But China’s rise and its growing assertiveness in pursuing territorial claims in the South China Sea will test how ASEAN, including Singapore, manages the new reality. For Lee the answer lies in continued US engagement in the region. ‘If there is no counterbalance from the US, there will be no room to manoeuvre for smaller Asian countries. When you have two trees instead of one, you can choose which shade to be under’. If Lee were alive today, he would continue looking for more shade.

The third element of Lee’s strategic vision is how to realise Singapore’s strategic goals through developing close relationships with leaders that mattered to Singapore. The best example was Lee’s personal friendship with then Indonesian president Suharto.

They could not have had a worst start after Singapore executed two Indonesian saboteurs in 1968. But the two leaders worked at it, the friendship blossomed and they met regularly over two decades to resolve issues between the two countries.

China–Singapore and US–Singapore ties similarly benefited from Lee’s personal relationship with many of their leaders who respected his deep insights and forthright views. When the world is more uncertain, it is even more important to be able to reach out to reliable friends.

Finally, Lee’s strategic vision of Singapore’s place in the world cannot be divorced from how he saw the country’s own identity: a vulnerable nation that had to be exceptional in Southeast Asia to survive. ‘I decided we had to differentiate ourselves from [others] or we are finished’, he reflected.

Exceptionalism has profound implications for Singapore’s foreign policy and will invariably create problems with neighbouring countries from time to time. When you are different you have to work harder at your relationships, and Singapore’s leaders will have to manage them deftly.

But the greatest challenge to Lee’s vision of Singapore’s exceptionalism will come internally. Can its people and government maintain the high standards, even as other countries progress to narrow the gap? If they do not, all the other elements of Singapore’s foreign policy fall apart. That is what it means to say that foreign policy begins at home.

Han Fook Kwang is Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He was co-author of several books on Lee Kuan Yew including The Man and his Ideas and Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. As then Managing Editor of Singapore Press Holdings, he led the editorial team for One Man’s View of the World.

A version of this article originally appeared here on RSIS.

The real reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute

April 11, 2019

What are the real reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute

Opinion  |  P Gunasegaram

Published: Today 6:41 am  |  Modified: Today 6:41 am

 

QUESTION TIME | I am not confused at all – not one little tiny bit – about the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. But I am utterly confused about the reason why Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said the cabinet won’t ratify the statute – the people are confused about it.

I don’t for a moment think the Malaysian people as a group are stupid – if they were, Najib Abdul Razak would still be prime minister and strutting around going about his business of running the government and stealing when the opportunity arises, while Mahathir remained in opposition.

Let’s not insult the Malaysian people – the bumiputera (including the Malays), Chinese, Indians and everybody else who collectively booted out the previous government. Yes, yes, I know, this government does not have the majority support of the Malays.

But remember, most Malays voted for the opposition in GE14, which included Harapan and PAS. And remember too, neither UMNO nor PAS had the majority Malay support. But the majority of Malays wanted UMNO out. That counts for more.

Back to the Rome Statute, what is there to be confused about? This is what the Rome Statute, an international agreement among nations and states on the setting up of an international court to try certain categories of criminals, states:

“The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression.”

It goes on to state what these kinds of crime are. Only when these acts are committed would the Rome Statute kick in for any country which has ratified the statute. There is no question that members of the monarchy will not be affected by state actions as Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy.

Unless members of the Royalty commit the acts themselves, they will not be affected.

This is the position of the government and of constitutional experts, such as Shad Saleem Faruqi who dismissed fears of ratification thus: “These fears are absolutely unfounded and bereft of logic, and appear to be based on advice that is motivated by politics, not law, emotion, not reason. The advice misleads Their Majesties and paints Their Royal Highnesses in a bad light.”

It appears that the fears of the royalty over the ratification may have resulted from a paper which was presented to them by some academics. But why would the rulers just rely on such narrow advice and not engage the government and other experts?

However, Mahathir talked about a plan using the royalty to overthrow him – but he was not clear about where and how that would be carried out.

Uncharacteristically, despite agreeing that there was nothing wrong in ratifying the Rome Statute, Mahathir announced a withdrawal from the earlier commitment.

“The whole idea is to get royalty in Malaysia to go against the government. That is the motive. Because of that conclusion, we have made a decision not to recognise (the Rome Statute). We have ratified it, but still have time to withdraw. It is not because it is harmful to us, but because of the political confusion raised,” he said.

Why not just explain the situation and ratify it anyway?

A full transcript of Mahathir’s press conference reveals his thinking in respect of this. Here are extracts: “But having said all that against the Statute of Rome, we understand that this is a political move. A political move to get the rulers to back them up.

“Of course, some members of the royal family also may be involved, but the whole idea is to get the Royalty in Malaysia to go against this government. That is the motive.

“But because of this confusion, and the confusion also among the rulers, we have made a decision that we will not recognise the Statute of Rome. We have ratified it, but we still have time to withdraw, and we will withdraw.

“Not because the Statute of Rome is harmful to us, but because of the political confusion raised by some people, including some people who have some political ambition. We know this.

“Jadi kita punya keputusan kabinet this morning is that we will withdraw our ratification of the Statute of Rome kerana confusion, bukan kerana we believe it is going to be bad for us, but because of the confusion created by one particular person who wants to be free to beat up people and things like that. And if he beats up people again, I will send the police to arrest him, I don’t care who he is.”

The last paragraph is an oblique reference to members of the royalty who may have been involved in violent acts in the past. He continues:

“So, while we will withdraw our ratification of the Statute of Rome, it is not because we think it is harmful to our country, but it is because of the politics of this country where sometimes people are easily misled by emotional feelings, that what we are doing is against our own interest.

“So that is the true reason I have to explain to you.

“And I would like to say this of these cowards, who during the last regime saw Najib stealing money, doing all kinds of things, and they said nothing. There were a lot of cowards who want to benefit from Najib’s misrule so that they also can benefit.

“I am saying this directly at them. Who they are, you can guess. But that is the reason why they were silent then, but sekarang ni wah bukan main lagi jaguh nak pertahankan hak orang Melayu, kononnya.”

 

OK, understood. There was a plan to overthrow Mahathir and to get the royalty behind that plan using the ratification of the Rome Statute. But who was behind this plan? How far advanced was it? And how were they were going to do it? The public deserves to know the answers to determine what were the threats to democracy and how serious they were.

Why succumb to these pressures like this? Surely that will embolden them and make them even more demanding in future and try to confuse the public even more.

The best thing to have done is to convince the public by clear argument why there is nothing wrong with endorsing the Rome Statute and then go ahead and ratify it, even if the royalty objects.

The government and the larger public cannot be held to ransom by the dark side or the deep state, whatever that may be. Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had talked about a vague deep state which may overthrow a democratically-elected government through undemocratic means, implying a coup.

This is a very serious allegation. It is incumbent upon this government to get to the root of the matter and establish if there is any such move to overthrow the government and bring the perpetrators to book. We are talking about treason here, nothing else.

If no such evidence is forthcoming, then members of the government should stop such fear-mongering and go on about the business of running the country efficiently, honestly and with regard to all citizens, keeping as much as possible the promises they made during the last election campaign.

I fail to see how the withdrawal of the commitment given to the Rome Statute will stop those who want to overthrow the country through unconstitutional means. It will only give them greater courage to continue doing what they are doing.

I still do not understand the reasons for the Harapan government abandoning the Rome Statute. I suspect a lot of us don’t.

P GUNASEGARAM says when things are not what they seem, something else is happening somewhere else.

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

Malaya-Singapore Relations: Old Bilateral Issues have resurfaced under PH Rule, says Diplomat Bilahari Kausikan

February 22,2019

Mr Kausikan said the fundamental reason for Malaysia’s continued provocative acts towards Singapore is because of the republic’s system of a multiracial meritocracy, which greatly contrasted from the former’s race-based policies.

Political instability in the ruling Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition and its failure to capture Malay support are aggravating relations between Malaysia and Singapore, said former Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan.

Mr Kausikan said after Barisan Nasional (BN) was replaced by PH in the 14th general election last year, “old bilateral issues almost immediately resurfaced”.

He was referring to recent disputes on maritime boundaries and joint airspace control, as well as ongoing negotiations into the price of water Malaysia sells to Singapore.

“These issues are not new and they cannot be resolved,” Mr Kausikan said in a public lecture at the National University of Singapore.

“To resolve an issue, both sides must want to resolve it. Whereas in this case, the other side’s interest is to keep them alive to use them to rally support. “It would be wrong to place too much emphasis on the personality of (Prime Minister) Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) although that was undoubtedly a factor,” he told more than 200 attendees.

“More importantly, the new Pakatan Harapan government is fundamentally incoherent.

“It’s falling apart,” said Mr Kausikan.

He cited a Merdeka Centre research last year which found a three-way split of Malay votes for PH, UMNO and Islamist party PAS, meaning that the support of Malaysia’s largest ethnic group looks to be fiercely contested by the three groups.

The results, said Mr Kausikan, reveals the instability of the ruling pact, which will grow further as it desperately tries to rally greater Malay support if it hopes to retain power in the next general election.

Using Singapore as a bogeyman or whipping boy to rally the Malay ground is a time-tested tactic,” he said.

“Dr Mahathir used it when he led UMNO, he uses it now that he is head of Bersatu.

“This is not just a matter of personality or historical baggage.”

In his lecture, Mr Kausikan also said he expects Malaysia’s political scenario to remain in a flux for some time because of infighting within PH and the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Show of Might

The Former Policy Adviser to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged the republic’s incoming new leadership to maintain the country’s military capabilities, saying that a show of might is crucial in its dealings with Malaysia.

This is because Malaysian leaders will always seek to undermine and subjugate the city-state.

“Even though Singapore is now accepted as a sovereign state, it is not a situation which Malaysia is entirely comfortable with,” Mr Kausikan said at the lecture titled ‘Singapore’s relations with Indonesia and Malaysia’.

Today, the governments of our neighbours deal with Singapore as a sovereign nation only because we have developed capabilities that have given them no other choice.

“It is not their preferred way of dealing with a small, ethnic Chinese-majority city-state.

“They would prefer us to accept a subordinate role as do their own Chinese populations,” he said.

Singapore’s new leaders must, therefore, continue to “establish red lines,” which send a clear message to Putrajaya that the country is equipped and ready to use its military might in the event it is forced to a corner. The threat of use of force is as much part of diplomacy as negotiations.

Diplomacy is not just about being nice.“It is essential to establish red lines because it is only when red lines are clearly understood that mutual relations can be conducted on the basis of mutual respect.”

Mr Kausikan said the fundamental reason for Malaysia’s continued provocative acts towards Singapore is because of the republic’s system of a multiracial meritocracy, which greatly contrasted from the former’s race-based policies.

“The basic and enduring issue is not what we do, but what we are – a multiracial, meritocratic small city state that performs better than they do and we must always perform better.

“The very existence of our dramatically very different system, too close to be ignored or disregarded, that does better than their system, poses an implicit criticism of their system to their own people.”

https://www.todayonline.com

 

No Place for fake degrees

February 18,2019

Opinion  |  James Chai

Published: 13 Feb 2019, 6:34 am  |  Modified: 13 Feb 2019, 6:34 am

 

COMMENT | When I was applying for jobs last year, I realised how easy it was for me to fake my credentials. I could have easily said I graduated from Harvard University, Stanford University or the University of Cambridge without ever having set foot in those institutions.

There is only the odd chance of a prospective employer asking for my academic transcript, or taking the trouble of seeking confirmation from those universities. Most of the time, what I put into my CV is taken as true and valid information.

But to have the audacity to fake my credentials, I would have to pass two tests: one, the personal test of my own integrity; and two, the practical test of assuming that the prospective employer is dumb enough to not check.

And for some jobs, like the legal profession, faking your credentials could land you in jail.

What it takes to lie

In any case, you would have to have immense audacity to assume that your prospective employer is fool enough to not discover your fraud.

In the case of a minister, this prospective employer is the people. Although many ministers would likely defend their fraudulent colleagues by suggesting that it is the Prime Minister instead, I would beg to differ.

The cabinet’s power and legitimacy flow from the people – any decision should originate from the people’s will, and ultimately be directed towards the benefit of the people.

The government cannot use ‘the people’s will’ at its convenience, and retreat behind the veil of ‘Prime Minister’s prerogative’ when it’s harmful to them.

And so, to fake your credentials to assume the executive position of a member of cabinet, you must have enough audacity to assume that the people are fools who will not discover your fraud.

Which brings me to my main point about the recent fake degree fiasco – the minister’s attitude towards us.

Of course, it raises questions about the competency for the job and the integrity of the minister in question, but nothing is more significant than the explanation of how these ministers view and treat the people.

Smoke and mirrors

Politics is an elite sport. Politicians run the whole show on their own, and only go down to the ground when they need votes during elections. Most of the time, the people do not know what is going on behind the scenes.

During the premiership of former Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, the people were  helpless when questions about the 1MDB heist were left unanswered for many months.

There is nothing that could have done between elections but to hold a series of protests to no avail. The response of asking the electorate to use the ‘proper channels’ by writing letters to the government is futile, flimsy and useless.

The irony is that the most important element in the democratic process – the people – are excluded from it most of the time.

Granted, the complexity of government means that it would be impractical to seek the people’s opinion on every single issue. However, what the democratic process requires is that elected representatives act on the trust of the people.

So the last thing we need is for ministers to lie to us about their credentials to earn the position to govern our lives.

‘A good politician doesn’t need a degree’

In the face of the recent exposés, the most common defence is that to be a good minister, there is no need for a university degree. I have two responses to this.

First, a minister occupies the highest executive office of the land. Those involved in the fake degree saga thus far are either ministers, deputy ministers, menteris besar or state exco members.

It is sensible for us to not only demand the highest level of competence but also the highest standard of ethics.

Although it is widely accepted that a university degree doesn’t guarantee success in office, it remains a barometer of ability and credibility – which is why many jobs continue to use it as a prerequisite.

It is only sensible then to expect the highest standard of ethics when occupying a role in government.

This is because it is in our national interest to be represented and run by the best our society has to offer, so that we collectively become the best versions of ourselves.

Extended hypocrisy

Second, the defence reeks of hypocrisy because the ministers involved in the fake degree saga do not believe in the defence themselves.

If it is true that a degree is not necessary, then why would the ministers take the additional effort and risk to fake their credentials in the first place?

They only do so because they believe that degrees have an impact on people’s perception of their abilities and credibility.

Being commoners outside the system is frustrating. Most of the time our grouses are not heard, and it is hard to expect the ministers to always have our interests in mind.

To now know that we had to find out for ourselves that our ministers have been lying to us – this is hard to bear.

We must demand the government come clean on the matter because this fundamentally affects their relationship with us as a people.

And we will be damned if we have to hear another declaration that “at least they didn’t rape or steal.”

---

 

JAMES CHAI works at a law firm. His voyage in life is made less lonely with a family of deep love, friends of good humour and teachers of selfless giving. This affirms his conviction in the common good of people: the better angels of our nature. E-mail him at jameschai.mpuk@gmail.com.

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

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/463752?fbclid=IwAR2_FVgQSccXkUZ7N12OE9jxQLGlY3EH6ZXeGWSHPcQlSs_Xg6CMX15QxQs

Cambodian Minister: Incident should serve as lesson for everyone

February 17, 2019

Bernama  |  Published: 16 Feb 2019, 9:19 pm

The incident involving 47 Malaysians detained at the Banteay Mancheay prison in Cambodia should serve as a lesson for everyone, said Special Duties Minister in the Cambodian Prime Minister’s Department Othsman Hassan.

He said such a mistake should not be repeated in the future as the lucrative salary offered was too good to be true.

“If it is true that such lucrative salary to be paid, certainly the Cambodians will be employed first,” he said this during the symbolic handover of 47 detainees from the Cambodian government to the Malaysia and Sarawak governments in Siem Reap today.

Othsman represented the Cambodian government while Malaysia and Sarawak were represented by Sarawak Welfare, Community Wellbeing, Women, Family and Childhood Development Minister Fatimah Abdullah.

Also present were Santubong MP Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, Temporary Charge de Affairs at the Malaysian Embassy in Phnom Penh Ruzaimi Mohamad and director of the Sarawak regional office of the Foreign Ministry Deddy Faisal Ahmad Salleh.

Meanwhile, Fatimah expressed her gratitude to the Cambodian government for providing good cooperation to the Malaysian government during the negotiating process to bring home all the detainees.

“With the power of Almighty Allah we have met with people such as Datuk Othsman and his friends who are sincere in helping us to secure the release of the detainees, as well as the Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg, Foreign Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah and Foreign Ministry secretary-general,” she said.

Fatimah said the Malaysian government was in the midst of arranging the transportation to bring all 47 Malaysians home.

“Initially, we are planning to bring them home in stages, but it is better if all can return home in one group,” she said.

 

The future is moving in

Stay curious. Stay with Malaysiakini. Our energy is to meet your demands. As the future moves in, let us help you be in time for it.

Subscribe

As the future unfolds

Marzuki looks to Dr M to save him from scandal

February 10, 2019

 

by Joceline Tan

ttps://www.thestar.com.my

The fake degree firestorm that is threatening to bring down the Deputy Foreign Minister could not have happened at a worse time for Bersatu. 

DEPUTY Foreign Minister Datuk Marzuki Yahya’s political career was on the rise, especially after he was appointed to the key post of secretary-general of Bersatu.

But the ground seems to be crumbling under his feet ever since the news broke about his fake university degree. The Kedah-born Marzuki is fighting for his survival even as the cruel world of social media has pronounced him guilty and is demanding that he resigns from his Foreign Ministry job.

There is a firestorm of public opinion out there over what has been dubbed the “Scam-bridge scandal”.

Nobody, including Marzuki himself, had questioned post-May 9 media reports that he graduated from the prestigious Cambridge University.

But when the scandal broke, Marzuki clarified that it was Cambridge International University in the United States which, to his further embarrassment, turned out to be a degree mill.

By then, the issue had acquired a life of its own, beyond his control or that of his party.

The prevailing opinion on social media is that if he cannot be honest about something as simple as his academic background, how can he be trusted on affairs of state?

It has been pointed out that if this was the private sector, the person would have been fired without further ado because it is a question of his Own credibility and personal integrity.

The question on everyone’s lips is whether Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad will take the necessary action to safeguard the image of his government and party.

As former Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi pointed out, the collateral damage to Bersatu is high given that Marzuki is the party’s Secretary -General.

It is not only the party of the Prime Minister, Bersatu is supposed to be the backbone of Pakatan Harapan, and it aims to replace Umno as the party of choice for Malays.

“It’s messy and it looks quite indefensible because he is not a small fry. He has a big post and is the face of our Foreign Ministry,” said Ooi.

And as some have pointed out, where is Malaysia going to put her face when Marzuki comes face-to-face with, for example, Singapore ministers, many of whom are genuine Oxbridge products.

“I have known Marzuki since our days in UMNO Youth, and he never claimed he was from Cambridge University. My personal experience with him is that he is always supportive and has integrity as a politician,” said Bersatu supreme council member Akhramsyah Sanusi. But Akhramsyah, who is also Mara Corp chairman, admitted he was shocked by the public furore.“I want to stress that he was chosen as a deputy minister mainly for his experience and sacrifices for the party.

“We want our leaders to be of the highest integrity but I also believe in giving people a second chance,” said Akhramsyah. The Marzuki scandal could not have happened at a worse time for Bersatu which is facing a pivotal by-election in Semenyih.

It also opened the floodgates to greater scrutiny of the educational background of other Pakatan leaders including two Mentris Besar, both of who are from Bersatu.

Several Pakatan leaders have jumped to their defence, saying that one does not need a degree to be an effective politician.They are perfectly right except that the issue here concerns the integrity of politicians who have fake qualifications.

Marzuki is also on the threshold of possibly being declared the real winner for the Tasik Gelugor parliamentary seat in Penang.

Marzuki, who lost the seat in the general election by only 81 votes, applied to the courts for a recount on the grounds there were 297 unreturned postal votes and 689 spoilt votes.

The scandal has cast a pall over the court application. Those familiar with Dr Mahathir do not expect him to ask Marzuki to resign.

The elderly leader has a track record of defending the indefensible for as long as the person is his loyalist.But this is New Malaysia. If Dr Mahathir decides to save Marzuki, he will not get the same docile reaction from the public as during his first round as Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, he will have the last say as the Prime Minister and chairman of his party.

The fake degree scandal underscores the perception that Bersatu is seriously short of qualified and capable people to fill government posts. This issue is one more reason why Dr Mahathir should reshuffle his Cabinet sooner rather than later.

It will be awkward for Marzuki to continue in foreign affairs Ministry. If Dr. Mahathir decides to keep him, he may want to put Marzuki where he does not have to represent the country.

Perhaps the most baffling thing about this whole rigmarole is that in the Internet era, where almost everything one does has a digital footprint, there are still people who think they can get away with faking their academic qualifications.

“Let this serve as a lesson for New Malaysia,” said Ooi.

 

 

Joceline

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/analysis/2019/02/09/marzuki-looks-to-dr-m-to-save-him-from-scandal-the-fake-degree-firestorm-that-is-threatening-to-brin/#0tA6A5g6P6eutgzf.99