We have a meaningful disagreement. Far more
meaningful than the analyses you wish to
conduct between two very disparate nations.
Malaysia is authoritarian-UMNO rules without
much concern for the opposition or the Malaysian citizenry. Israel elects government
through free elections and has had Labour,
Liberal Democratic and Conservative Governments. They can be removed at any time
through the electoral process. UMNO’s largesse and bullying prevents its removal.
I have already discussed in detail the freedom in Israeli society and in parliament for ethnic Jews and Arab-Israelis to vote for whomever they please without interference
(monetary or physical) from the political structure. Such interference is part-and-parcel of Malaysia’s politics in general
and UMNO in particular. You appear to have (and insist upon) a Chomskyan view of Israel which I do not share.
It seems to me that any nuanced and balanced view of either the Malaysian or Israeli context would show that there are cross cutting authoritarian and democratic patterns. Again, political science is clear that Malaysia is “semi-authoritarian” (Crouch, Pepinsky, Case etc). The word “semi” indicates that there is a measure of democratic responsiveness. And even if race is increasingly politicized in Malaysia, it remains a subordinate category to racial markers.
So to emphasize the point: the reason for the comparison is to develop an analytical model that can capture these cross cutting patterns where race and religion are salient features of politics. It is not to put this or that label on the Malaysian or Israeli context or to force either one into a Procrustean bed. Again, there is scholarly evidence to suggest that the comparison is not only plausible (and to compare is not to imply an identity between the objects compared) but worthwhile.
For what it is worth, I think it is right to pursue this comparison as we try to develop more adequate analytical tools.
If you don’t — in the face of the efforts of others to do so in a rigorous manner — then I guess we have no meaningful disagreement.
I do not know much about Israel — so these are questions of clarification, and hopefully you could help.
I would agree that Israel is a vibrant democracy, and this a key feature that sets it apart from the other countries in the Middle East, and Malaysia. But I don’t think that is the focus of comparison between Israel and Malaysia.
Geoff Wade wrote an interesting paper demonstrating how Barisan Nasional used the Federal Constitution to institutionalise racism. And this is the focus on Rueban’s article — that you can be a legal state, even democratically elected, and still institutionalise “unethical or immoral laws”.
And there are many similarities I would think. For example, the narrative Peter.
The “promised land” and “tanah Melayu”. A “Jewish state”, and an “Islamic State”, god’s “chosen race”, the superior/special race are some interesting comparisons I can think off.
And most interesting would be that both protagonists (Malay-Muslim and Jewish supremacists) use the other as its (or one of its) mortal enemy.
I believe this is compelling enough for a serious comparative study.
Clive Kessler analyses Tony Abbott’s about-turn on the Malaysia Solution.
As he seeks to appease his Malaysian counterpart, our prime minister now joins Sheridan, and many others at the time, by conceding that the agreement with Malaysia had its merits and deserved to be tested then in practice. He had not been against Malaysia, he now pleads, nor against the Malaysian Solution itself, only against his political adversary, our government. After his attendance at this week’s East Asia Summit in Brunei, Abbott now avers that is not Australia’s role to lecture others in the region about human rights or to impose its standards on them. That was then, this is now.
There is no authoritarian rule in Israel.
There are free elections. No Israeli political party is like UMNO. As I mentioned, Communist Parties (like them or not; I don’t) are legal in Israel; they are illegal in Malaysia. Religion is not used to legitimize rule in Israel. It is a predominately Jewish state, yes-but an ethnic Arab-Israeli is permitted by law to run for Prime Minister, for example. Would Malaysia allow a non-Malay to be elected PM ? I am doubtful. The point IS Israel and Malaysia are not alike and therefore there is no basis for comparison to gain any insight on Israel’s social dynamics which are far different from Malaysia’s.
Aid and assistance by all means, but leave the generals alone. They know what they’re doing… like over the past half century. Would that be your point?
Another paper on the said process is nearly finished. It is entitled, “Drafting the Post-Coup Constitution of Thailand: Election System Design Issues in the Debates of the 2007 Constitution Drafting Committee.”
In Thailand, there are also people who think that the country could “learn from Germany” by adopting its mixed-member proportional election system. This was a big issue in the 2007 constitution drafting process. See the following two papers.
Actually, whether or not Israel is a democracy is highly debatable. Again, there is ample scholarly debate on how far Israel can be considered a “democracy” or some diminished form of “ethnic democracy.”
There is a piece by Ruth Gavison that is especially instructive on that debate:
It would be worth going through the relevant scholarly material carefully and making a careful case for one or other view. I am not sure that this fora is congenial to such a case but my point is that it is absurd to merely assert without carefully considering the different views on this matter and to simply brush aside the suggestion that the comparison is not tenable. Certainly, I would like to see the considerable argument needed to justify this view.
The debate is not a semantic one: it is conceptual and normative. But it is also practical because it speaks to questions about the legitimacy of certain kinds of political regimes and what claim to authority they may have both domestically and/or internationally.
The point is not whether or not we want to say that Israel and Malaysia are alike — there are some obvious differences — but what matters is how the comparison sheds light on political dynamics that are authoritarian and discriminatory and where race, religion and such are used to legitimate authoritarian rule.
Ueberhangmandate (surplus seats beyond the proportional share of the second vote, resulting from the winning of more direct mandates than the proportional share would suggest) have been eliminated by a ruling by the Constitutional Court. In the elections a few weeks back, the other parties were given additional seats to compensate for the surplus seats that the biggest party had gained.
Personally, I like PR, but with appropriate modifications. Mathematically, there are many ways to “caste your vote(s)” (which basically is a means to have the voice of “We the People”” heard in a democracy). Let alone Burma (which in my opinion is still far away from being a democratic society), even in a country like the US, there is a lot of room for improvement. The voter turnout in the US is pathetic so how about imposing fines for not voting? I personally think the US constitution is a rather obsolete and oxymoronic piece of paper. I never understand the way the US President is “elected” by the “electoral college” and all this fuss about primaries and delegates for the conventions and the billions of dollars you need to run for political office. Having only two major parties is also not really representative of the diversity of the American population. You can see now with this government shutdown thing how dysfunctional, parochial and partisan US politics has become. Fortunately, I don’t live there, but I do think some European countries, such as Germany (where I used to live) have a more reasonable way of implementing “the voice of the people” and a more rational view about governance.
Excuse me, if you think someone like me, born in a pariah state like Burma, has no right to criticise the “exceptional” American Constitution!
After Israel’s independence in 1948, while
the British remained in Malaya, there was a very strict policy about who could come into
Malaya; and an even stricter policy about admission into the British military service overseas, whether in Malaya or Burma or India. The Malayan Scouts were British to the core and the British neither invited nor relied on non-Commonwealth foreign support (e.g., Israel, which was not a member of the Commonwealth; neither was the United States). Australians served in Malaya as did Canadians, but not Israelis anytime
before, during, or after Merdeka when Malaysia became constituted. The Tunku
was approached by an Israeli consular official in Singapore and other diplomats.
The Tunku was initially ambiguous; not outright rejecting relations, but not agreeing to them. Eventually, forces of nationalism grew stronger and the Tunku (and everyone after him) rejected formal relations with Israel (football matches in KL were
allowed).
Every Malaysian Passport holder knows what
is stamped inside. You can go to Pyongyang
but not Tel-Aviv, in principle. However, Israel does not stamp Malaysian passports so some Malaysians have visited Israel (for religious reasons or as general tourists) and go home with a blank passports. This is common knowledge. Of course, most of these visitors are Chinese-Malaysians and a few Indian-Malaysians.
1. No Israeli soldiers guarded anyone in Malaya. There were no Israelis in the British Army because the Brits in Malaya restricted service. I was there-I know. There may have been British Jews in the British service in Malaya, but not Israelis. The British in mandated-Palestine restricted movement of Jews out of mandated-Palestine, so no Israeli
Jew served in Malaya in British Forces at all.
2. I do not care that Mahathir praised Maurice Greenberg. In fact, he was ousted
from AIG and is not regarded as a good
corporate citizen. Mahathir has condmened
and then reconciled with Soros who has
semi Leftist-leanings which align somewhat with Mahathir’s “globalist” view of the world. Mahathir is inconsistent and is a rabid anti-Semite. I need not provide a long list of the vitriolic anti-Semitic things he has said, particularly at the last OIC meeting in KL. If you were there or have access to a transcript (which I do, in Bahasa) the things he said would make Hitler proud. Mahathir is a psychopath on many levels.
3. Yes, there is a conflict in the Middle East. But Israel is a Democracy, albeit not
perfect. Unlike Malaysia, where Chinese and
Indians are not very welcome in the military,
the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) is 20 % ethnic Arab. Hebrew University is 20 % ethnic
Arab (how well are Chinese welcomed at local
universities in Malaysia ?). Israel has had
an Arab Vice-President several years back.
The Knesset (Israeli Parliament) is about 25 % ethnic Arab-many of whom are members of
Arab nationalist and Communist Parties (Hadash is one of them) that regularly call
for Israel’s destruction and they are allowed
to do so because of Israel’s Supreme Court which allows freedom of speech for extremists.
4. Imagine if a non-Malay called for Malaysia’s destruction, what would happen to him or her? Recent surveys BY Israeli-Arabs among Israeli-Arabs in northern Israel regularly reveal 70-75 % of Israeli-Arabs would remain in Israel, if given the choice between living in Israel or an independent Palestine under Mahmoud Abbas. 25 % of the Israeli Foreign Service is Arab, Druze and Bedouin. There are no comparisons between Israel and Malaysia or Zionists and UMNO. Clinton and former PM of Israel Barak offered Arafat, and later Abbas, an independent state constituting 97 % of the West Bank (Hamas already controls and continues to destroy Gazan society). Arafat and Abbas balked and said no.
5. As for ideology, most anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist ideologues have no problem with
Jinnahism (the philosophy of Mohammad Ali
Jinnah, ‘Father of Pakistan’), of setting up a Muslim Indian state in part of India that was, and remains, restricted to Muslims but
condemn Zionism. Apparently, it is OK
to have a Muslim-only country (Pakistan)where even other Muslims, like Shiites and Ahmadiyyas are persecuted and their mosques bombed by Sunnis, yet Israel has Arab citizens who can even call for the destruction of the very state that provides for them and are allowed to do so. No Muslim
country or partly Muslim country (like Malaysia) would ever allow a Parliamentarian
to say such things. In Malaysia, they would
be detained under the ISA.
Israel is a Democracy. Not a perfect one
but one nevertheless. Yes, there needs
to be a peace agreement and there are
issues of Israeli-Arab education
and income levels which need to be addressed. But there are no parallels with Malaysia or UMNO.
Those who like Hun Sen, tend to defend Vietnam’s entry into Cambodia with the resulting dissolution of the Khmer Rouge. Those who don’t like Hun Sen may also
defend Vietnam’s intervention. This is a
complex issue. After all, Hun Sen was once a member of the KR (and FUNCINPEC is powerless anyway). Regardless of Southeast Asian half-measures (except Vietnam) towards KR-dominated Cambodia , China dominates every aspect of contemporary Cambodia’s economy-China is in Cambodia in a big big way.
i. A friend (Malaysian Eurasian) related to me that during the Emergency, it was Israelis soldiers working as part of British forces that guarded her father (who was an estate manager in a British owned plantation in Malaya) against MCP attacks.
ii. During the East Asian Financial Crisis 1997/98, Mahathir brought Maurice Greenberg (AIG & AIA [M]) to Malaysia to provide confidence to other international & domestic investors. Mahathir praised Greenberg & AIA [M] as good corporate citizens (in contrast to the speculative capitalists). But you also know what Mahathir said about George Soros and Jews during that period (and at other times).
Idea.
I think what Charis and Reuben are alluding to is the way the Israeli state is built institutionally, and the narrative that supports it, has some parallels with Malaysia.
Tocharian, I am not recommending a mirror image of Germany’s electoral system. Rather I think MMP offers some valuable elements that would help Myanmar’s democracy. In fact, in a longer article, of which this is a short summary, forthcoming in the Asian Journal of Political Science, I provide a more detailed outline of what such a system would look like in Myanmar, with specific numbers and estimated outcomes. I advocate a 3% threshold, allowing many smaller (ethnic) parties to participate competitively.
Mark Inkey has a unique opportunity to exposed the true unspeakable, hopeless plight of women in Myanmar, due to armed conflicts and abject poverty.
‘Sexual Violence in Burma’ might address
1)The atrocious treatment subjected to women by the Tamadaw
2)The even LARGER issues of the plights of IDP and refugees women due to #1 above.
Instead wasted his chance just to berate the already known attitude and maneuvers of this Military Government, without even addressing the country as “Myanmar”.
Does Mr Inkey realize as Colonial Burma
1)The 4 cut strategy from which these atrocious behavior by Tamadaw,originate from the colonial put down of Saya San rebellion?
2)King James Court welcome Ne Win continually even when Ne Win use force to suppress ethnic uprising/independence?
True Jacqui. There appears to be a culture of impunity in Southeast Asia (with the exception of Brunei and Singapore possibly?) , and Malaysia is no different.
Malaysia’s security minister has called for police to “shoot first” when they encounter criminals and defended a spate of killings by police.
My analysis of Chin Peng based on reading this article: Mr. CP was a small, soft spoken man who carried a “big stick” and most likely familiarized with the work of Sun Tzu, The Art of War. So…what other characteristics would enable Mr. CP to survive this long? A simple analysis but a likely scenario! Evidently, CP didn’t want to put “everything on the table” when writing about his life. He left out, in which many would consider, the most important aspects of his career as a communist leader-the internal dispute of the party and the relation with the Chinese Party. Given the nature of communist ideology and of man, I speculate that CP’s aims and China’s aims for the rest of Asia were dark.
I found Dr.Cohen’s writing in response to other commentators were credible and based on his observations and experiences. As a person who has lived in Malaysia since colonial time, surely he would have seen what had transpired in this part of the world. This is what gives him an edge over the other commentators.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
UMNO and Nazi Germany
We have a meaningful disagreement. Far more
meaningful than the analyses you wish to
conduct between two very disparate nations.
Malaysia is authoritarian-UMNO rules without
much concern for the opposition or the Malaysian citizenry. Israel elects government
through free elections and has had Labour,
Liberal Democratic and Conservative Governments. They can be removed at any time
through the electoral process. UMNO’s largesse and bullying prevents its removal.
I have already discussed in detail the freedom in Israeli society and in parliament for ethnic Jews and Arab-Israelis to vote for whomever they please without interference
(monetary or physical) from the political structure. Such interference is part-and-parcel of Malaysia’s politics in general
and UMNO in particular. You appear to have (and insist upon) a Chomskyan view of Israel which I do not share.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Peter,
Here is an example of a comparison, the point of which is to work out a model to study diminished forms of democracy or “ethnic democracy.”
http://www.ecmi.de/uploads/tx_lfpubdb/working_paper_13.pdf
It seems to me that any nuanced and balanced view of either the Malaysian or Israeli context would show that there are cross cutting authoritarian and democratic patterns. Again, political science is clear that Malaysia is “semi-authoritarian” (Crouch, Pepinsky, Case etc). The word “semi” indicates that there is a measure of democratic responsiveness. And even if race is increasingly politicized in Malaysia, it remains a subordinate category to racial markers.
So to emphasize the point: the reason for the comparison is to develop an analytical model that can capture these cross cutting patterns where race and religion are salient features of politics. It is not to put this or that label on the Malaysian or Israeli context or to force either one into a Procrustean bed. Again, there is scholarly evidence to suggest that the comparison is not only plausible (and to compare is not to imply an identity between the objects compared) but worthwhile.
For what it is worth, I think it is right to pursue this comparison as we try to develop more adequate analytical tools.
If you don’t — in the face of the efforts of others to do so in a rigorous manner — then I guess we have no meaningful disagreement.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Thanks again Peter.
I do not know much about Israel — so these are questions of clarification, and hopefully you could help.
I would agree that Israel is a vibrant democracy, and this a key feature that sets it apart from the other countries in the Middle East, and Malaysia. But I don’t think that is the focus of comparison between Israel and Malaysia.
I think its the institutionalised racism.
A quick google search raised a number of articles on racism in Israel against Israeli Arabs. For example: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4388576,00.html
(But this is hardly academic work).
Geoff Wade wrote an interesting paper demonstrating how Barisan Nasional used the Federal Constitution to institutionalise racism. And this is the focus on Rueban’s article — that you can be a legal state, even democratically elected, and still institutionalise “unethical or immoral laws”.
http://www.newmandala.org/2010/06/20/origins-and-evolution-of-ethnocracy-in-malaysia/
And there are many similarities I would think. For example, the narrative Peter.
The “promised land” and “tanah Melayu”. A “Jewish state”, and an “Islamic State”, god’s “chosen race”, the superior/special race are some interesting comparisons I can think off.
And most interesting would be that both protagonists (Malay-Muslim and Jewish supremacists) use the other as its (or one of its) mortal enemy.
I believe this is compelling enough for a serious comparative study.
Ties that bind: Sarawak and Adelaide
Clive Kessler analyses Tony Abbott’s about-turn on the Malaysia Solution.
See more at: http://inside.org.au/mollifying-malaysia/#sthash.OrnaUfpZ.dpuf
On a personal note, I believe, there is no one more qualified than Tony Abbot to align Australian conservative values with those of Asian leaders.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
There is no authoritarian rule in Israel.
There are free elections. No Israeli political party is like UMNO. As I mentioned, Communist Parties (like them or not; I don’t) are legal in Israel; they are illegal in Malaysia. Religion is not used to legitimize rule in Israel. It is a predominately Jewish state, yes-but an ethnic Arab-Israeli is permitted by law to run for Prime Minister, for example. Would Malaysia allow a non-Malay to be elected PM ? I am doubtful. The point IS Israel and Malaysia are not alike and therefore there is no basis for comparison to gain any insight on Israel’s social dynamics which are far different from Malaysia’s.
Myanmar could learn from Germany
Aid and assistance by all means, but leave the generals alone. They know what they’re doing… like over the past half century. Would that be your point?
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Thanks for these insights Peter. Much food for thought.
Myanmar could learn from Germany
P.S.:
Another paper on the said process is nearly finished. It is entitled, “Drafting the Post-Coup Constitution of Thailand: Election System Design Issues in the Debates of the 2007 Constitution Drafting Committee.”
Myanmar could learn from Germany
In Thailand, there are also people who think that the country could “learn from Germany” by adopting its mixed-member proportional election system. This was a big issue in the 2007 constitution drafting process. See the following two papers.
http://www.academia.edu/2085391/A_Proportional_Election_System_for_Thailand
https://www.academia.edu/4172372/The_Attempt_to_Adopt_a_Mixed-Member_Proportional_Election_System_in_Thailand_The_Near_Miss_of_the_Constitution_Drafting_Committee_and_Constitution_Drafting_Assembly_in_2007
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Hi,
Actually, whether or not Israel is a democracy is highly debatable. Again, there is ample scholarly debate on how far Israel can be considered a “democracy” or some diminished form of “ethnic democracy.”
There is a piece by Ruth Gavison that is especially instructive on that debate:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/israel_studies/v004/4.1gavison.html
It would be worth going through the relevant scholarly material carefully and making a careful case for one or other view. I am not sure that this fora is congenial to such a case but my point is that it is absurd to merely assert without carefully considering the different views on this matter and to simply brush aside the suggestion that the comparison is not tenable. Certainly, I would like to see the considerable argument needed to justify this view.
The debate is not a semantic one: it is conceptual and normative. But it is also practical because it speaks to questions about the legitimacy of certain kinds of political regimes and what claim to authority they may have both domestically and/or internationally.
The point is not whether or not we want to say that Israel and Malaysia are alike — there are some obvious differences — but what matters is how the comparison sheds light on political dynamics that are authoritarian and discriminatory and where race, religion and such are used to legitimate authoritarian rule.
Myanmar could learn from Germany
Ueberhangmandate (surplus seats beyond the proportional share of the second vote, resulting from the winning of more direct mandates than the proportional share would suggest) have been eliminated by a ruling by the Constitutional Court. In the elections a few weeks back, the other parties were given additional seats to compensate for the surplus seats that the biggest party had gained.
Myanmar could learn from Germany
Personally, I like PR, but with appropriate modifications. Mathematically, there are many ways to “caste your vote(s)” (which basically is a means to have the voice of “We the People”” heard in a democracy). Let alone Burma (which in my opinion is still far away from being a democratic society), even in a country like the US, there is a lot of room for improvement. The voter turnout in the US is pathetic so how about imposing fines for not voting? I personally think the US constitution is a rather obsolete and oxymoronic piece of paper. I never understand the way the US President is “elected” by the “electoral college” and all this fuss about primaries and delegates for the conventions and the billions of dollars you need to run for political office. Having only two major parties is also not really representative of the diversity of the American population. You can see now with this government shutdown thing how dysfunctional, parochial and partisan US politics has become. Fortunately, I don’t live there, but I do think some European countries, such as Germany (where I used to live) have a more reasonable way of implementing “the voice of the people” and a more rational view about governance.
Excuse me, if you think someone like me, born in a pariah state like Burma, has no right to criticise the “exceptional” American Constitution!
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Greg,
After Israel’s independence in 1948, while
the British remained in Malaya, there was a very strict policy about who could come into
Malaya; and an even stricter policy about admission into the British military service overseas, whether in Malaya or Burma or India. The Malayan Scouts were British to the core and the British neither invited nor relied on non-Commonwealth foreign support (e.g., Israel, which was not a member of the Commonwealth; neither was the United States). Australians served in Malaya as did Canadians, but not Israelis anytime
before, during, or after Merdeka when Malaysia became constituted. The Tunku
was approached by an Israeli consular official in Singapore and other diplomats.
The Tunku was initially ambiguous; not outright rejecting relations, but not agreeing to them. Eventually, forces of nationalism grew stronger and the Tunku (and everyone after him) rejected formal relations with Israel (football matches in KL were
allowed).
Every Malaysian Passport holder knows what
is stamped inside. You can go to Pyongyang
but not Tel-Aviv, in principle. However, Israel does not stamp Malaysian passports so some Malaysians have visited Israel (for religious reasons or as general tourists) and go home with a blank passports. This is common knowledge. Of course, most of these visitors are Chinese-Malaysians and a few Indian-Malaysians.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Greg,
1. No Israeli soldiers guarded anyone in Malaya. There were no Israelis in the British Army because the Brits in Malaya restricted service. I was there-I know. There may have been British Jews in the British service in Malaya, but not Israelis. The British in mandated-Palestine restricted movement of Jews out of mandated-Palestine, so no Israeli
Jew served in Malaya in British Forces at all.
2. I do not care that Mahathir praised Maurice Greenberg. In fact, he was ousted
from AIG and is not regarded as a good
corporate citizen. Mahathir has condmened
and then reconciled with Soros who has
semi Leftist-leanings which align somewhat with Mahathir’s “globalist” view of the world. Mahathir is inconsistent and is a rabid anti-Semite. I need not provide a long list of the vitriolic anti-Semitic things he has said, particularly at the last OIC meeting in KL. If you were there or have access to a transcript (which I do, in Bahasa) the things he said would make Hitler proud. Mahathir is a psychopath on many levels.
3. Yes, there is a conflict in the Middle East. But Israel is a Democracy, albeit not
perfect. Unlike Malaysia, where Chinese and
Indians are not very welcome in the military,
the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) is 20 % ethnic Arab. Hebrew University is 20 % ethnic
Arab (how well are Chinese welcomed at local
universities in Malaysia ?). Israel has had
an Arab Vice-President several years back.
The Knesset (Israeli Parliament) is about 25 % ethnic Arab-many of whom are members of
Arab nationalist and Communist Parties (Hadash is one of them) that regularly call
for Israel’s destruction and they are allowed
to do so because of Israel’s Supreme Court which allows freedom of speech for extremists.
4. Imagine if a non-Malay called for Malaysia’s destruction, what would happen to him or her? Recent surveys BY Israeli-Arabs among Israeli-Arabs in northern Israel regularly reveal 70-75 % of Israeli-Arabs would remain in Israel, if given the choice between living in Israel or an independent Palestine under Mahmoud Abbas. 25 % of the Israeli Foreign Service is Arab, Druze and Bedouin. There are no comparisons between Israel and Malaysia or Zionists and UMNO. Clinton and former PM of Israel Barak offered Arafat, and later Abbas, an independent state constituting 97 % of the West Bank (Hamas already controls and continues to destroy Gazan society). Arafat and Abbas balked and said no.
5. As for ideology, most anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist ideologues have no problem with
Jinnahism (the philosophy of Mohammad Ali
Jinnah, ‘Father of Pakistan’), of setting up a Muslim Indian state in part of India that was, and remains, restricted to Muslims but
condemn Zionism. Apparently, it is OK
to have a Muslim-only country (Pakistan)where even other Muslims, like Shiites and Ahmadiyyas are persecuted and their mosques bombed by Sunnis, yet Israel has Arab citizens who can even call for the destruction of the very state that provides for them and are allowed to do so. No Muslim
country or partly Muslim country (like Malaysia) would ever allow a Parliamentarian
to say such things. In Malaysia, they would
be detained under the ISA.
Israel is a Democracy. Not a perfect one
but one nevertheless. Yes, there needs
to be a peace agreement and there are
issues of Israeli-Arab education
and income levels which need to be addressed. But there are no parallels with Malaysia or UMNO.
Review of Singapore, ASEAN and the Cambodian Conflict
Those who like Hun Sen, tend to defend Vietnam’s entry into Cambodia with the resulting dissolution of the Khmer Rouge. Those who don’t like Hun Sen may also
defend Vietnam’s intervention. This is a
complex issue. After all, Hun Sen was once a member of the KR (and FUNCINPEC is powerless anyway). Regardless of Southeast Asian half-measures (except Vietnam) towards KR-dominated Cambodia , China dominates every aspect of contemporary Cambodia’s economy-China is in Cambodia in a big big way.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
Thanks for these insights Peter.
2 anecdotes and 1 idea.
Anecdotes
i. A friend (Malaysian Eurasian) related to me that during the Emergency, it was Israelis soldiers working as part of British forces that guarded her father (who was an estate manager in a British owned plantation in Malaya) against MCP attacks.
ii. During the East Asian Financial Crisis 1997/98, Mahathir brought Maurice Greenberg (AIG & AIA [M]) to Malaysia to provide confidence to other international & domestic investors. Mahathir praised Greenberg & AIA [M] as good corporate citizens (in contrast to the speculative capitalists). But you also know what Mahathir said about George Soros and Jews during that period (and at other times).
Idea.
I think what Charis and Reuben are alluding to is the way the Israeli state is built institutionally, and the narrative that supports it, has some parallels with Malaysia.
Myanmar could learn from Germany
Tocharian, I am not recommending a mirror image of Germany’s electoral system. Rather I think MMP offers some valuable elements that would help Myanmar’s democracy. In fact, in a longer article, of which this is a short summary, forthcoming in the Asian Journal of Political Science, I provide a more detailed outline of what such a system would look like in Myanmar, with specific numbers and estimated outcomes. I advocate a 3% threshold, allowing many smaller (ethnic) parties to participate competitively.
Sexual violence in Burma
Mark Inkey has a unique opportunity to exposed the true unspeakable, hopeless plight of women in Myanmar, due to armed conflicts and abject poverty.
‘Sexual Violence in Burma’ might address
1)The atrocious treatment subjected to women by the Tamadaw
2)The even LARGER issues of the plights of IDP and refugees women due to #1 above.
Instead wasted his chance just to berate the already known attitude and maneuvers of this Military Government, without even addressing the country as “Myanmar”.
Does Mr Inkey realize as Colonial Burma
1)The 4 cut strategy from which these atrocious behavior by Tamadaw,originate from the colonial put down of Saya San rebellion?
2)King James Court welcome Ne Win continually even when Ne Win use force to suppress ethnic uprising/independence?
http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/britain-preparing-political-training-burma-army.html
May be his straight reporting will begin to address one aspect of the colonial legacy.
UMNO and Nazi Germany
True Jacqui. There appears to be a culture of impunity in Southeast Asia (with the exception of Brunei and Singapore possibly?) , and Malaysia is no different.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/licence-to-kill-malaysian-police-allowed-to-shoot-first-20131008-2v56w.html#ixzz2hKvlX8du
Some statistics for Malaysia, if you are interested at this link:
http://www.newmandala.org/2010/12/20/polis-raja-di-malaysia-polis-kings-in-malaysia/
Chin Peng, an obituary
My analysis of Chin Peng based on reading this article: Mr. CP was a small, soft spoken man who carried a “big stick” and most likely familiarized with the work of Sun Tzu, The Art of War. So…what other characteristics would enable Mr. CP to survive this long? A simple analysis but a likely scenario! Evidently, CP didn’t want to put “everything on the table” when writing about his life. He left out, in which many would consider, the most important aspects of his career as a communist leader-the internal dispute of the party and the relation with the Chinese Party. Given the nature of communist ideology and of man, I speculate that CP’s aims and China’s aims for the rest of Asia were dark.
I found Dr.Cohen’s writing in response to other commentators were credible and based on his observations and experiences. As a person who has lived in Malaysia since colonial time, surely he would have seen what had transpired in this part of the world. This is what gives him an edge over the other commentators.