The Sorry Shape of the Malaysian Ship of State

M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com


A nation is like a boat on a river. Face the craft in the wrong direction and it would end up downstream in the marshy delta in short order, with minimal or no effort. It would languish there in the mud, at the mercy of the tides and floods. Face your boat sideways to head for the comfort of the nearby shore and you risk being broadsided by the current. Even if your boat were to face upstream, you could still end up downstream, albeit more slowly, for lack of paddling.

 By facing our boat upstream and paddling hard, Malaysians have achieved much and traversed many superior fishing grounds as well as enjoyed numerous beautiful sights. Malaysians have also met and mingled with many upstream people, folks used to and comfortable in waters that are fresh, cool, and clean. Now we too aspire for that; we too want the waters around us to be free of the jetsam and flotsam. However, we can only get that by going upstream.

 In the past with our preoccupation with moving our craft upstream we have forgotten the elementary caution of keeping it steady. The faster we paddle, the more we need to do so lest we risk capsizing our craft. Further, the steadier and more streamlined our craft is, the faster we would progress. If we rock our boat we have to expend the extra effort to maintain its stability and speed. Eddies and other turbulences impede the flow as well as jeopardize our craft’s stability; likewise, if our hull were encrusted with barnacles.

 Malaysia was rudely reminded of this grim reality back in 1969. Then the ship of state was moving forward quite steadily, but not fast enough to the satisfaction of some. Those dissatisfied began rocking the craft instead of helping paddle it forward faster. The consequence was disastrous; the nation was torn asunder by a vicious race riot. No sane Malaysian would want to repeat that experience.

 Today the ship of state that is Malaysia is not moving upstream as fast as we were used to or are potentially capable of. Malaysians are rightly dissatisfied. This frustration is made more acute when we see neighboring ships that were once by our side or way in our rear now fast overtaking us.

 Our collective response thus far to this unhappy turn of events is anything but inspiring. It is downright frightening, echoing with frightening eeriness what we did during that dark period leading to 1969. Now, as then, we are preoccupied with who gets to steer, be on the top deck, and to sit at the captain’s table. We are busy rearranging the deck chairs and not paying attention to where we are headed. The lookout person has abandoned his post and is busy lobbying for the best spot on deck. Little did he realize that when the ship is broadsided by a rogue wave, even the best spot would be swamped.

 All on board are busy looking inwards, not to study and solve the problem but to blame each other, that is, when they are not busy elbowing each other to get the choicest spot. I wonder when the Titanic was listing dangerously whether those pampered guests in the upper deck were still frenetically trying to secure dinner invitations from their captain.

 In a boat you are either help, or by default, load; there is no in-between. Likewise in society; you are either an asset or liability, part of the solution or part of the problem, contributor to or dependent on the state. Ballast is necessary for stability even though it slows down the craft. One could argue that the sultans are a heavy unnecessary load (financially and in many other ways) thus slowing our nation-boat, they serve as a necessary ballast to keep the ship of state stable. However, it is worth reminding that ballast in a ship is put at its lowest point to effect maximal stability. If you put the ballast on deck or way high up, you invite instability.

 In a democratic ship of state, all on board have a say on who gets to be skipper, be in the upper deck, or even be on board. To the extent that the Malaysian ship of state is now facing the wrong direction, being skippered by a less-than-competent captain, heavily weighed down by freeloaders, and slowed down by encrusting barnacles, citizens have only themselves to blame.

 There are only two options for Malaysians. One is to jump ship. That option is available to only a select few, those fortunate to have the skills needed by the other faster and more gleaming ships. For the rest, jumping from one slow, leaky, and rat-infested craft to another is no progress, quite apart from the risks involved. Even those fortunate enough to land on a sleeker ship, there is no guarantee that they would be on the same deck level; far too often they would be consigned below deck. Only the lucky few would have upgraded cabins in their new ship. Even for those fortunate few, the thoughts and memories of those they leave behind cannot help but diminish the pleasure of their upgraded status.

 For the vast majority, the more sensible solution would be to work at getting their ship in Bristol condition, facing the right direction, and being skippered by a competent captain. We cannot achieve those goals if we remain insular or eye each other with suspicion. Collectively we have to scan the wide horizon, study the other ships, and read the waves below. We have to discern the clouds as well as feel the wind, its force and direction. Most importantly, we have to exercise our best judgment in picking our captain and insist that he picks a competent crew.

 Then after having done our due diligence, even if we do not agree on the final destination chosen by our skipper, at least we could enjoy the sail. At the very least our journey would be safer; we would not likely be stranded on a dangerous reef or be swamped by a rogue wave. Who knows, while we may not share the same final port of call, there may be many along the way that we would like to visit together.

 That is what an unshackled mind could do for us. A free mind would give us the serenity to accept things that we cannot change, the courage to change things that we can, and the wisdom to know the difference, to quote Neibuhr’s serenity prayer.

 Malaysia achieved political independence more than half a century ago, but mentally Malaysians are still very much entrapped. The battle cry for this new century should be, “Merdeka Minda Melayu!” (Liberate the Malay Mind!), and we should pursue this noble goal with the same vigor, passion, and determination as our forefathers did with Merdeka Tanah Melayu.

 Today Malaysia is in disarray; its skipper corrupt, incompetent, and far from being diligent; his crew tired, distracted and indifferent. The ship of state is headed in the wrong direction, and there are many shoals and reefs ahead. The wind is building up and the water increasingly choppy. The wakes of overtaking ships are battering us. Worse, those ships were once way behind us. We are being shackled by needlessly intrusive and abusive rules that were meant for a different era when the ship was skippered by other than our own people. Now our own leaders are exploiting those rules to further their own nefarious needs. On deck, the ballast is rising to the top, threatening our stability.

 We fail to appreciate these cruel realities because our minds are trapped into thinking otherwise; hence my call for Merdeka Minda Melayu. We have to have a free mind to appreciate the stark realities we are under and not let our leaders delude us into thinking otherwise. We need a free mind to work ourselves out from under these myriad burdens lest we condemn ourselves and future generations along the same perilous course that has led us to where we are today.

 A free mind cannot be willed upon; there is no magic wand out there. We have to strive hard – very hard – at liberating our minds, just as hard, if not more so, as we did in liberating our native land. It is a worthy and noble pursuit; a closed mind is the worst prison.

 We should disabuse ourselves of the false comfort of life underneath the coconut shell. That world with its coziness, familiarity and predictability is no heaven; it is in fact a prison, and a very cruel one at that. That shell is no protector, it is an oppressor. It prevents us, as Allah’s vice-regents in this temporal world, from enjoying His Many Blessings that is this vast universe with all its beauty, bounty and diversity. Remaining underneath the coconut shell means we are not appreciative of Allah’s gift. And that would the greatest show of disrespect.

Adapted from the author’s book, Liberating The Malay Mind, published by ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya, 2013. The second edition was released in January 2016.

posted by M. Bakri Musa

The False Comfort and Security Underneath the Coconut Shell

The North Koreans are convinced that they live in Paradise because their “Beloved Leader” tells them so. Never mind that they wake up every morning with nothing to look forward to, and go to sleep at night on an empty stomach. Likewise, Malaysian leaders never tire of telling us that they are competent and honest despite the mess the country is in, while they luxuriate in palatial mansions and citizens struggle to eke out a living. Those leaders could not possibly afford such obscene opulence just on their government wages. However, express your doubts and you stand accused of being blasphemous, disloyal, or even traitorous.

            Returning to the coconut shell metaphor, that little (or even big) frog can be smug about his world and claim to comprehend and be in full command of it. After all what is there to understand or command? His world is dark and small. He is the only one to obey his orders!

            What that proverbial Señor Froggie does not appreciate is that his universe, huge as it may seem to him, is nothing but a speck.

            Those on the outside may be tempted to lord it over the unfortunate entrapped frog. We may even pity it. However, as Pramoedya noted in his Child of All Nations, “Pity is the feeling of well-intentioned people who are unable to act.” Impotent, we assuage what little guilt we may harbor by rationalizing that the poor soul is probably quite happy with his lot. That may well be; after all you do not miss what you do not know or have.

            Malays face many forces, subtle as well as brute, that keep us cooped under our coconut shell. The subtle ones include the feudal elements of our culture, as with our ready acceptance of our fate (takdir) and our meek acceptance of and deference to authority figures. Then there are our schools and universities; they indoctrinate our young instead of teaching them to think critically. We are also easily taken in with labels; call something “Islamic” and we fall for it right away, suspending our critical judgment. I understand that they are working on an “Islamic” beer! Our leaders exploit this by labeling those they disagree with as anti-Islam, “anti-nationals,” or “unpatriotic.” We in turn are only too ready to believe those labels. The current puerile debate over halal and haram is a manifestation of this meaningless obsession.

            As for the brute forces, there are the intrusive and repressive laws like the dreadful Internal Security Act where a minister has absolute power to incarcerate citizens without trial. Now Malaysia has the National Security Act of 2016 with even more unchecked powers given to the authorities. Again, note those labels; those laws are not for our “security” but to keep us subservient.

            No mortal should ever have unchecked and absolute power. As the Sudanese reformer Mahmoud Mohamad Taha observed, “No person is perfect enough to be entrusted with the liberty and dignity of others.” We need effective checks and balances, and respect for due process. Those are not niceties but necessities. Do not let any mullah, regardless how impressive his title or big his turban is, tell you otherwise. You would be a donkey to believe him.

            Three daunting obstacles face our entrapped citizen frog in escaping from underneath his coconut shell. The first and greatest is to instill in him the realization that he is indeed trapped, and then to ignite in him the desire to escape; second, help him escape or topple that shell; and third, assist him to adjust to his new open world.

            The first obstacle is the toughest. Far too often we lack even the awareness of being trapped. We remain blissfully ignorant. This awareness is crucial but by itself is not enough; we must also then have the desire to escape. For that to happen, we must first be dissatisfied with our current state.

            It may seem perverse but there are those who are content to remain underneath their shell, readily accepting their fate as Allah’s will–al qadar (divinely destined). Who are we to challenge His design?

            Then there is the universal power of inertia; we are comfortable with the status quo. Besides, it has served our parents, and their parents and even grandparents well. Again, who are we to alter tradition?
   
       As for ambition, that would only upset mankind, as Pramoedya noted in his short story, Djongos dan Babu (Houseboy and Maid). That family destined themselves to be slaves forever. If God were to pity them, their thirtieth generation would have descended so low as to be no longer humans but worms crawling inside the earth, wrote Pramoedya.

            The coconut shell world of Sabu and Ina (the sibling characters in that story) was tossed over many times, yet they still sought to be underneath one. The Dutch enslaved them, but when the colonial world collapsed, instead of liberating themselves they chose to be enslaved under the Japanese. When the Japanese were defeated, the pair again chose to be enslaved, this time by the returning Dutch. Happy to be perpetual slaves they refused to be free with their fellow Indonesians, deeming themselves “too good” to be with their fellow dirty, brown natives.

            History is replete with examples of external upheavals resulting in the inadvertent toppling of shells. Trapped underneath we are not even aware up until then of the external cataclysms. Only when all of a sudden, we find ourselves in a new, open and much bigger world do we realized that we had been cooped up all along.

            Those who destined themselves to be eternal slaves (or accept their fate) like Pramoedya’s Sabu and Ina would find this new world far from welcoming; in fact, it would be downright frightening. They would then scramble to find new shells to hide under, like hermit crabs exposed after the onslaught of a tidal wave. For others, the external upheaval that toppled their shell would be a welcomed transforming event.

Next:  Paths Toward Toppling Our Coconut Shell



Excerpted from the author’s book, Liberating The Malay Mind, published by ZI Publications.
posted by M. Bakri Mus

Toppling The Malay Coconut Shell

M. Bakri Musa


 The Malay coconut shell had been toppled many times in our history, and not necessarily through our own efforts, as when those early Muslim traders entered our world. They came to trade but through their exemplary day-to-day activities and conduct, they upended our core belief system. Those Muslim traders transformed Malays from believing in multiple deities to a one All-Powerful and All-Encompassing God. That did not change our physical world but it was momentous nonetheless precisely because of that. We adapted to that new world in a smooth and seamless transition. We became better for it.

 The colonials too flipped over our shell. Unlike those Muslims traders, the changes the colonials brought about were physical and demographic, as when they flooded the country with immigrants to work the tin mines and rubber estates. Those colonialists also made their presence known in no uncertain terms, to the natives as well as immigrants, who was in charge.

 We cursed the colonials for upending our familiar comfortable world. Nonetheless their flipping over our coconut shell exposed us to a new and much wider world. At the micro or personal level, if not for the colonials I would still today be an orang hamba (slave) at the istana (palace), just like my ancestors. There are others who argue that the colonialism itself was a form of slavery. That may well be so.

 At the macro or societal level, the British colonials (though not the earlier Dutch or Portuguese) introduced modern education. Thousands benefited from that. To be sure, those colonials did not do that with much enthusiasm nor funded it with bountiful generosity. They did it in portions just enough to satisfy their collective conscience and to meet their pragmatic need for locally qualified people to help them rule us more effectively and, not to be discounted, cheaply.

 There were other less appreciated but nonetheless significant and enduring benefits of colonial rule. That may not be a politically correct assertion to make, nonetheless the British gave us Munshi Abdullah. If not for them, he too would be another indentured laborer at the istana, and Malay literature would remain nothing more than the chronicles of khayalan (fantasies).

 Another global cataclysm that toppled the metaphorical coconut shell of our Malay world was World War II. While the colonialists’ entry forced a sea change in our Malay way of life and matters physical, the Japanese invasion triggered even more. They not only changed the country physically, and it was a very terrible change, but also and of much greater significance and permanence, triggered a momentous change in the Malay psyche.

 The sight of those hitherto invincible white Tuans and their Mems scurrying in their Austins and Morris Minors chased by the short, yellow Japanese on their sardine can-made bicycles made quite an impact on the collective natives’ psyche:  The myth of white supremacy forever shattered! It was this that emboldened Malays to pursue with even greater vigor our independence.

 While external upheavals can topple our coconut shell, we cannot always count on them or predict the outcome to be in our favor. Nor could we anticipate the costs we would have to bear, which was considerable as we saw with colonialism and the Japanese Occupation. That is a crucial caveat. It would be much more preferable for us to make our own effort at toppling our shell. Then we could control its timing and thus minimize the collateral damage. We would also be more likely to get the changes we desired.

 Toppling our coconut shell begins with our freeing ourselves mentally to imagine the world beyond the present. That is the crucial first step. Once we can imagine, then we can fly, or in the words of the great Muhammad Ali, “A man who has no imagination has no wings.”

 Imagination rules the world, Napoleon once said. Once one’s imagination is ignited, there is no going back; our shell will be toppled. The question then will be whether it is done with great care so as not to incur collateral damages, or recklessly as in the rampage of a revolution. The former is preferable. However, as the promises of flipping our shell are so great, the fear of the latter should not deter us.

 A sure way of igniting our imagination is to be dissatisfied with our present condition. Change, and thus progress, depends on us not being satisfied with the status quo. Once we have this sense of dissatisfaction or even better, anger, that would motivate us to topple over and get out from underneath our shell. Immigrants are successful in their adopted land because they are driven by dissatisfaction with their native land.

 A major obstacle for Malays specifically and Muslims generally is our ingrained but misguided notion of satisfaction with the status quo, al qadar – our fate is written in the book – the passive acceptance that there is not much that we can do to alter our destiny. This destructive religious determinism is just as crippling as the pseudo modern biological one – our fate lies with our genes. The latter is from our misunderstanding of science; the former, the misreading of our faith.

 There is much that we can do at the individual level to fire up our imagination. Merely looking at and being curious of the wonderful world around and within us would open up our minds. Observing the stars above had triggered many an imagination. With it, Copernicus transformed our view of the universe from a geocentric one that we inherited from the Greeks to a heliocentric one. Many a theological and other shells were shattered by that singular observation.

 Exposing ourselves to the imagination of others is another, as with the old storytelling. Today it would be reading. Pictures and videos both expand and restrict that reach. It expands because of the richness of the images; restricts because the photographer or videographer imposes her imagination upon her viewers! Travel and experiencing other cultures too stretch our imagination. Mystics go into seclusion for extended periods to force a change in the normal rhythm of their lives to effect similar ends.

 At the societal level, the proven pathways towards igniting our imagination and thus liberating our minds include information, education, and our involvement in trade and commerce.

 Once we are aware through education, information and our travels or trading activities that there is a much wider world out there, then we are not likely to be satisfied with our own confined dark space no matter how comfortable it may seem to us at the time or what a paradise it is as per the repeated assurances of our leaders.

 All three – information, education, and commerce – apart from opening up our minds and facilitating the toppling of our shell, are also the best ways to prepare us for the new open world. The following chapters will deal with each of these elements. Before proceeding, I pause and reassess where we are, the direction we are headed, and the destination we aspire to reach.

Adapted from the author’s book, Liberating The Malay Mind, published by ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya, 2013. The second edition was released in January 2016.

posted by M. Bakri Musa

The Malay Dilemma Revisited. Race Dynamics in Modern Malaysia. Updated Edition 2017

The Malay Dilemma Revisited: Race Dynamics In Modern Malaysia - Updated Edition

List Price: $19.90  (April 2017)
6" x 9" (15.24 x 22.86 cm)
Black & White on Cream paper
408 pages
ISBN-13: 978-1543242423 (CreateSpace-Assigned)
ISBN-10: 1543242421
LCCN: 2017903018
BISAC: Political Science / Public Affairs & Administration

Few countries today have culturally or ethnically homogenous populations, the consequence of colonization, globalization, and mass migrations. Thus, the Malaysian dilemma of socioeconomic and other inequities paralleling racial and cultural divisions has global relevance as it also burdens many nations.

Malaysia’s basic instrument in ameliorating these horizontal (between groups) inequities has been its New Economic Policy (NEP). Its core mechanism being preferential socio-economic and other initiatives favoring indigenous Malays and other non-immigrant minorities, as well as massive state interventions in the marketplace. In place since 1970 in the aftermath of the deadly 1969 race riots, NEP has been continuously “strengthened,” meaning, ever increasing resources expended and preferences being imposed with greater assertiveness.

Malaysia succeeded to some degree in reducing her earlier inequities and in the process created a sizeable Malay middle class. There was however, a steep price. Apart from the marketplace distortions and consequent drag on the economy, those earlier horizontal inequities are now replaced by the more destabilizing vertical variety. NEP also bred a rentier- economy mindset among Malays and other recipient communities. Those preferences now impair rather than enhance the recipents' (in particular Malay) competitiveness, the universal law of unintended consequences being operative.

Initiated by Prime Minister Razak in 1970, his successor, Mahathir, raised NEP to a much more aggressive level, only to have that initiative today corrupted and degraded by, ironically, Tun Razak’s son, current Prime Minister Najib. By July 2016, the US Department of Justice alleges that “Malaysian Official 1” (aka Najib) illicitly siphoned over US$3.5 Billion from a government-linked corporation, 1MDB. Corruption on such a gargantuan scale was the predictable and inevitable consequence of Malaysia’s New Economic Policy and state interventions in the marketplace.

Ths book chronicles Mahathir’s and Najib’s perversion of a once noble endeavor. Najib now adds another volatile mix. Desperate to hang on to power, he adds religious fanaticism to his already corrosive corruption and destructive incomptence. He now cavorts with extremist Islamists, threatening and undermining the nation’s still fragile race dynamics. Malaysia is today still burdened and blighted by Najib’s inept, corrupt, and chauvinistic leadership, with no end in sight. This would inevitably undermone the current fragile but still peaceful racial equilibrium in the country.

Instead of arbitrarily-picked numbers and targets, Malaysia should focus on strengthening Malay competitiveness through enhancing our human and social capitals. Modernizing the education system to emphasize the sciences, mathematics, English fluency, and technical training would address the first. Curtailing royal institutions and other vestiges of feudalism, as well as the regressive form of religion as propagated by the state, would develop the second. It is difficult to wean Malays off the special privilege narcotic when the sultans are frolicking at the top of the heap.

Beyond chronicling the failures of both the Najib and Mahathir Administrations, the author offers these alternative strategies for enhancing Malay competitiveness. Apart from improving the quality of our human and social capital through modern education and responsive institutions, the author advocates removing or at least toning down the stifling influence of official religion.
posted by M. Bakri Musa

Trump’s Simplistic Strategy on Jihadism

by Robin Wright

http://www.newyorker.com

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Trump Speaks to the Muslim World in Riyadh"

Trying to appease Saudi Arabia and the Muslim World and isolate Iran

Six days after the 9/11 attacks, in 2001, President George W. Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington to dampen fears of a clash of civilizations between the Islamic world and the West. “The face of terror is not the true face of Islam,” he said. “Islam is peace.” Three days later, at a joint session of Congress, Bush defined the challenge from Al Qaeda in political rather than religious or cultural terms. “This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom,” he told Congress. “This will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world.” A central theme of Bush’s Presidency was fostering democracy through nation-building.

President Barack Obama’s main speech to the Islamic world, in 2009, called for a “new beginning” between Muslim and Western nations, noting “civilization’s debt to Islam.” Declaring to Cairo University students that “we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems,” he, too, envisioned political and economic solutions to countering extremism.

“All people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose,” Obama said. “Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” He also outlined plans to spend billions in U.S. aid to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and to help those displaced by conflicts in the Islamic world.

Donald Trump took a starkly different tack during the campaign. “I think Islam hates us,” Trump told Anderson Cooper, on CNN, fourteen months ago. He told both MSNBC and Fox News that he’d be willing to close mosques in the United States.  At the Presidential debate last October, in Las Vegas, he was particularly critical of Saudi Arabia. “These are people that push gays off buildings,” he said. “These are people that kill women and treat women horribly, and yet you take their money.” He continued the theme in his first days in office, with an executive order that banned travel from seven countries (later downgraded to six) with predominantly Muslim populations. It was ruled unlawful by U.S. courts, but the Trump Administration is still appealing the decision.

On Sunday(May 21), on his first trip abroad as President, Trump tried to hit the reset button in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. He heralded Islam as “one of the world’s great faiths,” and his visit as the beginning of “a new chapter” between the United States and the Islamic world. In a palace of dazzling opulence, he spoke to dozens of leaders assembled by the Saudis from the Arab and Muslim world. In turn, the oil-rich kingdom, which is weathering its own political and military turmoil, treated him like royalty, with billboards across the Saudi capital covered with Trump’s face.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Trump Speaks to the Muslim World in Riyadh"
Trump does not the know the difference between Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabish and Iran’s Shiaism

Trump’s main message was  that Muslims must do more—much more—to fight militants who have proliferated from North Africa to South Asia since 9/11. “The nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them,” he said. Reading slowly off a teleprompter, Trump urged, even demanded, “Drive them out! Drive them out of your places of worship! Drive them out of your communities! Drive them out of your holy land! And drive them out of this earth!”

Some of Trump’s language about Islam was right out of the Bush-Obama playbook. “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations,” he said. “This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion.” He declared it “a battle between good and evil.”

Trump notably did not use one of his favorite terms—“radical Islamic terrorism.” His national-security adviser, H. R. McMaster, has tried to get the President to avoid using the term, at least in public. During the campaign, Trump railed against Obama for not using it—and even charged that “anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country.” In Riyadh, Trump’s original speech called for him, instead, to talk about “Islamist extremism.” He veered off script, however, and talked about “confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds.” Many Muslims are sensitive to the implication that Islam and extremism are synonymous.

Trump’s strategy differed most strikingly from Bush’s and Obama’s in its largely military approach to extremism. One of the top objectives of his maiden foreign tour is to create a coalition of Arab and Muslim countries to tackle extremism, confront Iran, and foster peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The coalition has been informally dubbed an “Arab NATO“.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Trump Speaks to the Muslim World in Riyadh"
First Lady Melania Trump watches as President Donald Trump poses for photographs with leaders at Arab Islamic American Summit, at the King Abdulaziz Conference Center, Sunday, May 21, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The President seems to have largely abandoned notions of promoting political openings or addressing economic grievances that have fuelled so much of the dissent and militancy, especially among Arab youth. Even oil-rich Saudi Arabia has high youth unemployment, estimated to exceed thirty per cent. The kingdom has produced thousands of jihadis who have joined both ISIS and Al Qaeda.

“We are not here to lecture,” Trump told the Muslim leaders, who were seated on throne-like leather chairs under enormous crystal chandeliers. “We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all.”

Trump framed his counterterrorism policy in Let’s-Make-a-Deal terms: Washington will sell weaponry to the Arabs, which will in turn create defense-industry jobs in the United States. In his speech, the President digressed from the main theme to claim that his Administration has created almost a million new jobs—adding that the kingdom’s pledge to invest billions more in the United States would create thousands more new jobs.

As a candidate, Trump repeatedly complained that the United States got very little from its relationship with the kingdom. “Tell Saudi Arabia and others that we want (demand!) free oil for the next ten years or we will not protect their private Boeing 747s. Pay up!” Trump tweeted, in 2014.

That year, he also tweeted, “I just want to know how much is Saudi Arabia and others who we are helping willing to pay for our saving from total extinction. Pay up now!” In 2015, he tweeted that Saudi Arabia “must pay dearly! NO FREEBIES.”

In Riyadh, however, he bragged about the low prices his Administration was offering the Saudis. “We will be sure to help our Saudi friends to get a good deal from our great American defense companies.” His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, reportedly intervened personally with Lockheed to negotiate a better deal for the Saudis.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Jared Kushner--The Middle East Peace Maker"
Nepotism in 1600 Penn. Avenue, Washington DC

In one of his more astonishing comments, the President expressed optimism about the future of the Middle East, despite wars in Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria that have killed hundreds of thousands; the greatest humanitarian and refugee crises since the Second World War; and the return of authoritarian rule—disasters which have dashed the hopes sparked by the Arab Spring.

“The potential of this region has never been greater,” Trump told the Muslim leaders assembled in Riyadh. Maybe it was the brilliant glare of the chandeliers that blinded his vision.

Robin Wright is a contributing writer for newyorker.com, and has written for the magazine since 1988. She is the author of “Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World.”

Is stealing allowed when election nears, Dr M asks MACC

The former prime minister questions the anti-graft body for saying it will not target politicians for now.

PUTRAJAYA: Dr Mahathir Mohamad today took to task the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for saying that it was not going after corrupt politicians out of fear that political parties would use its actions as part of the general election campaign.

“So if you are a politician who stole money, it’s allowed? The others will face action because they are not joining the elections?” the PPBM chairman asked in an exclusive interview with FMT at his office in Putrajaya today.

“So the chief secretary and others cannot steal. But politicians can. Then why the action against the Johor politician, but not against the politician in the heart of KL,” he asked, believed to be in reference to the arrest and charging of a Johor exco over a land deal recently.

“If this is not double standards, then I don’t know what is,” said the former prime minister.
Yesterday, MACC chief commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad said the commission, which in recent weeks has charged scores of civil servants with corruption, did not want to act against politicians at the moment as it could be used as campaign fodder.

But Dzulkifli warned political parties to only choose “clean” people as candidates.
“If this is not done, don’t blame us if we come knocking on their doors after GE14.

“I don’t make empty promises or populist statements. I have only one word for those who are corrupt – wait,” he told Mingguan Malaysia in an interview Sunday.

Mahathir said despite getting more powers to fight corruption, there had been a spike in the number of public servants being involved in it.

“The theft of government funds now runs in the millions. Government officers steal, so do elected representatives,” he said.

Mahathir said despite some being caught with cash worth millions of ringgit including one which took anti-graft officers “18 days just to count the cash”, it was announced that “there was no case”.
“All the reports to MACC, by Bank Negara, from the auditor-general, all these should be brought to the court to judge whether there had been theft committed,” he said.

The former prime minister was earlier asked if he now felt that Abdullah Badawi, who took over from him in 2003 was better than Najib Razak.

He said while it was true that MACC, which was established during Abdullah’s rule, had emboldened the anti-corruption drive, the commission had been silent to act on Prime Minister Najib Razak, referring to the investigation into allegations that the Umno president received RM2.6 billion of money from entitites linked to troubled state firm 1MDB.

Najib had said the money was a donation for Umno from the Saudi royal family.
Last year, in the middle of an investigation involving MACC and other government agencies, Attorney-General Apandi Ali cleared Najib of any criminal offence, saying the money was not a form of bribery.

I’ve burned bridges with Umno, says Dr Mahathir

Abdar Rahman Koya and Aedi Asri | May 23, 2017

The former leader says there is no way for him to return to a party he describes as corrupt to the core.

PUTRAJAYA: Although he has a history of being in and out of Umno, Dr Mahathir Mohamad said this time, he had left the party he led for two decades for good.

“I have burned the bridges,” he said in exclusive interview with FMT recently.
He was asked if he still had a place for Umno despite quitting the party for the second time since his retirement in 2003.

In 2008, Mahathir who had openly called for the removal of then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, announced he was quitting the party until there was a change in leadership.
The following year, he rejoined Umno after Najib Razak took over from Abdullah.

“Although I was out of Umno, my heart and soul were in Umno,” he had then said at a meeting with Najib to submit his application form.

But Mahathir, who together with other former Umno leaders formed Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), said this time it was different.

Mahathir was expelled from Umno in 1969 by then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. He was later welcomed back to party fold three years later under the second prime minister, Tun Abdul Razak.

“I have been out of the party thrice,” he told FMT in the hour-long interview.
“But I did not join other parties. I did not support other parties. It was the same case when I left the party during Abdullah’s time.”

“This time, not only am I out of Umno, but I also oppose Umno and formed a new party to bring down Umno. Umno is ruined under Najib. There is no use in opposing only Najib. We have to discard Umno. Because the whole of Umno is corrupt,” he said.

Mahathir and his wife Dr Siti Hasmah Ali quit Umno in March last year to protest Najib’s handling of the 1MDB affair, including allegations that some RM2.6 billion of money linked to the state firm had made its way into the prime minister’s personal accounts.

Following that, Umno vice-president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said he was confident that the former leader would return to the party.

“I believe he will reconsider his decision when the time comes,” Zahid had said on the same day of Mahathir’s announcement.

But Mahathir said there was no such plan.
“No way, Umno is ruined,” he said.