AMMAN, Jordan (LAT) -- A defiant Syrian President Bashar Assad offered no new concessions Sunday from his embattled administration, instead assailing a “foreign conspiracy” against Syria and rejecting any government role in recent “monstrous massacres” across the nation.

“The truth is that even monsters do not do what we saw, especially in the Houla massacre,” Assad said, referring to the house-to-house executions last month of more than 100 people, mostly women and children, in the central township of Houla. The killings in Houla drew international repudiation of Syria. United Nations officials said evidence pointed to pro-government death squads as the killers. But authorities in Syria blamed the massacre on foreign-backed “terrorists” seeking to frame Syrian security services and undermine a U.N.  peace plan.

“The crisis is not internal,” Assad declared, repeating his government’s long-term assertion that foreign powers are stoking the uprising aimed at ending his rule. “Rather, it is a foreign war with internal tools, and everybody is responsible for defending the homeland.” More...

Hat tip: Eye On The World

When the secrets of a strategic asset is sold to a foreign country, as in this case of our Scorpene submarines, it is synonymous with pronouncing a death sentence on our noble sailors of the Royal Malaysian Navy. The strategic asset just becomes a floating or submersible hulk, long before they are used to defend this nation against enemies. Of course against enemies, one cannot simply use a submarine for crowd control like in the case of the Bersih Crowd(sarcasm intended). One can use the sale of submarines to line ones pockets, that is fact. People who sell National Secrets are called "TRAITORS" and the act of traitors is called "TREASON". In one stroke our submarines are no more a strategic asset. You expect the MACC or the Police to investigate this?  I am keeping my fingers crossed. I hope that the Director of Military Intelligence notices this act of treason.  

French 'bought' top secret document from M'sian Navy by Susan Loone 8:22AM May 31, 2012 .

 A highly-classified document - the Royal Malaysian Navy's evaluation of the Scorpene-class submarines to be purchased by the government - were allegedly "bought" by a French defence company. French lawyer Joseph Breham, who is acting on behalf of human rights NGO Suaram, revealed that the company paid 36 million euro (RM142 million) to Terasasi (Hong Kong) Ltd, ostensibly for "commercial engineering" works. Breham (right) said French investigative judges probing the case lodged by Suaram against Paris-owned shipmaker DCNS for alleged corruption inquired what those payments were for and demanded reports of financial transactions from the company. 

"They (the inquiry judges) were given information thqat is already available in the Internet and newspapers, except for this one document," Breham told a press conference in Bangkok yesterday. "It was a secret document by the Malaysian Navy - an evaluation for the order of the submarines, which is a highly confidential report," he told journalists at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand. Breham, who based his expose on the French prosecution papers, said the act of "selling" top secret papers to a foreign country such as this is considered treason. In France, he stressed, it would be absolutely illegal to sell such reports as it could either be considered a breach of defence secrets or high treason. "It's treason because you are selling to a competitor or a foreign country what you think about a specific weapon, and your plan on how to use this specific weapon," replied Breham, when asked by a journalist if it was legal for an individual to sell such reports. "In France, if you release them (secret documents), you can be punished with up to 10 years in jail," said Breham, who is with Sherpa, a non-profit legal and human rights NGO based in Paris, which is representing Suaram in the legal action. 

Najib can be arrested by Interpol 

Hong Kong-based Terasasi had been accused of funnelling money through its accounts to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak as "commissions" for the sale of the submarines. The submarines were purchased from the French company Thales International, also known as Thint Asia, in a deal inked in 2002 when Najib was deputy prime minister and defence minister. Thales is an off-shoot of French defence giant DCN, which later changed its name to DCNS, a company facing legal charges filed by Suaram in 2010. The case recently opened for hearing in the French court. Two Terasasi directors are Najib's close ally Abdul Razak Baginda and his father Abdul Malim Baginda. 

 In 2006, Razak, together with two of Najib's former bodyguards were charged with the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, but the political analyst was acquitted without his defence being called. Najib (left), who has refused to comment on the matter, has also denied ever being involved in the scandal, but Breham has reiterated that the PM cannot avoid testifying in a French court if he is either subpoenaed or issued with a warrant of arrest by Interpol. Breham said it was possible that Thales decided to pay the money to obtain the classified documents so that it could better its bid for the project, and this meant "paying someone to commit an offence". 

The other possibility, he added, is that the French company had paid the commission to channel money to ruling party Umno or to high-ranking individuals in Malaysia, as already revealed in French prosecution papers. Breham said that this "demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt" that the French counterparts knew the money was illegal and should not be paid, and that it would go to top Malaysian officials. He added that the money, whether legal or illegal, was paid to individuals "for no forseeable reasons" when it could have been put to better use. "To put it blunt and clearly - if the money had not been paid to high-ranking officials, it could have been used to allow Malaysians to pay less taxes for the same services or to have much more services for the same amount of taxes," suggested Breham. "The Malaysian taxpayers are the first casualties in this case," he added. Selling nation's secrets a crime 

Meanwhile, Subang parliamentarian R Sivarasa, who was at the Bangkok press conference, said the expose on the top secret document being sold to a foreign country could land a person in jail. Sivarasa, who is also a lawyer, said anyone familiar with the Malaysian legal system knows that the country has the toughest official secrets legislation. In terms of the broad scope of the law, he added, the breach of any official secret document or publication is punishable with a mandatory jail sentence. "These documents - as mentioned by Breham - fall into the highest category of official secret documents as it has implications for the security of the country," said the PKR leader. "Without any question, it is a criminal offence (to sell the documents to a foreign company). 

There have been people who went to jail for revealing far less innocous documents," he added. Sivarasa was in Bangkok together with Suaram director Cynthia Gabriel, lawyer Fadiah Nadwa Fikri and Breham to reveal 'damning details' surrounding the alleged Scorpene scandal. The press conference was held in Bangkok as Breham was unable to get a proper visa to enter Malaysia. His law partner, William Bourdon, was deported from Malaysia after he attended a fundraising dinner in Penang last year. The Bangkok event, attended by foreign journalists and Malaysian embassy officials (left) - who left immediately after the function - was hosted by regional human rights NGO Forum-Asia. Malaysiakini

They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer - and they don't want explanations that do not give them that. - Thomas Sowell (Dismantling America)

COMMENT Some people, Indians mostly, ask me, why I bother writing about Hindraf? I realise this question points more to a particular class mindset and political alliance allegiance rather than to any genuine interest on the part of the persons asking the question. Hindraf's latest strategic move to field candidates in Pakatan Rakyat-controlled areas has resulted in the usual flame war between Hindraf and Pakatan proxies with accusations of racism and mandore-ism as a convenient stand in for any rational discussion and of course that P Uthayakumar has been bought over by Umno. I'll leave the rumour-mongering to the experts.

I make it a point to touch base with my favourite status quo agitators via the Human Rights Party (HRP) website, and I suggest that anyone interested in learning more about the entity that supposedly speaks for ‘working class' Indians and the issues they face should make it a point to look up this site to discover for themselves how Hindraf and the HRP (at this point in time the two are interchangeable) view the Malaysian political and social landscapes. There, I'm known as a "classical pseudo [multiracial] Indian" - I assume the writer meant "classic" - "who will never be chief of Navy but calls Hindraf racist".

The fact that I never once called Hindraf racist, in fact I defended Hindraf against such allegations in every one of my comment pieces, escaped the writer of the piece but seeing as how the writer chose only to publish a snippet of my comment piece and a paltry one Malaysiakini comment against the piece, is just further evidence of how Hindraf intentionally builds rhetorical straw men in lieu of any rational discussion. Many Pakatan supporters are aghast that Uthayakumar and Hindraf are choosing to exercise their democratic right by fielding candidates in the upcoming general election or rather are aghast that Hindraf is fielding candidates against Pakatan, which just goes to show you that for some Pakatan supporters democracy is a one-way street, that street being the way to Putrajaya and the banishment of Umno.

Meanwhile, because of their lack of traction with Umno, Hindraf for whatever reason is hoping that Pakatan-controlled areas would be more amenable to their particular brand of politics.

This of course is amusing because they have labelled Pakatan just as racist and vile as Umno-BN but yet believe they stand a better chance of gaining some support from whatever racial mix residing in those areas. And by advocating that Indians abstain from voting ("it's an option") even if they (Hindraf) lose, either Umno (with a proven record of systemic discrimination) or Pakatan (which according to Hindraf is no better) would win. So what exactly is the game plan here?

A throwback to old racial formula

However what is missing from the polemics from both sides is the acknowledgement of the differing political ideologies underpinning this political and racial feud. I would argue that Hindraf is a throwback to the old racial formula that BN continues to perpetuate. Although Hindraf/HRP and its adherents claim to speak for all Malaysians, a cursory glance at their propaganda organs or representatives tells another story.

And the story focuses on the disenfranchisement of the Indian community mixed up with constant polemical references to the "bi-racial (1Malaysia) Malay and Chinese", "others" who perpetuate the systemic discrimination that Indians face in Malaysia. Those of us who are critical of the movement are labelled as "mandores" or "elites" (if Indians) who did nothing for the community since independence or thereabouts, or just plain racists, for non-Indians.

This kind of slagging off is common whenever any critical discussion of Hindraf occurs. The comments section in Malaysiakini is filled with this kind of nonsense with the term "hero" used to describe those that Hindraf supporters have decided "did nothing" for the Indian community when an examination of a post-colonial, Indian community reveals a complex narrative poisoned with systemic discrimination but also a period of vibrant growth sustained mainly by the efforts of the community itself.

These racial taunts or an appeal to emotions coupled with Hindraf's own ‘demands' for the Indian community and the response they hope to get (this last bit is the important part of the equation), is a fairly common strain of minority groupthink found across the world. Thomas Sowell* gives a conservative perspective of the American experience in ‘Black Rednecks and White Liberals', the passage which I reproduce here:

"The general orientation of white liberals has been one of 'What can we do for them?' What blacks can do for themselves has not only been of lesser interest, much of what blacks have in fact already done for themselves has been overshadowed by liberal attempts to get them special dispensations - whether affirmative action, reparations for slavery, or other race-based benefits - even when the net effect of these has been much less than the effects of blacks' own self-advancement."

And let's not forget that Hindraf claims to represent ‘working class' Indians, which is not as convenient as it first seems. If the Malay demographic is changing because of external influences, I assure you the same is happening to the Indian/Hindu demographic. So while Hindraf's agenda may not be racist but rather a restatement of a political ideology (which failed us mainly because of the corruption of Umno and its partners) we as a nation subscribed to pre-Pakatan, this does not mean that the movement itself is free from racist members. You want to see the worse of Malaysians, just read the flame wars concerning Hindraf.

So while I dismiss Hindraf's claims of a class-based approach to the ‘Indian issue' as disingenuous since nothing in their rhetoric or deeds backs up this claim, I don't think anyone should dismiss their race-based approach as racist simply because the general orientation of oppositional politics has shifted from that of a race-based approach to a supposed class-based ethos.

So how does Pakatan deal with Hindraf?

Hindraf is getting nowhere with BN. The possible consequences of blackmailing Pakatan could be either Hindraf does manage to get representation in Parliament or deny Pakatan that chance, thereby proving their political worth to BN. If the outcome is the former, how does Hindraf intend to work with political parties which it has labelled as racists? Depending on the outcome of the elections, in the wet dreams of Hindraf supporters, they believe Hindraf in Parliament could be kingmakers, but the reality is they would probably end up as whipping boys.

The question is, if Hindraf manages to do for the Indian community (and their best bet for the time being is the federal reach of Umno) what MIC (and according to Hindraf, everyone else) has failed to do, what then are the ramifications to the so-called multiracial platform that Pakatan supporters subscribe to? Understand now, that Hindraf is speaking the same race-based language as Umno. When Uthayakumar laments the fact that Pakatan won't give them the seats they need even though it is less then MIC, it demonstrates that for some, certainly for Hindraf, Pakatan is merely a stand-in for BN. In other words for some, Pakatan speaks the same language as BN but merely uses a different dialect.

And because the DAP has done such a sterling job presenting itself as a multiracial party, you still have large swathes of the non-Chinese voting population sceptical of the inclusiveness of the DAP. Make no mistake, I think Pakatan and its partners have been doing the best job that they can by pushing their class-based agenda but at the end of the day all that effort has been hampered by the malfeasances of the federal government and their own internal bickering. And the lure of a race-based solutions to problems is hypnotic. It makes everything easier when you can come up with formulas that appeases various communities but would seem arbitrary in any other context.

And for years this worked for us. For years we got the government we deserved embroiled in our own petty communal concerns and by the time we realised we deserved something better, we were too deep in the rabbit hole of our own racial preoccupations. So how does Pakatan deal with Hindraf? The glib answer would be, hope they aren't as influential as they seem to think they are amongst the voting Indian population.

It's difficult to claim the moral high ground when the reality is that nearly every issue be it education, the economy or culture is still viewed through a racial/religious lens but neatly camouflaged in the ‘new' multicultural/racial spin of Pakatan.

The only way to render any type of race-based philosophy obsolete is to ensure that the class-based approach is not only done but seen to be done and so far either because of lack of political will or being sidetracked by the machinations of Umno or both, Pakatan has a lot more to do in fulfilling this expectation.

*Anyone familiar with the works of Sowell would be having a good chuckle seeing as how I'm quoting him in a piece sympathetic to class-based solutions to problems.Malaysiakini

The ‘Arab Spring’ shows that democratic process is useless without democratic culture.  A few weeks ago, amid the “Arab Spring” giddiness, a Shiite mosque opened in Cairo. This was big news. Among Egypt’s 80 million people, there are only a few thousand Shiites. It’s a 90 percent Sunni country, with even Christians vastly outnumbering the Shia. So, in their euphoria over the mosque’s inauguration, Shiite clerics heralded this Husseiniya (as Shiite mosques are known) as a symbol of rapprochement. The mosque would bridge the sectarian divide: a Shia center in this bustling Sunni city, yet a house of worship, thus emphasizing what unites rather than divides Muslims in one of Islam’s most important nations.

Such stories were once the hallmark of the Arab Spring narrative. “Democracy” was in the air. The corrupt, cancerous, pro-American dictator was gone. With their yearning hearts now sated by freedom, Egyptians would pull together, the light of liberty guiding them to prosperity.

The stories are different now. The Husseiniya was shut down last week. Yesterday’s euphoria is melting into today’s harsh reality. In Cairo, home to the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia jurists of ancient Al-Azhar University, “democracy” has meant the rise of Sunni supremacists. Turns out they don’t do bridge-building. Their tightening grip has translated into brutalizing dhimmitude for Christians and increasing intolerance of Shiism — which the Sunni leaders perceive less as Islam than as apostasy, an offense that sharia counts as more grievous than treason. 

News of the mosque’s demise arrived shortly after a report entitled “Neocons vs. Islamophobes” by the leftist e-magazine Salon. Foreign-policy correspondent Jordan Michael Smith was good enough to appoint me leader of “what might be called the ‘to-hell-with-democracy’ strain of thought” in “the American conservative movement.” And if anything needs an Arab Spring, it must be the American conservative movement. We Islamophobes haven’t even had an election yet, much less gotten one of those mellifluous sharia-constitutions the State Department likes to write for its emerging “democracies,” and yet here I am the leader! And a “relentless” leader, too — scalding the Muslim Brotherhood on behalf of a cadre that allegedly includes such luminaries as John Bolton, Michele Bachmann, and Frank Gaffney.

 In our struggle “to define the Republican response to the increased power of political Islam,” we are said to be “vying” with “another faction among the right-wing that is equally powerful . . . the neoconservatives.” Counting among their number such heavyweights as GOP senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, they are portrayed as “rather admirably insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood be given a chance.” After the tumultuous Bush years, my friends Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, and Bill Kristol must be having a good laugh: It may have taken a motley crew of despicable Islamophobes, but the Left has suddenly decided that neocons may not be the root of all evil after all.

For all its pretensions to sober analysis, the Salon hit piece usefully demonstrates how nonsensical policy debates about the Arab Spring have become. There is no common understanding of basic terms. “Islamophobia” was coined by the Muslim Brotherhood and seamlessly adopted by its Western confederates. Taken literally, the word would mean “irrational fear of Islam” — and thus it would rarely need to be spoken, Islamic supremacists having given us much to fear quite rationally. But in common parlance, to sneer “Islamophobe” is like what sneering “neocon” has hitherto been: lefty demagoguery — in this case, the belittling of anyone who is critical of Islam and its sharia framework, regardless of how colorable the critique.

Most people know an insult when they hear one. When it is rank character assassination posing as argument, people of good will tune it out. More consequential, though, is the degrading of the term “democracy.” As applied to the “Islamophobes,” Mr. Smith’s invocation of “democracy” — as in, to hell with it — is an outright perversion. Like the giants of neoconservatism, critics of Islamic supremacism (what Salon gently calls “political Islam”) are lovers of democracy. We believe the world would be a better place if every country adopted it. We agree the United States ought to be its promotional beacon. But that is mainly because when we speak of “democracy,” we mean American democracy. That is a culture of liberty so deeply rooted in the United States that it predated by a couple of centuries the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, and the first federal elections. National Review

Controversial Uganda-born Canadian author Irshad Manji hit out at certain muftis and clerics, including those in Malaysia's National Fatwa Council, which she said are trying to impose their own mores and dogma upon the populace. "Muftis, imams and clerics of various stripes love to tell us what we are to believe; in the course of telling us this, they also want us to adopt a particular identity.

"What they will never tell us is that they expect us to adopt their identity," said the 44-year-old New York University (NYU) professor in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. She was responding to a question on the recent National Fatwa Council edict forbidding Muslims from taking part in certain demonstrations, particularly targeting the Bersih 3.0 pro-electoral reform rally.

Manji argued that "good believers" cannot be expected to uncritically submit to the religious scholars without question as the scholars themselves too are humans and neither perfect nor divine as Allah is.

"Here's some breaking news for these muftis. You're not God. There is only one God and that job is not vacant. "Put all your fatwas out as you wish, but your fatwas do not hold divine authority, and neither do you," said the successful author and film-maker. Manji believes that the Quran - which she posits is the only divine document and sole guiding light of the faith - instead encourages Muslims not only to question but to seek out the truth on their own and think for themselves.

Such, she claimed, was the tradition prevalent in the heyday of Islamic civilisation until the slide into our current situation where mullahs and ulamas claim to know everything and dictate all to a public which is expected to obey without question.

'They don't have humility'

"I think that if more and more Muslims understand that there is a difference between the ulama and Allah - just as I realised at the age of 14 that there is a difference between the madrasah and Allah - we would be more willing to give ourselves the permission to do exactly what the Quran asks of us, which is to think for ourselves in order to deepen our faith and realise the humility that these fatwa-flinging mullah clearly don't have," argued the feisty Islamic reformist. Earlier this month, the National Fatwa Council declared that it is haram (not permissible) for Muslims to participate in any gathering or demonstration that is unproductive and is against the law or causes disturbances in the country.

Its chairperson Abdul Shukor Husin said the council viewed seriously this issue as some Muslims had previously resorted to rioting during street demonstrations. The council's decision, however, was met with stringent criticism from PAS spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who lambasted that the body for not looking at the issue clearly, while others quoted influential Egyptian Islamic theologian Yusuf al Qaradawi, who maintains that rallies or actions to fight against tyranny is encouraged in Islam.

Manji is in Malaysia to launch the Malay translation of her latest book ‘Allah, Liberty & Love'. However, her events and several speaking engagements had to be cancelled because of "security concerns", protest notes and alleged "pressure" from the authorities.

PAS - which ironically agree with Manji's criticism of the fatwa council on Bersih 3.0 - and several conservative Muslim NGOs have spoken out against her presence in Malaysia, claiming that her very liberal stance on Islam is dangerous to the faith of local Muslims.

Her first book, the international bestseller ‘The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith' has been banned in Malaysia.

As evident in her books and an Emmy-nominated PBS film, ‘Faith Without Fear', her work mostly challenges accepted notions in Islam, in the belief that education and the freedom to think is paramount and not the indoctrination, which she believes is commonly practised in most religious teachings. Malaysiakini

The truth is, hardly any of us have ethical energy enough for more than one really inflexible point of honour. - George Bernard Shaw

 COMMENT The sad fact is that Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim's role in the DAP was merely window-dressing to project the image of this so-called ‘chauvinistic Chinese party' as a multiracial forward-thinking party. His dignified pose symbolically completed the racial holy trinity for a political party so long demonised as ‘racist troublemakers' bent on destroying the fragile social contract of Malaysia.

He presented the image of the Malay as urbane and benign so unlike the confrontational fear-mongering ruffians who have no problem displaying their butts to make a point only they seem capable of understanding, which seems to be the norm these days. A Malay willing to work with other like-minded Malaysians towards a better tomorrow. Exactly which Malay demographic Tunku Aziz was supposed to represent or attract into the DAP fold was never determined. Even amongst urban Malays, he seemed out of touch with their reality. Rabble-rousing was never in the Tunku's repertoire, which is exactly what most Malays (urban or rural) who gravitate to Pakatan Rakyat seem to relate to.

Unlike say someone like former National Union of Journalists president Hata Wahari who experienced the regime's wrath in an up close and personal manner, the Tunku's appointment and presence seemed like uncomfortable reminder of a bygone political era, steeped in gentlemanly tradition (which was anything but) whose sole duty was to comfort the non-Malays in DAP that theirs was a party truly reflective of the diverse nature of Malaysia. Josh Hong's adroit piece in Malaysiakini on the man is probably the best commentary so far, but for me at least, there's plenty of blame to go around and nobody comes out of this looking good.

Heaping scorn on Guan Eng

Much has been made of Tunku Aziz's old-school gentleman demeanour and he has cultivated an air of weary detachment. His was not the gutter-level skirmishes that the DAP and Pakatan were embroiled in but rather his own personal crusade against the establishment was characterised by the feint and parry engagements carried out mostly in the propaganda organs of the state. The face of the adversary which Pakatan and their supporters stared at was not the face that Tunku Aziz beheld. Most often his utterances of his abhorrence of governmental malfeasances come off sounding like an exasperated parent irritated at a wayward child.

Make no mistake, I think it was a provocative and honourable move on Tunku Aziz's part to become the very public Malay face of the DAP even if it was just a symbolic gesture, but the way how he chose to depart from the DAP makes a mockery of his protestations of honour and dignity. DAP on the other hand is nicely building a track record of public relations ineptitude and perhaps more distressing (if you are a Pakatan supporter committed to the ideals DAP claims to represent), a record of being uncharitable towards dissent from within their own ranks. I have no problem with Tunku Aziz's stand on the Bersih 3.0 rally. In fact I know may people who agree with him. I welcome a plurality of views within a political party or political alliance.

Although I think that the Tunku's reasoning for objecting to the rally on the grounds that the Bersih steering committee rejected the government's offer of holding it at Stadium Merdeka and his views towards street protests in general are faulty, I don't think (like some Pakatan representatives and supporters) this is anything that warrants any kind of censure. As you can tell, I am not a firm believer in toeing the party line all the time.

However, following the dictates of your conscience does not mean playing into the hands (willingly or unwillingly) of those who only harbour malice towards the political party you have pledge your loyalty to. The honourable, nay dignified, avenue of expression of his dissent would be the party's own propaganda organs or failing which the "alternative media", all the while maintaining a dignified silence when it came to the mainstream media. This way even though the mainstream media would have picked up the story, the Tunku's silence (in the manner in which he chooses to engage with the media) would have been a clear sign of where his loyalties lay.

Instead by waging his war in the mainstream press, by announcing his departure from the DAP on ntv7 for instance, what Tunku Aziz has done is to ensure that whatever dignified exit he claims to want is mired in the gutter politics and shadow-play drama which characterises the Malaysian political landscape. By heaping scorn on DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, the tone of which is reminiscent of that emanating from Utusan Malaysia and its ilk, one can only surmise that Tunku Aziz for whatever reason is engaging in mischief-making for reasons I'll leave to the conspiracy theorists to articulate.

DAP fails to play card right
Of course, all this could have been avoided if the DAP played their cards right. Why they seem so eager to supply their enemies with ammunition is something which has always amused me. From the start, they should have just accepted and politely disagreed with Tunku Aziz's stand on Bersih 3.0. They should have made it clear, especially when it comes to highly-charged issues such as these, that there is room for party members to express their dissent.

Understand now, the avenues these dissenters choose to express their views in is extremely important and what separates an honourable individual and a suspect one, is how much thought they have put into how and when they choose to express their dissent. If the first thing you do is run to the propaganda organs of your party's rivals, then I question the motives of your dissent. And even after having announced his resignation from the party in a rather uncouth manner, the DAP continued to douse the media bonfire with gasoline by making this rather ridiculous offer of a think-tank job to Tunku Aziz.

To me, the offer would only be insulting (in this context) if the person being offered the job had a principled leg to stand but as is, the offer comes of as politically naïve or downright repellent, even more so, when the political secretary to Lim, Zairil Mohd Khir protests that the offer had been "misconstrued". If the tables were turned and it was Umno doing the "offering", nobody would give them the benefit of the doubt.

If as Zairil seems to think that Tunku Aziz was a "public intellectual" with a valuable "global network", then perhaps he should have been handled in a different way. Perhaps the powers-that-be at the DAP should have made it clear they welcomed his input even though they sometimes disagreed with it and his position as senator would be renewed.

If his position within the party was untenable because of certain of his ideological stances, offering him a position in a so-called think-tank most probably aligned with the DAP reeks of the kind of political back-scratching that Umno is very famous for. In my experience, if a man is determined to fall on his sword, it is best to stay out of the way of the blood spatter. The moral of the story here is that the DAP should apply a little more common sense when dealing with dissent from within their ranks and they should be thankful of the extreme partisan nature of this conflict because if voters were not as polarised as they are now and had a little objectivity to spare, some of the actions of the DAP would not stand up to scrutiny.

As for Tunku Abdul Aziz, he doesn't get to play the ‘honourable exit' card. His actions in the past few days have effectively destroyed whatever bit of myth-making was due his way.

Henceforth, what will be disseminated by the bigots who despise DAP is the narrative of how another Malay intellectual was ejected from the party which does not tolerate dissent. On the other hand, supporters of DAP will always be wary of Trojan horses within the Malay ranks of the party. And the show goes on. Malaysiakini

But still I have to say, you play with matches you get burned - Vincent Vega (Pulp Fiction)

COMMENT The most interesting twist so far of this post-Bersih 3.0 ongoing tale is the subversion of Umno's continued use of Islam as a fear mongering tool to divide Malaysians. Except now, their own weapon is being used against them, with PAS coming out as the moderate Islamic party powered by populist (Muslim and non-Muslim) appeal. Every time the propaganda organs of Umno spew their particular brand of Islam, PAS has to say or do very little except wait for the kudos from the expected section of an extremely partisan public.

In the old days, Umno played the bait-and-switch game, on the one hand, demonising PAS as an Islamic mullah inspired religious entity hell bent on turning Malaysia into some sort of greater Caliphate and in the other, carrying out its own Arabisation/Islamisation programme that effectively decimated all levels of the government, education and social services, turning them into ‘Malay/Muslim' entities which were merely reflections of Umno hegemony. PAS in those days were Quran-thumping firebrand preachers disinterested in the multicultural/religious nature of Malaysian society insofar as it conflicted with their own interpretations of the holy text.

Those were the days when they, unfettered by the so-called moderate (and politically savvy) ‘Erdogans' and when they were not playing into Umno's hand by graciously shooting themselves in the foot, their hidden more benign interactions with non-Muslims (in Kelantan for instance) was buried deep in whispered anecdotal evidence because of the subservience of a mainstream press and the lack of any sustained form of information dissemination - no Internet folks.

Moderate face of Islam

With the emergence of PKR, Anwar Ibrahim's ‘third way' and the rise of the alternative online media, a few kinks had to be ironed out before any form of mutually beneficial opposition pact could be conceived. The results of pre-2008 general elections demonstrated this was a far trickier proposition for Pakatan Rakyat, hampered by the feel-good atmosphere of a post-Mahathir retirement and the slumber years of the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi regime. Just as the DAP had to shed it ‘chauvinistic' image, PAS had to shed its fundamentalist reputation in favour of a more inclusiveness ‘secular' perspective.

The main criticism coming from Umno and its component party mouthpieces is the tenuous ties that bind Pakatan, the consequence of which make them ‘unsuitable' to run the country. It must drive MCA crazy that the more they sound the ‘Islamic' peril cry against the DAP, the more it seems to make those Chinese - who have made the pragmatic decision to back the opposition - to support Pakatan even more and label the MCA as a bigoted chauvinistic party intent on dividing Malaysians along racial/religious lines. And let's not forget the head scratching which is going in Umno. Every time Utusan Malaysia attempts to slanderously question PAS' Islamic credentials, the results have been counter productive.

The run-up to PAS' internal elections was a badly managed psych war by Utusan on behalf of Umno which resulted in the emergence of the so-called Erdogans as custodians for the time being of PAS. This no doubt warmed the hearts of Pakatan supporters hoping for a moderate face of Islam and had the hawks in Umno screeching in dismay.

What Umno's incompetence has managed to achieve is that any rational discussion on the role of Islam in this country's future has been distorted by partisan rhetoric and the regime's own history of religious malfeasance's. But more importantly for Pakatan supporters and non-partisan skeptics, it has become impossible to rationally discuss PAS' commitment to the inclusive more secular ethos of Pakatan.

Big Bad Extremist Muslim wolf

So far Pakatan has managed to do extremely well in allowing Umno to play the Big Bad Extremist Muslim wolf, all the while putting PAS' own Islamic preoccupations in the back-burner. In situations where a unified Pakatan response has been warranted against perceived Islamic ‘interference', the response has been muted. In communities where PAS has had some influence, there have always been some simmering tensions.

The banning of the sale of alcohol for instance started of as a PAS misstep and then turned into a ‘Umno said, PAS said' debacle. The fact that this was resolved by Pakatan is a hopeful sign that contentious issues can be worked out amicably, but there are long-term questions that have to be asked. And let's not forget the issue of caning for those unlucky Muslims consuming alcohol which has never been satisfactorily addressed by PAS. The issue of marginalised groups such as the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community or the ‘cultural distortion' of Orang Asli communities for instance has been sidelined for the ‘greater good' of claiming Putrajaya.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, it looks as if we are heading into "separate but equal" territory which should play well for most Pakatan supporters, but is detrimental to a truly Malaysian identity. Furthermore, the National Fatwa Council's edict on demonstrations is rather strange considering the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Tahrir Square rallies which the Brotherhood claimed was mandated by God.

Of course, Hosni Mubarak's state-sanctioned imams always made pronouncements that favoured his ‘ruling party', so perhaps there is some commonality between Egypt and Malaysia, after all. Saudi Arabia's response to the Arab Spring was a crackdown on dissidents (mostly in their words, "extremist provocateurs") and grant generous "windfalls" to the public totalling billions of dollars. And so far the going has been good for Pakatan. Where once PAS Youth were a feared bunch perceived as destabilising the social multicultural/religious fabric of Malaysian society with their protest against anything deemed unIslamic, now its Amal security unit lads are looked upon as heroes fulfilling the role of maintaining the peace in large demonstrations or public-speaking events, a role the police seem to have abdicated. I have many PAS friends, who believe in the democratic process but who believe that the ‘Islamic struggle' has been sidelined. They fear speaking up since they would be labeled as Umno stooges.

Understand now that I disagree with the aims of these PAS friends of mine, but my point here is that what Umno has done is merely create an atmosphere where the more fundamentalist impulses of PAS is submerged by the feel-good rhetoric of Pakatan.

Revival of the ISA

When former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad called for people to give a large mandate to PM Najib Razak so the dreaded ISA would be revived so that communists would not be allowed to return to the country and (this is the hilarious part) "a religious extremist party" would be halted.

Question: Would the ISA be used to ban Ibrahim Ali or is he not considered a religious extremist?

With the likes of Perkasa and Pekida running about "defending Islam" without any sanctions from the government, PAS is coming out smelling like roses, all the while nobody questioning their commitment to Islam or how they will navigate the tumultuous waters of a post-Umno era. In other words, nobody is really interested in discovering if the thorns in these roses has been clipped. The sight of Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat (pictured in a yellow shirt) ‘disagreeing' with the National Fatwa Council is further evidence that the religious psych war carried out by Umno is having contrary results.

Nobody remembers the more ‘dodgy' religious edicts that have come from PAS. The benign visage of Tok Guru has become the symbol of a kinder gentler PAS and Pakatan supporters continuously bombarded by the malfeasances of Umno and the religious bigotry that the regime perpetuates through its outsourced thugs are more than willing to conveniently forget that at the end of the day, PAS - a religious party - is the backbone of Pakatan.

This should not be construed as a fear-mongering comment piece on PAS (indeed in many of my articles, I have been rather sympathetic to this particular political party) but rather a reminder that we should not be lulled into forgetting that Islam, and who ever controls it in Malaysia, will have a profound effect on how we evolve as a society.

If we don't learn how to ask the difficult questions now, don't be surprised when we get the simple answers regardless of who we vote for. Or as Tariq Ramadan reminds us, "If there is a smoke, there is a fire, the saying goes. That is quite true, but one should find what the fire is, and who lit it." Malaysiakini.

In May 1967, in brazen violation of previous truce agreements, Egypt ordered U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai, marched 120,000 troops to the Israeli border, blockaded Eilat (Israel’s southern outlet to the world’s oceans), abruptly signed a military pact with Jordan, and, together with Syria, pledged war for the final destruction of Israel. May ’67 was Israel’s most fearful, desperate month. The country was surrounded and alone. Previous great-power guarantees proved worthless. A plan to test the blockade with a Western flotilla failed for lack of participants. Time was running out. Forced to protect against invasion by mass mobilization — and with a military consisting overwhelmingly of civilian reservists — life ground to a halt. The country was dying.On June 5, Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts. The Six-Day War is legend, but less remembered is that on June 1, the nationalist opposition (Menachem Begin’s Likud precursor) was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national-unity coalition. Everyone understood why.

You do not undertake a supremely risky preemptive war without the full participation of a broad coalition representing a national consensus. Forty-five years later, in the middle of the night of May 7–8, 2012, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked his country by bringing the main opposition party, Kadima, into a national-unity government — shocking because just hours earlier, the Knesset was expediting a bill to call early elections in September. Why did the high-flying Netanyahu call off elections he was sure to win? Because for Israelis today, it is May ’67. The dread is not quite as acute: The mood is not despair, just foreboding. Time is running out, but not quite as fast. War is not four days away, but it looms. Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence — apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation acquiring nuclear weapons — since May ’67.

The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found — as in ’67 — Israelis know they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves. Such a fateful decision demands a national consensus. By creating the largest coalition in nearly three decades, Netanyahu is establishing the political premise for a preemptive strike, should it come to that. The new government commands an astonishing 94 Knesset seats out of 120, described by one Israeli columnist as a “hundred tons of solid concrete.” Forty-five years later, in the middle of the night of May 7–8, 2012, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked his country by bringing the main opposition party, Kadima, into a national-unity government — shocking because just hours earlier, the Knesset was expediting a bill to call early elections in September.

Why did the high-flying Netanyahu call off elections he was sure to win? Because for Israelis today, it is May ’67. The dread is not quite as acute: The mood is not despair, just foreboding. Time is running out, but not quite as fast. War is not four days away, but it looms. Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence — apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation acquiring nuclear weapons — since May ’67. The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found — as in ’67 — Israelis know they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves.

 Such a fateful decision demands a national consensus. By creating the largest coalition in nearly three decades, Netanyahu is establishing the political premise for a preemptive strike, should it come to that. The new government commands an astonishing 94 Knesset seats out of 120, described by one Israeli columnist as a “hundred tons of solid concrete.”Continue here to   Page 2 of the National Review Next