2014 in Review: Top 5 Events for U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia

So it’s the end of the year: time for lazy bloggers and writers everywhere to crank out a “clip-show” column to prioritize events of the year. I actually rather enjoy these exercises. At first blush, “top five” lists seem rather facile. They leave far too much room for the writer’s personal preferences; it’s all-but-impossible to agree on a metric that would fairly rank events, personalities, and so on.

But on the other hand, trying to assign priority or causal weight is central to good social science, and hopefully, punditry. Every time you read someone say, X was “more” important than Y, or A was “of greater significance” than B, those locutions implicitly assigns weights. We do this all the time in common speech, even if we don’t admit it.

So here is a list of five major 2014 events that impacted the U.S. position in Asia, specifically events that are likely to increase or decrease the U.S. level of commitment to the region. In so far as a looming Sino-U.S. (or Sino-U.S./Japan) regional competition is becoming the conventional wisdom, it is helpful to take such measures occasionally.

1. The Unwanted War Against the Islamic State

The troubles of the U.S. pivot to Asia are a regular theme in my writing for The Diplomat. While I personally strongly support the pivot, I remain deeply skeptical that the U.S. can actually do it, given its range of other commitments, weak domestic knowledge of East Asia, and strong cultural and religious interests in Europe and the Middle East.

My November column for The Diplomat argues that the war against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) is precisely the sort of open-ended, vague, exit strategy-less Middle East conflict that makes it so hard for the U.S. to pivot to another region. This may not matter, if the U.S. can dominate the Middle East and simultaneously block Chinese regional hegemony. But at this point, only neoconservatives must believe that is possible, or desire to so inflate the defense budget that it might be. For the rest of us, it is obvious that there are genuine opportunity costs to America’s long, frequently fruitless engagement in the Middle East.

The U.S. maintains four regional hegemonies – in Latin America (the erstwhile “Monroe Doctrine”), Europe (through NATO), the Middle East/Persian Gulf, and East Asia. In the last three, it faces serious challenges: Vladimir Putin (arguably the flimsiest and where U.S. allies could do much more), Islamist jihadism, which has proven remarkably resilient to American power, and China. Unipolarity does not mean omnipotence, so the need for the U.S. to rank these commitments grows with each new challenge. And each new war the U.S. fights in the Middle East pushes Asia further toward China.

2. China’s South China Sea Belligerence

There is a raging debate over whether China’s behavior in the last years is newly assertive or not. Some have noted, for example, that China’s claims in the South and East China Seas are not new, only the strength with which it is pursuing them. But I find in Asia, where I work, that the debate is increasingly been resolved with the Xi Jinping presidency. As I and a number of other observers argued earlier this year, China under Xi’s new leadership managed to pick three major fights in less than a year. Japan particularly seems to tilting against China. The Abe-Xi handshake was about as grim as one could imagine.

Much of the pushback notes that the Chinese are cautious and that the conflict over these islets is being “fought” by fishermen and coast guards. And so it is, but this is almost certainly craft on the part of Beijing. It is widely known that the Chinese Communist Party has studied the collapse of the USSR intensively. Beijing will not make the same mistake – alienate its periphery into a harsh encircling coalition, or bankrupt its smaller economy trying to match the Americans dollar for dollar. Instead, the Chinese stratagem in the South China Sea is regular if mild pressure, leap-frogging claims, land-reclamation to generate new claimed spaces, and so on. If the U.S. is going to pivot, southeast Asian nations will be looking for some kind of response to this “death by a thousand cuts” approach to maritime disputes, and the U.S. does not have one yet.

CLICK HERE for more.

Freedom and Independence: The sole, exclusive right of America only?

It has been rather a routine for the foreign powers-that-be, namely the Anglo-American superpowers to dictate and decide on foreign policies in the international arena. Top of the most important in their list is of course, freedom, justice and democracy whereby they are so proud of propagating throughout the world, in the pretext of liberalizing “third world countries” from the “clutches of tyranny, oppression and autocracy.”

In this aspect, the Malaysian government is also being targeted for not providing “enough justice support system” to our firebrand Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. The US Embassy has issued a statement that implies democracy is under threat in Malaysia with the coming verdict of the PKR de facto leader, assumed to be “guilty” even before the courts announce the result of the deliberation of the appeal. Malaysia is painted as being a “black democracy” with court judges being easily bribed and being puppets of the executive, so they say.
However, time and again, the many court decisions which have been upheld, have shown results that are not only favourable to the ruling government but also sided with the opposition leaders. Courts have awarded payments and remunerations to countless opposition leaders who were found to be “victimized”.


Then again, is it fair to accuse the Federal Government of having a hand in manipulating these decisions as well? Meaning to say, if Barisan Nasional leaders win the suit, then the courts are biased. But if Pakatan Rakyat leaders win the suit, can the courts be equally biased too? Or only Pakatan cases are allowed to win in courts and all cases involving Barisan Nasional must lose, only then will there be fairness and justice in the eyes of our Big Brothers, the United States, United Kingdom and their deputy sheriff in Asia, i.e. Australia? The Xenophon intervention is another typical example of “holier than thou” attitude which speaks of arrogance and ignorance of the legal system in Malaysia, which actually is an inherited system of the British colonial rule, including the Sedition Act 1948. Oh by the way, Malaya did not even gain independence yet at that time so how could it be a Malaysian law in the post-independence era? Do these people even know their history?

The Anwar saga is the most glaring case of all. No doubt, Anwar is seen as an “icon” and to a certain extent the “champion of democracy”, some even equating him with Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar and Jose Rizal of the Philippines. But make no mistake, Anwar is no freedom fighter for he once was part of the Mahathir administration in the 90s, the so-called dark, gloomy, oppressive and dictatorial rule of the iron fist doctor during his 22 years of power, of which surprisingly after the “master” sacked the “servant”, it was suddenly evident that there needs to be an uprising in the Malaysian streets to overthrow the legitimate, elected government of the day. All of a sudden, all the foreign media are zoomed in and focused on Kuala Lumpur. The shouts of “Reformasi” was supported by Al-Gore, the former Vice-President of the United States when he came to Malaysia for a summit. Imagine coming to a country upon being invited as a deputy head of state, only to give a speech to encourage the people to rise and overthrow the legally elected government of the day, of which the same “first-past-the-post system” was used by the UK electoral system until this very day.

What a hypocrite!

America should stop poking its nose into other nations’ affairs. Do not be a busy-body, trying to act smart and teach a duck how to swim. Please mind your own business. Kindly respect the International Charter of the United Nations. All nations are granted dignity and sovereignty in managing their own affairs and running of their countries. Surely you do not like other people to interfere in your internal affairs and advise the President of the United States to do this and that.
Needless to say, the foreign media, journalists, editors and propagandists are also responsible for their biased report on Malaysia. Their glorification of Anwar and bad-mouthing of Najib never stops, as if everything Anwar dictates is the whole truth and nothing but the truth while whatever that comes out from Najib’s mouth are nothing but a pack of lies. These bunch of retards will never have any good thing to say about the tremendous progress and growth that Malaysia has achieved for the past few decades. True enough, their mentality is set to ABU: Anything But Umno. They just want to kick out BN/Umno by whatever means possible and replace the current government with their stooge and hopefully can then decide on the foreign policy of this country, to be more pro-America of course.

It is evident and obvious that the citizens of Malaysia must open their eyes and be wary of these insidious, hidden, clandestine plots by foreign agents in disrupting, dismantling and destroying what we have built for the past 57 years. We must not be fooled by these self-serving opportunists who will stop at nothing just to see Malaysia chaotic so as to justify foreign intervention and involvement.

May I remind the American Government regarding the The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration states that the United States is and has the right to be “free and independent.” The Declaration is based on the right of self-government inherent in the American people, and on their need to form a government that would protect their inalienable rights. In this same regard, what makes Malaysia so different from America?

We too have the right to be “free and independent”.

By Saleehuddin Omar
Concerned Malaysian Citizen
posted to Haden Hoo via email

HANDS OFF: MALAYSIA NEEDS NO FOREIGN MEDDLING

Press Statement by Datuk Huan Cheng Guan

CEO, Centre for Political Awareness

In 1854, Abraham Lincoln said, “when a white man governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism.”

How true.

A hundred and sixty years down the road, we see the same thing happening because the US Embassy has overstepped its boundaries by telling the Malaysian government to abolish the Sedition Act.

This despotic act resounds down the corridors of power from Malaysia to the Asean countries and beyond. No other country except the United States has been so audaciously brazen.

Does it augur well for international relations?

For decades, the US government overtly and covertly sticks its nose into Malaysian political affairs and still regards Malaysia as a toddler despite its 57-year existence as an independent country.

The latest interfering patronizing overture that sends a subtle message of superiority reeks of malice and mischief because of the US government’s connections with local activist groups, especially Bersih.

In 2011, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan admitted that her organization received cash directly from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy’s National Democratic Institute (NDI) and George Soros’ Open Society. What is most unnerving is that after that disclosure, Tony Cartaluccireported:

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims are innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something more sinister at play.

Nile Bowie also reports:

“These think tanks and Intelligence front groups based in the United States are synonymous for authoring US Foreign Policy and shaping world opinion towards foreign leaders as they actively fund various oppositions movements through color revolutions, which lead to the installation of leaders of whom are friendly to objectives of the Anglo-American establishment and profiteers of Corporate high finance.’

It is common knowledge that in recent years, US is particularly interested in the Asian-Pacific caucus to counter China’s growing influence.

Unbeknownst to many, NED funds many other organizations including Malaysiakini, Suaram, Merdeka Centre, Lawyers for Liberty, KiniTV, and even International Republican Institute. Are any of them working hand in glove to destabilize the government by stirring dissent?

Anwar Ibrahim, who is famous for his close ties with senior American officials, traipsed around the world to condemn Malaysia and MAS in the manner in which they handled the MH370 tragedy. Did he even lift a finger in the search for MH370? Why?

To many, this statement from the US Embassy is harmless and sincere. I beg to differ.

One must consider what the US government has been doing in cloak and dagger style.

At first glance, one would say there is nothing wrong with getting funds from the American government. Really?

While we cannot decry patriotic Malaysians for fighting for a good government, it is simply not on if a foreign country, such as US, funds a movement that promotes street protests.

How so many Malaysians cannot see that innocent and idealistic Malaysians have been exploited for a hidden agenda is the reason why we witnessed Bersih 1, 2 and 3 even though it failed to achieve much success. Einstein said insanity is doing something repeatedly and expecting different results. However, these activists are far from insane. They have been trained and used by the American government who now sees it fit to tell the Malaysian government what to do when it cannot even pull its CDC into order about the Ebola threat.

What moral ground do they have to stride into Malaysian political sphere and to dictate their whims and fancies to our government?

We owe them nothing.

But then again, perhaps US have absurd illusions that they and they alone hold the key to a perfect government and want to ‘share’ their ideology with us.

In addition, US has no moral ground to preach to Malaysia about the need to “apply the rule of law fairly, transparently and apolitically to promote confidence in Malaysia’s democracy, judiciary and economy.”

Dissident Voice reports:

The US government appears to act deceptively via the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, and the FBI’s COINTELPRO as prime examples of programs designed specifically to manipulate public opinion and illegally interfere with the people’s rights to free speech and assembly. …

The CIA and FBI do not distort the truth and subvert Constitutional rights just for kicks; they are directly aiding and abetting those behind the scenes who have an agenda, which is pure and simple — corporate profits. Our government representatives are essentially screened, groomed and “voted in” by huge campaign contributions derived from corporate profits, and ultimately the press is financed by those same corporations….

The plain truth is the government, news media, corporate and special interests are all in a symbiotic criminal relationship with the absolute bottom line being they are willingly and knowingly denying Constitutional rights to the American citizenry which, in some of these instances, makes all those in violation willing traitors as defined by US law. And no, a group of conspirators does not need be prosecuted and found guilty in a court of law to be living and breathing traitors…

So, do we need any American interference?

Most affirmatively not would be the answer.

Our government leaders must issue an official protest to the US Embassy for that insolent press statement and stymie whatever attempts to influence our populace.

No Good Airing Dirty Linen to Obama

I made the film “Who Speaks For Me?” during the FreedomFilmFest 2008 to spark conversations between the “two blocks” or “schools of thought” that existed during the time.

I was practising law and the issues which were hotly debated in 2008 were (and still are) the Lina Joy case, Namewee’s Negarakuku, freedom to religion, apostacy and freedom of expression.

You had the liberal and conservative views colliding with each other in the film. This is just a tiny hole into how both sides perceived each other and how they view certain policies and issues concerning society.



Strangely, at that time, the people who carried these views did not seem to be interested to talk to each other in real life… at least enough to understand where each of them are coming from.

And ironically, both were using the same documents such as the Federal Constitution, Rukun Negara to justify their views. From listening to both sides with an open mind, they both have legitimate grounds to feel how they feel.

On a positive note, these opposing views have over the years been somewhat blurred, and more citizens (from reading on social media and blogs) share the same sentiments on more issues than before.

The key difference, I think, is how we have started to look at each other as “us”, instead of having a group mentality of “us and them” during and before the Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi years.

Fast forward to today, we as a society are still grappling with the same or related issues, but through my eyes, much have improved as well.

People are more rights conscious and the government of the day “gives” more respect to alternative voices compared with yesteryears.

I was at the Young Southeast Asian Leaders' Initiative town hall in Universiti Malaya, and yes it was a bit surprising observing how the “future leaders” were more at awe with Obama’s presence than to address more pressing issues locally as well as globally.

While Obama may seem to have better PR compared with his predecessors, American policies with regards to Egypt, Syria, Iran, Israel & Palestine, Guantanamo and the TPPA to give just a few examples, are horrendous to say the least.

Obama is here to listen to opposing views to what is reported in the mainstream media by our fellow government-friendly channels.

But look at the alterative voices in the American media and how they are questioning Obama’s policies which are anti-democracy and anti-human rights, regardless of what Obama says.

Talk is cheap. The writing is on the wall.

If there was one take-away from the lacklustre Youth leaders’ gathering was how Obama mentioned that the power is with the people.

He told the story of how he got involved in social work and that no one turned up at the first meeting. The lesson he learnt was to keep on pushing and be consistent and persevere.

I came across a book during my last trip to Singapore, to attend a spiritual event, which was aptly titled “Agenda to Change our Condition” by Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir.

Sadly, it is not for sale in Malaysia yet, but there are individuals who are selling them independently.

This is one of the more progressive writings by two American writers that is more stimulating to read and listen to than Obama’s speech at University Malaya.

During my filming of “Who Speaks for Me?” produced by Komas, a footage which was not included in the film was equally pertinent.

Wong Chin Huat said that groups with different schools of thought should be ready to come together on issues that they have a common interest. We need not toe the line and say everything on the other side is wrong.

Similarly, if there are any difference, there is no need to b*itch to outsiders where the results are uncertain to begin with. Look at the bigger picture.

Our children are going to the same schools. Do we want these children to view each other as “us” and “them” when they grow up, as did their parents (Melayu, China, India, Dan Lain-Lain, Muslims, Christians).

Let’s hold more dialogues with the opposing views. Find commonalities and middle grounds. If the government or the opposition is endorsing or keeping silent on important issues, they are just being politicians; they pick and choose their issues.

We as the people should be free to organise dialogues, mind-stimulating events, come together to stand for what’s right and make a change, even if like Obama says, no one comes for the first meeting. – April 29, 2014.

By Justin Johari, The Malaysian Insider

Obama's Visit: A Fresh Start with Malaysia

KUALA LUMPUR, April 23 — Barack Obama will this weekend become the first US president to visit Malaysia for nearly 50 years, seeking to put decades of uneasy relations behind him as both cast wary eyes on a rising China.



Mindful of America’s perennial image problem in the Islamic world, Obama — who visits Saturday-Monday — is expected to tout the US friendship with the economically thriving moderate Muslim nation.

As one of several rival claimants to parts of the South China Sea, Malaysia is also an important partner in the US “rebalance” of its strategic attention to Asia, where concern is rising over Beijing’s territorial assertiveness.

Obama will “highlight the growing strategic and economic relationship” with Malaysia and its “credentials as a moderate, Muslim-majority state and emerging democracy”, said Joshua Kurlantzick, a fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, meanwhile, will seek to capitalise on Obama’s expected praise to counter flagging voter support and global criticism over the handling of the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Obama was five years old the last time a serving US leader visited multi-cultural Malaysia — Lyndon Johnson came in 1966 to rally support for the US war in Vietnam.



Tension followed during the 1981-2003 tenure of authoritarian leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a harsh critic of US policies.

But ties — especially trade — remained solid, and the more Western-oriented Najib has sought even closer relations.

US Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes this week expressed hope the visit would “elevate US-Malaysian relations to a new stage”.

Obama was to visit Malaysia late last year, but postponed it to deal with the US government shutdown.

China looms large

Underlining the need for a re-introduction after nearly a half-century, Malaysia is the only stop on Obama’s Asian swing — he also visits long-time close allies Japan, South Korea and the Philippines — to include a “town-hall meeting”.

At the event Sunday Obama will engage with youth leaders from Malaysia and around Southeast Asia. He will also meet Malaysia’s king and pay a visit to the National Mosque.

As with Obama’s other stops, China will loom large.

China is now easily Malaysia’s top trade partner and Najib has played down their rival maritime claims.

But Malaysian anxieties have grown, particularly after China held naval exercises in disputed waters late last year, and the US and Malaysia have moved recently to improve defence ties.

Chinese criticism of Malaysia over MH370 has also left a bitter aftertaste.

“(Najib’s government) obviously hopes that Obama’s star effect can rub off on its flagging popularity,” said Oh Ei Sun, senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

“And Malaysia can continue to counterbalance China with the US in its foreign policy — siding with China economically but with the US on security.”

But differences remain.

The economic component of Obama’s “rebalance” rests largely on his envisioned Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), the region-wide trade pact bedevilled by rocky negotiations with partners.

Malaysia has resisted free-market reform requirements that clash with its controversial policies reserving economic advantages for majority ethnic Malays.

Obama may also face pressure to address uncomfortable rights, democracy and religion issues in Malaysia.

In elections last year, more than half of Malaysians voted against Najib’s 57-year-old regime, which is accused of gaming the electoral system to retain power and of cracking down on critics.

Non-Muslim minorities in the multi-faith country of 28 million also complain of shrinking religious freedom.

Washington has already questioned the March conviction of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges widely considered politically motivated.

US officials said Obama will not meet Anwar, a decision that could draw criticism in Washington where he is popular for his reform advocacy.

Anwar, who faces five years in jail but will appeal the conviction, told AFP Monday a meeting with Obama would have been “helpful”.

Obama is scheduled to meet unspecified civil-society groups.

But failure to engage a broad segment of Malaysia “risks alienating an entire generation of young Malaysians who mostly support the opposition and voted for the opposition last year”, Kurlantzick said. — AFP

Source: The Malay Mail

K.L.: Security Lockdown

(The Star) KUALA LUMPUR: With United States President Barack Obama coming to town, be prepared for a total “security lockdown”.

As customary wherever the US commander-in-chief is abroad, it will be strictly out of bounds as far as roads and airspace are concerned.

Besides heightened police presence, expect road closures in major parts of the city with a “no-fly zone” to be enforced to protect the president ahead of his arrival onboard Air Force One at the RMAF base in Subang on Saturday afternoon.

Everyone is tightlipped on the president’s movements here.

A US Embassy official responded, tongue-in-cheek: “To tell you I’ll have to kill you.”

The US Secret Service has been in the country over the past month, “securing” the president’s routes, hotel and places he will step foot in.

US military cargo planes have begun delivering logistical supplies for Obama’s visit, including supp­ort vehicles and trucks loaded with sheets of bullet-proof glass, to cover windows of the hotel Obama will stay in.

Obama’s trip will be the first by a sitting US president to Malaysia in 48 years since Lyndon B. Johnson came way back in 1966.

Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) director-general Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman confirmed that security in the skies would be “airtight”, saying the department was well prepared.

“I cannot tell you any more as that will be a breach,” he said when contacted yesterday.

City deputy police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Amar Singh said the police were fully prepared on the security aspect.

“We have sufficient manpower and will work with other agencies to ensure everything goes smoothly,” he said.

The 44th president would be ferried in his Cadillac One, tagged The Beast (refer to graphics).

A taste of what to expect here is already being experienced in Tokyo, where security has been dramatically ramped up with 16,000 police officers deployed in readiness for the first state visit by a US president there in nearly two decades.

The president is currently in the Japanese capital and heads to Seoul before flying here.

Local media said a full third of Tokyo’s police force had been pressed into service for Obama’s two-night visit, which begins today.

Left luggage lockers and rubbish bins have been sealed in some stations and thousands of security cameras have been put into operation.

The Risks of Asia-Pacific Multi-Lateralism

There is little doubt that U.S. alliances in Asia are in a state of flux. The decades of Washington poking and prodding allies to contribute more to regional peace and the maintenance of regional order appear, at least in recent years, to finally be paying off. Japan, considered by many pundits a free-riding pariah for decades, in particular seems to be taking what many in U.S. defense and security circles consider the right course: boosting military spending and seeking substantive and substantial capabilities improvements.

U.S. relations with a host of other East Asian nations have been improving as well. Ties with Vietnam have improved markedly over the past decade. South Korea remains a staunch U.S. ally in the face of North Korean provocations (despite recent signs of a North-South thaw) and the stir caused by China’s announcement of a new Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) last November that overlaps with South Korea’s (and Japan’s) own ADIZs. The U.S. and the Philippines recently reached an Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation, which would grant the U.S. military joint use of certain military facilities. U.S. troops for the last several years have been deployed on a rotational basis in Australia, both symbolically and substantively reinforcing the U.S. commitment to that ally’s security. The U.S.-Singapore relationship remains a strong force in the center of Southeast Asia. The list goes on and on.

In this context, a growing number of leaders, government officials, and experts have supported the continued and enhanced development of multilateral institutions in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific, both inclusive and exclusive of the United States. American supporters of such initiatives of course tend to outline the necessary role the United States plays in maintaining not only the security and stability of the region but also American economic involvement. Indeed, American promoters of the institutionalization of multilateral security and economic cooperation are inclined to stress the necessity of preserving and even enhancing America’s centrality to regional well being. Such organizations would further advance U.S. interests in the region and ensure broader support for the U.S.-led order, guaranteeing Washington’s leadership far into the future. These institutions would work collectively to, in the best-case scenario, engage and moderate potential threats to the U.S.-led order or, in the worst-case scenario, function to collectively deter aggressors or, if necessary, defend the U.S.-led order were hostilities to break out.

The main assumption tends to be that such a construct would be American-led and serve essentially American ends because the U.S.-led order in Asia has benefited most states in the region for the better part of the past seven decades. Alternatively, because regional security has for a long period of time depended on U.S. military predominance, a leading U.S. role is necessary to assure regional peace and security well into the future.

CLICK HERE for the rest of this interesting post.

Political Lobbying

Opposition parties and pro-democracy groups in Malaysia came under fire from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yesterday, who accused them of turning a blind eye to the corruption in the political lobbying rampant in the United States.

The former prime minister asserted that cries of cronyism would abound if professional lobbyists and lobby groups were allowed to openly influence lawmakers here.

But he noted that the thinly-veiled US system in which political clout was auctioned off to the highest bidder has not drawn complaints from the trenchant local critics of Malaysia’s democracy.

“Malaysians would never think of condemning this system. For Malaysians, especially the liberal NGOs, and the opposition, everything and anything that is done by the US and the West are regarded as democratic,” he wrote in a blog post yesterday.

“They would never condemn the US for this blatant fee-based influence-pedalling.”

In the same blog post, Dr Mahathir also took aim at his regular Jewish targets, using the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to demonstrate the corruption endemic in the lobbying system and the purported influence over the country’s politics.



“It can reach the President, all members of the American Government and all Congressmen and Senators as well as their staff at any time.

“[It] is so powerful that candidates for President and other offices in the US Government have to literally pledge support for Israel to his lobby or they would lose in elections,” he added.

Malaysia has, in the recent post-Mahathir years, seen increasing civil disobedience by its citizens in their demand for greater democracy and personal liberties, including three large-scale street rallies in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur.

Since 2008, opposition parties and advocates of democracy have grown more vocal in their criticism of Malaysia’s electoral system, which they allege was engineered to keep the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) in power.

Dr Mahathir was prime minister of Malaysia from 1981 to 2003, and ruled the country with — according to his fiercest critics — an iron fist under the guise of a democracy.

He has also spoken out against “too much democracy”, warning that such a thing could lead to violence and instability.

The country’s longest-serving PM also said previously that pursuit of democracy could lead to hardship and anarchy, destroying an otherwise stable and prosperous society.

Malaysia holds a general election once every five years, but has only ever had the same ruling coalition in power since its precursor, the Federation of Malaya, gained independence in 1957.

Source: The Malay Mail

Obama in Malaysia - A Strategic Partnership?

Click here to read Joshua Kurlantzick's article on Obama's visit.

Excerpt:

During his upcoming late April trip to Asia, President Obama will visit two nations in Southeast Asia, Malaysia and the Philippines, in addition to stops in Northeast Asia. The White House already has been briefing reporters on the overall messaging of the trip, and the specific themes the president plans to hit in Malaysia and the Philippines.

In Malaysia, it appears from several news reports and from speaking with several administration officials, President Obama will add to the Malaysian government’s self-promotion that Kuala Lumpur is a successful and democratic nation, an example of other Muslim-majority countries, and a force for moderation in the world. The president apparently plans to hit these themes despite the regional anger at Malaysia’s handling of the Malaysia Airlines vanished plane, which exposed to the world many of the problems with Malaysia’s governance.

CLICK HERE for more.