Asians berate West hypocrisy
BangkokPost: 26 June 2007
Singapore - Asian business and government leaders accused rich countries of hypocrisy, saying they run polluting industries with cheap labour in China and then blame the country for worsening global warming and climate change.
"This is green imperialism," Nor Mohamed Yakob, Malaysia's deputy finance minister, told a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum on East Asia, a two-day conference in Singapore.
A Chinese aviation tycoon told the discussion that the West was the original polluter, while an American businessman noted that Asia's energy consumption is relatively disproportionate to its contribution to the world economy.
But all participants agreed that instead of fixing blame, the problem should be solved internationally and with private sector participation.
China has come under increasing pressure from the West to take more forceful measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The country relies on coal, among the dirtiest of fuels, to provide two-thirds of its energy.
At the conference, the US and Australian were also criticised for not signing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps the amount of carbon dioxide and other climate-changing-including greenhouse gases that can be emitted in industrialised countries. China is a signatory but because it is considered a developing country it is exempt from emission reductions - a reason often cited by Washington and Canberra for not accepting the treaty.
Mr Nor Mohamed said sustainable growth, or economic development, is important, but "there is no point in singling out" one country when it is a global problem.
"Companies that are polluting in China are owned by American, European, Japanese and others," he said.
"They are benefiting from the cheap labour, from the resources and at the same time accusing China of pollution," said Mr. Nor Mohamed.
"There should be no hyp0ocrisy. Let's take the hypocrisy out fo the equation," he said. "Treat it as a global problem... the world has to play a role rather than take the issue in a very adversarial or biased basis."
In 2006, China overtook the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by about 7.5%, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency's report last week. While China was 2% below the US in carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, voraious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the agency said.
China also uses other statistics to contend that it is not the worst offender: with a population of 1.3 billion people, China spews out about 4.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, while the United States releases more than 19 tonnes per person.
Chen Feng, the chairman of China Hainan Airlines, said "now is not the time" to fix blame but to create an international solution, noting that the West was the original polluter when its industries were ruining the environment 100 years ago.
"So the way I see it is, you [the West] were bandits before you became right-minded people," he told the discussion.
Japan's environment minister said it was "significant" that US President George "W Bush had proposed the 15 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, including the US, China and India, hold meetings and set an emissions goal, but that the commitment of other participants was critical.
-AP-
Singapore - Asian business and government leaders accused rich countries of hypocrisy, saying they run polluting industries with cheap labour in China and then blame the country for worsening global warming and climate change.
"This is green imperialism," Nor Mohamed Yakob, Malaysia's deputy finance minister, told a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum on East Asia, a two-day conference in Singapore.
A Chinese aviation tycoon told the discussion that the West was the original polluter, while an American businessman noted that Asia's energy consumption is relatively disproportionate to its contribution to the world economy.
But all participants agreed that instead of fixing blame, the problem should be solved internationally and with private sector participation.
China has come under increasing pressure from the West to take more forceful measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The country relies on coal, among the dirtiest of fuels, to provide two-thirds of its energy.
At the conference, the US and Australian were also criticised for not signing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps the amount of carbon dioxide and other climate-changing-including greenhouse gases that can be emitted in industrialised countries. China is a signatory but because it is considered a developing country it is exempt from emission reductions - a reason often cited by Washington and Canberra for not accepting the treaty.
Mr Nor Mohamed said sustainable growth, or economic development, is important, but "there is no point in singling out" one country when it is a global problem.
"Companies that are polluting in China are owned by American, European, Japanese and others," he said.
"They are benefiting from the cheap labour, from the resources and at the same time accusing China of pollution," said Mr. Nor Mohamed.
"There should be no hyp0ocrisy. Let's take the hypocrisy out fo the equation," he said. "Treat it as a global problem... the world has to play a role rather than take the issue in a very adversarial or biased basis."
In 2006, China overtook the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by about 7.5%, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency's report last week. While China was 2% below the US in carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, voraious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the agency said.
China also uses other statistics to contend that it is not the worst offender: with a population of 1.3 billion people, China spews out about 4.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, while the United States releases more than 19 tonnes per person.
Chen Feng, the chairman of China Hainan Airlines, said "now is not the time" to fix blame but to create an international solution, noting that the West was the original polluter when its industries were ruining the environment 100 years ago.
"So the way I see it is, you [the West] were bandits before you became right-minded people," he told the discussion.
Japan's environment minister said it was "significant" that US President George "W Bush had proposed the 15 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, including the US, China and India, hold meetings and set an emissions goal, but that the commitment of other participants was critical.
-AP-
Bush Faces Crises from Palestine to Pakistan
IPS: 15 June 2007
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jun 15 (IPS) - Four years after the emergence of the first signs of a serious insurgency in Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush finds himself beset with major crises stretching from Palestine to Pakistan.
With U.S.-backed Fatah forces routed by Hamas in Gaza this week, Bush's five-year-old vision of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict now looks more remote than ever, while a new Pentagon report in Iraq suggests that his four-month-old "surge" strategy is failing in its primary objective of reducing the violence there.
Meanwhile, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, to whom Washington has provided virtually unconditional support since al Qaeda's 9/11 attack, faces a growing popular revolt, while much of the country's tribal border regions have come under the control of forces allied with Afghanistan's Taliban.
And Iran, which senior U.S. officials this week accused of arming the Taliban, as well as Shi'a militias in Iraq, has continued to defy Washington's demands that it halt its nuclear enrichment programme, while Tehran's regional allies, Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah, not to mention Hamas itself, appear to have successfully withstood intensified U.S.-led efforts to isolate them.
This week's events in Gaza, in fact, are also likely to have dealt a heavy blow to U.S. hopes of forging an anti-Iranian coalition consisting of Israel and the "Arab Quartet" led by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Saudi King Abdullah appeared to have grown disillusioned with Bush even before the U.S.-backed dissolution by Palestine Authority President and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas of the government of national unity whose birth was personally midwifed by Abdullah himself last March.
"There's a strongly held view among our Arab friends that we don't know what we're doing," observed ret. Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, Washington's chief envoy to Israel during Bush's first term and now a professor at Princeton University, earlier this week before Hamas' takeover of Gaza.
Al Qaeda, which continues to enjoy the protection of its allies in Pakistan and has made the U.S. military occupation in Iraq its primary recruiting ground, has also benefited enormously from the backlash against Washington's policies throughout the region, according to most experts here.
"Al Qaeda today is a global operation -- with a well-oiled propaganda machine based in Pakistan, a secondary but independent base in Iraq, and an expanding reach in Europe," wrote Bruce Riedel, a former high-level Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst, in Foreign Affairs magazine last month.
In the article, entitled "Al Qaeda Strikes Back," Reidel, the senior director for Near East Affairs in the White House from 1997 to 2002, predicted that the group would likely set up new operations in northern Lebanon and Gaza and eventually try to provoke "all-out war" between the U.S. and Iran as part of a "grand strategy" aimed at "bleeding" Washington in much the same way that U.S.-backed mujahadin and their Arab allies bled the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
Indeed, like Jason of Greek myth, Bush has sown dragon's teeth throughout the region with a predominantly military policy, particularly his decision to unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq, even as he encouraged right-wing governments in Israel to indulge their propensity for using force to resolve problems with their neighbours.
But, unlike Jason, it looks increasingly doubtful that Bush can subdue the militant forces that have sprouted from those seeds and appear to grow stronger with each passing day.
Israel, which last year fought a disastrous war in Lebanon promoted and prolonged at the behest of Washington's hawks and now facing a Hamas-dominated Gaza on its southern border, also appears increasingly vulnerable.
Regional specialists, including Riedel and Kurtzer, have long argued that resuming a credible Israeli-Palestinian peace process that could offer Palestinians tangible hope for gaining their own state in the not-too-distant future -- or what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called a "political horizon" -- could be the single most important step toward reversing the region's radicalisation that Washington could make.
So the big question now is how the U.S. and Israel will react to the latest events in the Palestinian territories -- a subject that will almost certainly top the agenda when Bush meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert here next week. Of particular importance is whether they will adopt the same harshly punitive policies against a Hamas-dominated Gaza that they have applied to the Palestinian government since Hamas defeated Fatah in the January 2006 elections.
Already, neo-conservatives and other hawks are clamouring for a tough policy consistent with that of the past five years, insisting not only that the U.S. lead an diplomatic and aid boycott against Gaza, but that it also shelve any plans for resuming a peace process, even with Abbas.
"(S)ince Palestinian politics have clearly returned to a pre-1993 status, so must Western and U.S. policy. This means no Western aid and no diplomatic support until their leaders change policies," wrote Barry Rubin, director of a Likudist think tank in Jerusalem in Friday's Wall Street Journal.
"Hamas is the enemy, as much as al Qaeda, because it is part of the radical Islamist effort to seize control of the region, overthrow anything even vaguely moderate, and expel any Western influence," he argued.
But others insist that such an approach would play into the hands of the region's radicals, including al Qaeda.
"The U.S. needs urgently to rethink its failed policy in the Middle East," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who directs the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation (NAF) here and who has decried the administration's efforts to weaken and eventually overthrow Hamas.
"In its failed effort to pursue regime change in Palestine and prevent Palestinians from embracing Hamas, the U.S. is driving them instead into the arms of al Qaeda," he said.
Americans for Peace Now, a Jewish group, also called for the administration to resist the hawks' advice and reassess its policy. "We urge the U.S., Israel, and the international community to not repeat the mistakes of the past 18 months, with policies predicated on the now clearly discredited notion that the Hamas failure in government will lead it to disappear from the Palestinian political scene," it said. (END/2007)
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jun 15 (IPS) - Four years after the emergence of the first signs of a serious insurgency in Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush finds himself beset with major crises stretching from Palestine to Pakistan.
With U.S.-backed Fatah forces routed by Hamas in Gaza this week, Bush's five-year-old vision of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict now looks more remote than ever, while a new Pentagon report in Iraq suggests that his four-month-old "surge" strategy is failing in its primary objective of reducing the violence there.
Meanwhile, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, to whom Washington has provided virtually unconditional support since al Qaeda's 9/11 attack, faces a growing popular revolt, while much of the country's tribal border regions have come under the control of forces allied with Afghanistan's Taliban.
And Iran, which senior U.S. officials this week accused of arming the Taliban, as well as Shi'a militias in Iraq, has continued to defy Washington's demands that it halt its nuclear enrichment programme, while Tehran's regional allies, Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah, not to mention Hamas itself, appear to have successfully withstood intensified U.S.-led efforts to isolate them.
This week's events in Gaza, in fact, are also likely to have dealt a heavy blow to U.S. hopes of forging an anti-Iranian coalition consisting of Israel and the "Arab Quartet" led by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Saudi King Abdullah appeared to have grown disillusioned with Bush even before the U.S.-backed dissolution by Palestine Authority President and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas of the government of national unity whose birth was personally midwifed by Abdullah himself last March.
"There's a strongly held view among our Arab friends that we don't know what we're doing," observed ret. Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, Washington's chief envoy to Israel during Bush's first term and now a professor at Princeton University, earlier this week before Hamas' takeover of Gaza.
Al Qaeda, which continues to enjoy the protection of its allies in Pakistan and has made the U.S. military occupation in Iraq its primary recruiting ground, has also benefited enormously from the backlash against Washington's policies throughout the region, according to most experts here.
"Al Qaeda today is a global operation -- with a well-oiled propaganda machine based in Pakistan, a secondary but independent base in Iraq, and an expanding reach in Europe," wrote Bruce Riedel, a former high-level Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst, in Foreign Affairs magazine last month.
In the article, entitled "Al Qaeda Strikes Back," Reidel, the senior director for Near East Affairs in the White House from 1997 to 2002, predicted that the group would likely set up new operations in northern Lebanon and Gaza and eventually try to provoke "all-out war" between the U.S. and Iran as part of a "grand strategy" aimed at "bleeding" Washington in much the same way that U.S.-backed mujahadin and their Arab allies bled the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
Indeed, like Jason of Greek myth, Bush has sown dragon's teeth throughout the region with a predominantly military policy, particularly his decision to unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq, even as he encouraged right-wing governments in Israel to indulge their propensity for using force to resolve problems with their neighbours.
But, unlike Jason, it looks increasingly doubtful that Bush can subdue the militant forces that have sprouted from those seeds and appear to grow stronger with each passing day.
Israel, which last year fought a disastrous war in Lebanon promoted and prolonged at the behest of Washington's hawks and now facing a Hamas-dominated Gaza on its southern border, also appears increasingly vulnerable.
Regional specialists, including Riedel and Kurtzer, have long argued that resuming a credible Israeli-Palestinian peace process that could offer Palestinians tangible hope for gaining their own state in the not-too-distant future -- or what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called a "political horizon" -- could be the single most important step toward reversing the region's radicalisation that Washington could make.
So the big question now is how the U.S. and Israel will react to the latest events in the Palestinian territories -- a subject that will almost certainly top the agenda when Bush meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert here next week. Of particular importance is whether they will adopt the same harshly punitive policies against a Hamas-dominated Gaza that they have applied to the Palestinian government since Hamas defeated Fatah in the January 2006 elections.
Already, neo-conservatives and other hawks are clamouring for a tough policy consistent with that of the past five years, insisting not only that the U.S. lead an diplomatic and aid boycott against Gaza, but that it also shelve any plans for resuming a peace process, even with Abbas.
"(S)ince Palestinian politics have clearly returned to a pre-1993 status, so must Western and U.S. policy. This means no Western aid and no diplomatic support until their leaders change policies," wrote Barry Rubin, director of a Likudist think tank in Jerusalem in Friday's Wall Street Journal.
"Hamas is the enemy, as much as al Qaeda, because it is part of the radical Islamist effort to seize control of the region, overthrow anything even vaguely moderate, and expel any Western influence," he argued.
But others insist that such an approach would play into the hands of the region's radicals, including al Qaeda.
"The U.S. needs urgently to rethink its failed policy in the Middle East," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who directs the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation (NAF) here and who has decried the administration's efforts to weaken and eventually overthrow Hamas.
"In its failed effort to pursue regime change in Palestine and prevent Palestinians from embracing Hamas, the U.S. is driving them instead into the arms of al Qaeda," he said.
Americans for Peace Now, a Jewish group, also called for the administration to resist the hawks' advice and reassess its policy. "We urge the U.S., Israel, and the international community to not repeat the mistakes of the past 18 months, with policies predicated on the now clearly discredited notion that the Hamas failure in government will lead it to disappear from the Palestinian political scene," it said. (END/2007)
Democracy Recession in South-east Asia
IPS: 13 June 2007
Analysis by John Feffer
WASHINGTON, Jun 13 (IPS) - The coup in Thailand, extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, limitations on religious freedom in Malaysia -- South-east Asian democracies are not exactly flourishing these days.
Nor has the wave of democratisation and people power that swept through the region in the 1980s had much effect on the governments of Burma or Laos. The number of democracies worldwide now outnumbers the number of non-democracies. But in Southeast Asia, democracy seems to be experiencing a recession.
"These are clearly fragile democracies," argued Anwar Ibrahim last week at an Asian Voices seminar sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. Ibrahim is the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia and an outspoken advocate for human rights.
"We cannot limit our understanding of democracy solely by the occurrence of elections. Elections are clearly problematic processes. We have to consider the presence of phantom voters -- a phenomenon which is not unknown even in the United States, for instance in Florida in 2000. We must grapple with the fact that there is often no access to a free media and that the judiciary is blatantly compromised."
In particular, Ibrahim questioned the democratic trajectory of Malaysia, now led by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the National Front secular coalition. The political situation, he allowed, has improved somewhat since the days of Prime Minister Mahathir, who presided over his imprisonment. "In this system, the personalities change but there's no change with the judiciary, with the media," Anwar said.
"Corruption has grown worse. Yes, we are doing better than many nations in the developing world, but how do you assess success? Compared to Somalia or Zimbabwe, we're doing well. But in the early 1980s, we compared ourselves to Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. In 2007, these countries have long since surpassed us, some in terms of economic growth and others with respect to political change and reform."
Perhaps the most dramatic blow to regional hopes for democracy came last September with the military coup in Thailand. But as Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies in Bangkok, explained at the same seminar, the challenge to Thai democracy began before 2006.
"The 1997 constitution was supposed to put a stop to the patronage system, to money politics. It was a people's constitution," Pongsudhirak recounted. The constitution "promoted the transparency and accountability of the political system. It augmented the stability and effectiveness of government. It promoted bigger parties and a more stable party system. It gave more authority to the executive branch. It established a party list system in which experts can enter Thai politics without participating in money politics."
The new Thai constitution also made it possible to go after corrupt politicians. In 2000, the national anti-corruption commission found prospective prime minister Thaksin guilty of assets concealment. When Thaksin assumed power in 2001, however, the corruption trial went to the Constitutional Court, which acquitted the prime minister by a narrow margin.
"After that, the constitution went downhill, leading to the coup and the constitution's abolition," argued Pongsudhirak. "The 1997 constitution was supposed to usher Thailand into a promised land but we have wasted a decade."
Despite corruption charges, Thaksin was and continues to be quite popular within Thailand. "He had his populist platform," Pongsudhirak said. "He became a threat to the established order. Things get done in a certain way in Thailand. The coup restored the primacy of the holy trinity: the alliance between the bureaucracy, the military, and the monarchy. Thaksin threatened this holy trinity. He won the peoples' hearts and minds in four or five years. He would win an election if it were held tomorrow by United Nations."
In the Philippines, meanwhile, democracy also seems to have taken a step backward. Corruption and scandal dogged the administration of Joseph Estrada, leading to a second people's power movement in 2001. In the 2004 elections, observed Filipino lawyer and civic activist Jose Luis Gascon, "there were issues of cheating and intimidation on a widespread scale."
Gascon acknowledged that Filipinos enjoy democratic institutions and, in 2004, could watch for the first time as an incumbent president ran again for office. But democracy in the Philippines remains tenuous.
"Ultimately, interventions must be done to strengthen civil society, to protect human rights, to ensure transparent parties, to strengthen the judiciary to ensure its independence, to guarantee free and fair elections in 2010, and to deal with the major cases of extrajudicial killings," Gascon said. "The Philippines should present a viable model in the region so that the Lee Kuan Yews and the Mahathirs of the world will not say that democracy is bad for South-east Asia."
The democratic deficit in South-east Asia is not simply within countries but between them as well. Anwar Ibrahim reserved some of his sharpest words for the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its policy toward the military junta in Burma.
ASEAN includes Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia and Singapore.
"In the case of Burma we can see the utter abdication of responsibility and the failure of governments in ASEAN to undertake positive, effective measures and the failure to give any meaningful influence except for this obsolete notion of constructive engagement," Answar said. "The only thing happening in Burma is construction undertaken by these countries, not constructive engagement: construction projects profiting from cozy relations with the corrupt military junta."
What should the ASEAN members do about Burma? "I'm not suggesting that the Thais and the Malaysians go to war with Burma. But ASEAN should take a strong position that a military regime cannot treat its citizens as slaves. If not for EU insistence, you can imagine the military junta leading the discussions at ASEAN conferences. We must be more principled. If you want to attend our meetings, some basic rules have to be accepted," Anwar concluded. (END/2007)
Analysis by John Feffer
WASHINGTON, Jun 13 (IPS) - The coup in Thailand, extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, limitations on religious freedom in Malaysia -- South-east Asian democracies are not exactly flourishing these days.
Nor has the wave of democratisation and people power that swept through the region in the 1980s had much effect on the governments of Burma or Laos. The number of democracies worldwide now outnumbers the number of non-democracies. But in Southeast Asia, democracy seems to be experiencing a recession.
"These are clearly fragile democracies," argued Anwar Ibrahim last week at an Asian Voices seminar sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. Ibrahim is the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia and an outspoken advocate for human rights.
"We cannot limit our understanding of democracy solely by the occurrence of elections. Elections are clearly problematic processes. We have to consider the presence of phantom voters -- a phenomenon which is not unknown even in the United States, for instance in Florida in 2000. We must grapple with the fact that there is often no access to a free media and that the judiciary is blatantly compromised."
In particular, Ibrahim questioned the democratic trajectory of Malaysia, now led by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the National Front secular coalition. The political situation, he allowed, has improved somewhat since the days of Prime Minister Mahathir, who presided over his imprisonment. "In this system, the personalities change but there's no change with the judiciary, with the media," Anwar said.
"Corruption has grown worse. Yes, we are doing better than many nations in the developing world, but how do you assess success? Compared to Somalia or Zimbabwe, we're doing well. But in the early 1980s, we compared ourselves to Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. In 2007, these countries have long since surpassed us, some in terms of economic growth and others with respect to political change and reform."
Perhaps the most dramatic blow to regional hopes for democracy came last September with the military coup in Thailand. But as Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies in Bangkok, explained at the same seminar, the challenge to Thai democracy began before 2006.
"The 1997 constitution was supposed to put a stop to the patronage system, to money politics. It was a people's constitution," Pongsudhirak recounted. The constitution "promoted the transparency and accountability of the political system. It augmented the stability and effectiveness of government. It promoted bigger parties and a more stable party system. It gave more authority to the executive branch. It established a party list system in which experts can enter Thai politics without participating in money politics."
The new Thai constitution also made it possible to go after corrupt politicians. In 2000, the national anti-corruption commission found prospective prime minister Thaksin guilty of assets concealment. When Thaksin assumed power in 2001, however, the corruption trial went to the Constitutional Court, which acquitted the prime minister by a narrow margin.
"After that, the constitution went downhill, leading to the coup and the constitution's abolition," argued Pongsudhirak. "The 1997 constitution was supposed to usher Thailand into a promised land but we have wasted a decade."
Despite corruption charges, Thaksin was and continues to be quite popular within Thailand. "He had his populist platform," Pongsudhirak said. "He became a threat to the established order. Things get done in a certain way in Thailand. The coup restored the primacy of the holy trinity: the alliance between the bureaucracy, the military, and the monarchy. Thaksin threatened this holy trinity. He won the peoples' hearts and minds in four or five years. He would win an election if it were held tomorrow by United Nations."
In the Philippines, meanwhile, democracy also seems to have taken a step backward. Corruption and scandal dogged the administration of Joseph Estrada, leading to a second people's power movement in 2001. In the 2004 elections, observed Filipino lawyer and civic activist Jose Luis Gascon, "there were issues of cheating and intimidation on a widespread scale."
Gascon acknowledged that Filipinos enjoy democratic institutions and, in 2004, could watch for the first time as an incumbent president ran again for office. But democracy in the Philippines remains tenuous.
"Ultimately, interventions must be done to strengthen civil society, to protect human rights, to ensure transparent parties, to strengthen the judiciary to ensure its independence, to guarantee free and fair elections in 2010, and to deal with the major cases of extrajudicial killings," Gascon said. "The Philippines should present a viable model in the region so that the Lee Kuan Yews and the Mahathirs of the world will not say that democracy is bad for South-east Asia."
The democratic deficit in South-east Asia is not simply within countries but between them as well. Anwar Ibrahim reserved some of his sharpest words for the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its policy toward the military junta in Burma.
ASEAN includes Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia and Singapore.
"In the case of Burma we can see the utter abdication of responsibility and the failure of governments in ASEAN to undertake positive, effective measures and the failure to give any meaningful influence except for this obsolete notion of constructive engagement," Answar said. "The only thing happening in Burma is construction undertaken by these countries, not constructive engagement: construction projects profiting from cozy relations with the corrupt military junta."
What should the ASEAN members do about Burma? "I'm not suggesting that the Thais and the Malaysians go to war with Burma. But ASEAN should take a strong position that a military regime cannot treat its citizens as slaves. If not for EU insistence, you can imagine the military junta leading the discussions at ASEAN conferences. We must be more principled. If you want to attend our meetings, some basic rules have to be accepted," Anwar concluded. (END/2007)
Indonesia's hard line with WHO ensures access to vaccines
The Nation: 15 June 2007
Earlier this year, the Indonesian government decided to withhold its bird-flu virus samples from the World Health Organisation's (WHO) collaborating centres pending a new global mechanism for virus sharing that had better terms for developing countries.
In breaking with the existing practice of freely sending flu-virus samples to these laboratories, Indonesia's health minister expressed dissatisfaction with a system which obliged WHO member states to share virus samples with WHO's collaborating centres, but which lacked mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits, most importantly affordable vaccines developed from these viral source materials by patent-seeking commercial entities.
On March 29, immediately following an interim agreement for Indonesia to resume sending flu-virus samples to WHO, health ministers of eighteen Asia-Pacific countries issued the Jakarta Declaration which called upon WHO "to convene the necessary meetings, initiate the critical processes and obtain the essential commitment of all stakeholders to establish the mechanisms for more open virus and information sharing and accessibility to avian influenza and other potential pandemic influenza vaccines for developing countries" . These proposals were tabled at the 60th World Health Assembly in Geneva (May 14-23) as part of a resolution calling for new mechanisms for virus sharing and for more equitable access to vaccines developed from these viral source materials.
This issue remained contentious and unresolved until the final hours of the gathering when a resolution was adopted mandating WHO to establish an international stockpile of vaccines for H5N1 or other influenza viruses of pandemic potential, and to formulate mechanisms for equitable access to these vaccines.
The Indonesian government's stance in particular was notable on three counts:
- It was explicitly a critique of WHO's balance of pragmatism which it felt was overly accommodative of corporate priorities, to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of a key constituency that WHO was mandated to defend.
- It was an exercise of leverage by a source country of biological materials seeking to redress the inequities of access to what may be vitally important health inputs (avian-flu vaccines) developed from these source materials.
- It was seeking equitable benefits from commercial developers not just for its nationals but for other communities as well who were likely to be sidelined by commercially-driven product development and distribution systems.
Notwithstanding the World Health Assembly's resolution to establish an international stockpile of vaccines, the limited vaccine production capacity globally, not to mention the financial needs for establishing and maintaining such a stockpile, are key issues that remain to be addressed.
A persuasive case could therefore be made that Asean Plus Three might provide a potential institutional framework for mobilising the financial and technological resources in the region to enhance regional preparedness and response capabilities in a likely epicentre of an emergent flu pandemic.
The Asian financial crisis in 1997 gave impetus to a regional effort at managing financial instability caused by volatile capital flows and speculative currency attacks. Recognising the increasing integration of East and Southeast Asian economies, the Chiang Mai Initiative emerged in May 2000, initially as a network of bilateral swap agreements among Asean Plus Three member states, which might yet evolve into a de facto Asian Monetary Fund following a decision in May of this year to multi-lateralise a multi-billion dollar pool of foreign exchange reserves of Asean Plus Three member states. Beyond the risk of financial contagion in globalised capital markets, the Sars epidemic of 2002-2003 forcefully demonstrated the regional economic consequences of a life-threatening infectious epidemic, effects which would pale in comparison with the devastating human and economic impact of an outbreak of highly transmissible and lethal human flu on the scale of the 1918-1919 pandemic.
An Asean Plus Three avian-flu initiative would go beyond the existing coordination of surveillance networks to include the development and acquisition of vaccine manufacturing capabilities, to augment regional stockpiles of avian flu vaccines which can be made available as public goods on a priority needs basis.
Set in this context, the Indonesian initiative on new virus-sharing arrangements is therefore noteworthy and its exercise of donor leverage may presage a consideration of trusteeships which could serve as public (international or regional) repositories of genetic resources, genomic information, and other biological materials.
Beyond the immediate concerns of timely and affordable access to pandemic flu vaccines, the Indonesian initiative has also raised the intriguing possibility of other analogous instances where individuals or groups of donors of biological materials and personal data could utilise the leverage of their gift relationship in clinical trials or other research settings in furtherance of the common good (rather than succumb to mercenary tendencies encouraged by a neo-liberal ethos).
Chan Chee Khoon is a professor and convenor at the Health and Social Policy Research Cluster at the Universiti Sains Malaysia's Women's Development Research Centre.
Earlier this year, the Indonesian government decided to withhold its bird-flu virus samples from the World Health Organisation's (WHO) collaborating centres pending a new global mechanism for virus sharing that had better terms for developing countries.
In breaking with the existing practice of freely sending flu-virus samples to these laboratories, Indonesia's health minister expressed dissatisfaction with a system which obliged WHO member states to share virus samples with WHO's collaborating centres, but which lacked mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits, most importantly affordable vaccines developed from these viral source materials by patent-seeking commercial entities.
On March 29, immediately following an interim agreement for Indonesia to resume sending flu-virus samples to WHO, health ministers of eighteen Asia-Pacific countries issued the Jakarta Declaration which called upon WHO "to convene the necessary meetings, initiate the critical processes and obtain the essential commitment of all stakeholders to establish the mechanisms for more open virus and information sharing and accessibility to avian influenza and other potential pandemic influenza vaccines for developing countries" . These proposals were tabled at the 60th World Health Assembly in Geneva (May 14-23) as part of a resolution calling for new mechanisms for virus sharing and for more equitable access to vaccines developed from these viral source materials.
This issue remained contentious and unresolved until the final hours of the gathering when a resolution was adopted mandating WHO to establish an international stockpile of vaccines for H5N1 or other influenza viruses of pandemic potential, and to formulate mechanisms for equitable access to these vaccines.
The Indonesian government's stance in particular was notable on three counts:
Notwithstanding the World Health Assembly's resolution to establish an international stockpile of vaccines, the limited vaccine production capacity globally, not to mention the financial needs for establishing and maintaining such a stockpile, are key issues that remain to be addressed.
A persuasive case could therefore be made that Asean Plus Three might provide a potential institutional framework for mobilising the financial and technological resources in the region to enhance regional preparedness and response capabilities in a likely epicentre of an emergent flu pandemic.
The Asian financial crisis in 1997 gave impetus to a regional effort at managing financial instability caused by volatile capital flows and speculative currency attacks. Recognising the increasing integration of East and Southeast Asian economies, the Chiang Mai Initiative emerged in May 2000, initially as a network of bilateral swap agreements among Asean Plus Three member states, which might yet evolve into a de facto Asian Monetary Fund following a decision in May of this year to multi-lateralise a multi-billion dollar pool of foreign exchange reserves of Asean Plus Three member states. Beyond the risk of financial contagion in globalised capital markets, the Sars epidemic of 2002-2003 forcefully demonstrated the regional economic consequences of a life-threatening infectious epidemic, effects which would pale in comparison with the devastating human and economic impact of an outbreak of highly transmissible and lethal human flu on the scale of the 1918-1919 pandemic.
An Asean Plus Three avian-flu initiative would go beyond the existing coordination of surveillance networks to include the development and acquisition of vaccine manufacturing capabilities, to augment regional stockpiles of avian flu vaccines which can be made available as public goods on a priority needs basis.
Set in this context, the Indonesian initiative on new virus-sharing arrangements is therefore noteworthy and its exercise of donor leverage may presage a consideration of trusteeships which could serve as public (international or regional) repositories of genetic resources, genomic information, and other biological materials.
Beyond the immediate concerns of timely and affordable access to pandemic flu vaccines, the Indonesian initiative has also raised the intriguing possibility of other analogous instances where individuals or groups of donors of biological materials and personal data could utilise the leverage of their gift relationship in clinical trials or other research settings in furtherance of the common good (rather than succumb to mercenary tendencies encouraged by a neo-liberal ethos).
Chan Chee Khoon is a professor and convenor at the Health and Social Policy Research Cluster at the Universiti Sains Malaysia's Women's Development Research Centre.
Democrats play religion card in White House race
The Nation: 5 June 2007
Washington - After baring their souls in a television confessional, top Democratic White House hopefuls have put Republicans firmly on notice that religious voters are up for grabs.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the party's 2008 front-runner, candidly revealed at a forum on religion and politics Monday that but for her faith, she might not have made it through ex-president Bill Clinton's infidelity.
Her rival, ex-senator John Edwards, told how the searing anguish of losing a teenaged son in a car accident brought his lapsed faith "roaring back."
Senator Barack Obama, the third of the front-runners, declared, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper," testifying that his politics were grounded in faith.
The remarkably candid forum, broadcast live by CNN and co-hosted by a progressive evangelical group, was the clearest sign yet that Democrats will refuse to concede the religious vote in 2008 to Republicans.
Evangelicals and the mighty "religious right" movement have been carefully courted by the Republicans and credited with helping power President George W. Bush to two terms in office.
Pulpit politics in America came under renewed scrutiny after exit polls suggested voters prioritizing "moral issues" may have swung the 2004 election to Bush over Democratic challenger John Kerry.
A national exit poll after the election found 59 per cent of Protestants and 52 per cent of Roman Catholics voted for Bush, along with 78 per cent of evangelicals and 61 per cent of people who go to church weekly.
Roman Catholic Kerry was reticent, like many Democrats, about speaking openly about religion, and only reluctantly and awkwardly addressed his faith in the closing days of his unsuccessful campaign.
But this year's crop of candidates served notice Monday they will not make the same mistake in a nation which wears its religion on its sleeve.
Clinton spoke openly about how her faith sustained her during the public anguish of her husband's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"I am not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said, in the forum hosted by the Soujourners organisation and CNN.
"I have been tested in ways that are both publicly known and those that are not so well known, or not known at all," Clinton said.
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right. Regardless of what the world thought, and that's all one can expect or hope for."
Edwards said religion helped him rebuild his life after teenaged son Wade perished in a freak car crash in 1996 and is a comfort as his wife battles cancer.
"I strayed away from the Lord for a period of time ... my faith came roaring back during some crises that my family was faced with."
"When Elizabeth and I lost our son, we were non-functional for a period of time, it was the Lord that got me through that."
Obama, vying to be America's first black president, came across with the air of a preacher, as he detailed how social policy was grounded in his faith.
"I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, ... we are connected as a people," Obama said.
"I've got a stake in other people. And I've got a set of responsibilities towards others, not just towards myself."
The forum in Washington was organised by Jim Wallis, an evangelical minister and anti-poverty campaigner, who wrote the 2005 New York Times bestseller "God's Politics."
The book asked "since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich and pro-Republican?"
In a 2005 interview with AFP, Wallis warned "if Democrats just talk policy and don't talk about moral issues, they are going to keep on losing."
But the fledgling "religious left" movement must battle the conservative Christian establishment, which boasts television stations, newswires and a direct line to the Republican White House.
Since most Democrats do not favor banning abortion, they must also finesse an issue which is a priority to many religious voters, particularly conservatives.
But questions are increasingly being asked about whether the religious right, which has its heydey in the 1980s, possesses the power it once did, and whether in 2008, religious conservatives dismayed with their presidential choices may not vote --- in a movement that would aid Democrats.
Agence France Presse
Washington - After baring their souls in a television confessional, top Democratic White House hopefuls have put Republicans firmly on notice that religious voters are up for grabs.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the party's 2008 front-runner, candidly revealed at a forum on religion and politics Monday that but for her faith, she might not have made it through ex-president Bill Clinton's infidelity.
Her rival, ex-senator John Edwards, told how the searing anguish of losing a teenaged son in a car accident brought his lapsed faith "roaring back."
Senator Barack Obama, the third of the front-runners, declared, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper," testifying that his politics were grounded in faith.
The remarkably candid forum, broadcast live by CNN and co-hosted by a progressive evangelical group, was the clearest sign yet that Democrats will refuse to concede the religious vote in 2008 to Republicans.
Evangelicals and the mighty "religious right" movement have been carefully courted by the Republicans and credited with helping power President George W. Bush to two terms in office.
Pulpit politics in America came under renewed scrutiny after exit polls suggested voters prioritizing "moral issues" may have swung the 2004 election to Bush over Democratic challenger John Kerry.
A national exit poll after the election found 59 per cent of Protestants and 52 per cent of Roman Catholics voted for Bush, along with 78 per cent of evangelicals and 61 per cent of people who go to church weekly.
Roman Catholic Kerry was reticent, like many Democrats, about speaking openly about religion, and only reluctantly and awkwardly addressed his faith in the closing days of his unsuccessful campaign.
But this year's crop of candidates served notice Monday they will not make the same mistake in a nation which wears its religion on its sleeve.
Clinton spoke openly about how her faith sustained her during the public anguish of her husband's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"I am not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said, in the forum hosted by the Soujourners organisation and CNN.
"I have been tested in ways that are both publicly known and those that are not so well known, or not known at all," Clinton said.
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right. Regardless of what the world thought, and that's all one can expect or hope for."
Edwards said religion helped him rebuild his life after teenaged son Wade perished in a freak car crash in 1996 and is a comfort as his wife battles cancer.
"I strayed away from the Lord for a period of time ... my faith came roaring back during some crises that my family was faced with."
"When Elizabeth and I lost our son, we were non-functional for a period of time, it was the Lord that got me through that."
Obama, vying to be America's first black president, came across with the air of a preacher, as he detailed how social policy was grounded in his faith.
"I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, ... we are connected as a people," Obama said.
"I've got a stake in other people. And I've got a set of responsibilities towards others, not just towards myself."
The forum in Washington was organised by Jim Wallis, an evangelical minister and anti-poverty campaigner, who wrote the 2005 New York Times bestseller "God's Politics."
The book asked "since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich and pro-Republican?"
In a 2005 interview with AFP, Wallis warned "if Democrats just talk policy and don't talk about moral issues, they are going to keep on losing."
But the fledgling "religious left" movement must battle the conservative Christian establishment, which boasts television stations, newswires and a direct line to the Republican White House.
Since most Democrats do not favor banning abortion, they must also finesse an issue which is a priority to many religious voters, particularly conservatives.
But questions are increasingly being asked about whether the religious right, which has its heydey in the 1980s, possesses the power it once did, and whether in 2008, religious conservatives dismayed with their presidential choices may not vote --- in a movement that would aid Democrats.
Agence France Presse
US and Israel blocking peace
BangkokPost Editorial: 1 June 2007
The Arab League is offering Israel an ambitious peace plan that could end the Arab-Israeli dispute and settle the question of Palestine. The Arab Peace Initiative, or the Saudi Plan as it is often called, offers Israel full diplomatic ties with the Arab League's 22 members in exchange for Israel's withdrawal to its legal pre-1967 borders. A viable Palestinian state would be created on about one-quarter of former Palestine.
Tragically, the Israelis and the Americans are already denouncing the plan, and will likely reject it, as they have done with similar proposals since the 1970s.
With the Palestinian intifada or uprising over, and Israel no longer suffering from suicide bombings, Israel and the United States no longer have an excuse to reject reasonable peace offers. One of the most common claims made by Israel and the United States is that peace has not been possible because of lack of an Arab "partner for peace".
However, the Arab world has endorsed the international consensus on Palestine and Israel, which has been in place since the 1970s after UN Resolution 242 was passed.
Resolution 242 bases a peace agreement on Israel relinquishing all territories captured in the 1967 war, while leaving the question of Palestine open for negotiation.
The first comprehensive peace plan came in 1976, when the international community agreed that 242 would include a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
When put before the UN General Assembly, the proposal was passed with only Israel and the United States voting against it. The US vetoed the proposal in the Security Council.
During the 1980s and 1990s, numerous similar peace offers were tabled in the UN _ all were based on Resolution 242, which was endorsed by Arab states and the broad international community.
All of the offers were passed by the General Assembly with only Israel and the US voting against them (and occasionally one or two small Third World republics, such as Dominica).
All of these proposals were vetoed by the US in the Security Council. Israel and the United States also blocked numerous Arab, Palestinian and European proposals that would have solved the Israel-Arab dispute.
The Saudi Plan is not unique in content. Except for small concessions in Israel's favour, it is almost identical to the Arab peace offer of 2002.
However, when Israel and the US rejected the 2002 plan, they had an excuse _ the intifada was killing hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians in brutal attacks by suicide bombers. But now things have changed.
Suicide bombings have dropped to zero, and save for several crude, home-made rockets (many of which are fired into illegal settlements inside Palestine), the Israel-Palestinian border is peaceful.
Polls indicate that most Israelis and Americans support the Arab peace offers, and Israeli critics are loudly denouncing rejection as never before.
Unfortunately, these pleas are unlikely to change the government's position. Israel's radical settler movement, which advocates the colonisation of the would-be Palestinian state, is a growing force that holds the balance of power in Israel's "one man, one vote" democracy.
Appeasing the settlers is essential for any modern Israeli government, which is why settlement construction has persisted under both Labour and Likud governments.
For example, settlement construction peaked during the Oslo peace process from 1993-2001, when the settler population nearly doubled and as many as 740 Palestinian houses were demolished.
It also accelerated since Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005 when tens of thousands of settlers illegally moved the West Bank _ in the would-be Palestinian state.
A comprehensive peace settlement based on the international consensus is impossible as long as these settlements remain.
Until the moderate majority in Israel and the United States demand an end to their governments' rejectionism, peace between Israel, its Arab neighbours and the Palestinians is impossible.
The Arab League is offering Israel an ambitious peace plan that could end the Arab-Israeli dispute and settle the question of Palestine. The Arab Peace Initiative, or the Saudi Plan as it is often called, offers Israel full diplomatic ties with the Arab League's 22 members in exchange for Israel's withdrawal to its legal pre-1967 borders. A viable Palestinian state would be created on about one-quarter of former Palestine.
Tragically, the Israelis and the Americans are already denouncing the plan, and will likely reject it, as they have done with similar proposals since the 1970s.
With the Palestinian intifada or uprising over, and Israel no longer suffering from suicide bombings, Israel and the United States no longer have an excuse to reject reasonable peace offers. One of the most common claims made by Israel and the United States is that peace has not been possible because of lack of an Arab "partner for peace".
However, the Arab world has endorsed the international consensus on Palestine and Israel, which has been in place since the 1970s after UN Resolution 242 was passed.
Resolution 242 bases a peace agreement on Israel relinquishing all territories captured in the 1967 war, while leaving the question of Palestine open for negotiation.
The first comprehensive peace plan came in 1976, when the international community agreed that 242 would include a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
When put before the UN General Assembly, the proposal was passed with only Israel and the United States voting against it. The US vetoed the proposal in the Security Council.
During the 1980s and 1990s, numerous similar peace offers were tabled in the UN _ all were based on Resolution 242, which was endorsed by Arab states and the broad international community.
All of the offers were passed by the General Assembly with only Israel and the US voting against them (and occasionally one or two small Third World republics, such as Dominica).
All of these proposals were vetoed by the US in the Security Council. Israel and the United States also blocked numerous Arab, Palestinian and European proposals that would have solved the Israel-Arab dispute.
The Saudi Plan is not unique in content. Except for small concessions in Israel's favour, it is almost identical to the Arab peace offer of 2002.
However, when Israel and the US rejected the 2002 plan, they had an excuse _ the intifada was killing hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians in brutal attacks by suicide bombers. But now things have changed.
Suicide bombings have dropped to zero, and save for several crude, home-made rockets (many of which are fired into illegal settlements inside Palestine), the Israel-Palestinian border is peaceful.
Polls indicate that most Israelis and Americans support the Arab peace offers, and Israeli critics are loudly denouncing rejection as never before.
Unfortunately, these pleas are unlikely to change the government's position. Israel's radical settler movement, which advocates the colonisation of the would-be Palestinian state, is a growing force that holds the balance of power in Israel's "one man, one vote" democracy.
Appeasing the settlers is essential for any modern Israeli government, which is why settlement construction has persisted under both Labour and Likud governments.
For example, settlement construction peaked during the Oslo peace process from 1993-2001, when the settler population nearly doubled and as many as 740 Palestinian houses were demolished.
It also accelerated since Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005 when tens of thousands of settlers illegally moved the West Bank _ in the would-be Palestinian state.
A comprehensive peace settlement based on the international consensus is impossible as long as these settlements remain.
Until the moderate majority in Israel and the United States demand an end to their governments' rejectionism, peace between Israel, its Arab neighbours and the Palestinians is impossible.
No Freedom Worship for Muslims Says Court
RELIGION-MALAYSIA:
No Freedom Worship for Muslims Says Court
Baradan Kuppusamy
KUALA LUMPUR, May 31 (IPS) - The stunning decision by Malaysia's highest secular court this week that freedom of worship, a constitutional guarantee, does not apply to Malay Muslims is a major blow to freedom and constitutional democracy, lawyers and human rights activists say.
The Federal Court also reaffirmed that the civil court had no jurisdiction over any Islamic matters, even when non-Muslims are involved.
Wednesday's verdict does not end the Muslim, non-Muslim divide, but may cause it to worsen as the tussle for primacy between inherited secular guarantees and a resurgent Islam demanding pre-eminence for Shariah laws continues, said observers.
Non-Muslim leaders -- both political and religious -- reacted with shock and disbelief after the apex court ruled in a majority 2-1 decision that a Muslim cannot rely on Article 11 that guarantees freedom of worship to leave Islam but must go to a Shariah court to get a certificate to turn apostate.
Ironically, Shariah law does not permit Muslims to become apostate but instead prescribes punishment with fines, forced rehabilitation or jail term.
"Muslims going to Shariah court would incriminate themselves, invite prosecution," said Justice Richard Malajum, the dissenting judge, in the verdict who held that Article 11 applies to all citizens alike without discrimination.
The ruling, which is binding on all lower civil courts, will affect at least a dozen cases of apostasy pending in civil courts, mainly involving Muslim converts who want to return to their former religions.
It will also impact negatively on many cases where non-Muslims are fighting for justice such as custody of children, sharing of matrimonial wealth, maintenance and dissolution of civil marriage -- after one partner converts to Islam and relies on Shariah law to settle contentious issues.
"The judgment does not end the Muslim, non-Muslim divide but has instead widened it by introducing Islamic principles into secular, constitutional matters," opposition leader Lim Kit Siang in an IPS interview.
"A political solution is urgently needed to resolve this potentially dangerous disquiet," he told IPS. ‘'It is necessary for the government to take immediate steps to promote and protect the supremacy of the constitution," Lim said.
Sisters in Islam, a prominent rights group for Muslim women, said it was disappointed the constitution had not been upheld. "For us, the dissenting judgment is significant," said Zainah Anwar, executive director. "The Federal Court, the apex court of the country, is divided over this issue, as the country is divided on it."
‘'There is a strong dissenting judgmentàthis issue is not over yet,'' said Malik Imtiaz Sarvar who handled several apostasy and other related cases in court.
‘'This decision reflects a growing trend of decisions in the courts where civil courts are abdicating their responsibility of providing legal redress to individuals who only seek to profess and live their religion according to their conscience,'' said Bishop Paul Tan of the Christian Federation of Malaysia.
‘'It is pressing for the government and lawmakers to revisit the relevant legislation and to reinstate the jurisdiction of the civil courts so that equal protection of the right to choose and express one's religion is accorded to all Malaysians, as enshrined in Article 11,'' he said in a statement.
The ruling threatens to polarise an already polarised society with non-Muslims seeing the verdict as a confirmation that "creeping Islam" is eating into constitutional guarantees to religious freedom.
Muslims however see the verdict as a victory and final confirmation that Shariah is superior to secular laws that are based on English common law foundation.
Yusri Mohamad, the head of a coalition of about 80 Muslim NGOs called Pembela (Protector) that strongly campaigned for supremacy of Shariah, said justice had been served by the verdict. "The verdict is just and a relief to all Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims," Yusri told about 300 Muslims gathered outside the court. "It should not be perceived as a victory for Muslims and a loss to non-Muslims," he said.
The verdict centred on a Malay woman, Azlina Jailani, 43, born a Muslim, who converted to Christianity in 1989 and changed her name to Lina Joy. She fell in love with an Indian Christian cook and wanted to marry in a civil ceremony and raise a family of her own.
But Joy's national identity card referred to her as a Muslim although she had embraced Christianity. She fought the Islamic authorities and the national registration department for nine years to change her religious identity officially and move on.
Joy's struggle became a test case for religious freedom in Malaysia with Muslims and non-Muslims rallying to her cause, especially her right to freedom of worship.
"There was widespread hope that the Federal Court would stand firm and uphold the constitution especially Article 11, but that is not the case," said a prominent human rights activist who did not want to be identified fearing persecution. "It is a sad day for freedom and judicial independence," she said.
Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, who delivered the main judgment, held that Muslims cannot join or leave a religion according to their "whims and fancies.''
Muslims, he said, ‘'have to follow the requirements of their religion which is a complete religionàa way of life."
Joy, who is believed to be in hiding, through her lawyer Benjamin Dawson expressed deep dissatisfaction at the verdict.
"I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists for all persons; namely, the right to believe in the religion of one's choice and equally important, the right to marry a person of one's choice and to raise a family," she said.
"The Court has not only denied me that right but to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms," she said. "It is extremely difficult to exercise freedom of conscience here now."
"Freedom of religion here is an illusion," said Leonard Teoh, a lawyer for the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism which also campaigned to protect Article 11.
Lawyers feel that outside of a political solution, there is little else that activists can do after the court ruling. "A political solution has to come from the office of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawiàhe has to lead the way to protect the constitution and the rule of law," said Lim Guan Eng, secretary general of the Democratic Action party, the biggest opposition party in parliament.
"When the courts have failed, parliament has to step in and make legislative changes to clarify issues and uphold secular rights which are the basis for a legal and modern society," Lim told IPS.
But Badawi's ruling National Front government has a stranglehold on parliament controlling 90 percent of the 217 seats -- a massive majority that can steamroll any opposition.
"Ultimately the solution is in the hands of the voters," Lim said. "Whether they speak up or remain silent." (END/2007)
No Freedom Worship for Muslims Says Court
Baradan Kuppusamy
KUALA LUMPUR, May 31 (IPS) - The stunning decision by Malaysia's highest secular court this week that freedom of worship, a constitutional guarantee, does not apply to Malay Muslims is a major blow to freedom and constitutional democracy, lawyers and human rights activists say.
The Federal Court also reaffirmed that the civil court had no jurisdiction over any Islamic matters, even when non-Muslims are involved.
Wednesday's verdict does not end the Muslim, non-Muslim divide, but may cause it to worsen as the tussle for primacy between inherited secular guarantees and a resurgent Islam demanding pre-eminence for Shariah laws continues, said observers.
Non-Muslim leaders -- both political and religious -- reacted with shock and disbelief after the apex court ruled in a majority 2-1 decision that a Muslim cannot rely on Article 11 that guarantees freedom of worship to leave Islam but must go to a Shariah court to get a certificate to turn apostate.
Ironically, Shariah law does not permit Muslims to become apostate but instead prescribes punishment with fines, forced rehabilitation or jail term.
"Muslims going to Shariah court would incriminate themselves, invite prosecution," said Justice Richard Malajum, the dissenting judge, in the verdict who held that Article 11 applies to all citizens alike without discrimination.
The ruling, which is binding on all lower civil courts, will affect at least a dozen cases of apostasy pending in civil courts, mainly involving Muslim converts who want to return to their former religions.
It will also impact negatively on many cases where non-Muslims are fighting for justice such as custody of children, sharing of matrimonial wealth, maintenance and dissolution of civil marriage -- after one partner converts to Islam and relies on Shariah law to settle contentious issues.
"The judgment does not end the Muslim, non-Muslim divide but has instead widened it by introducing Islamic principles into secular, constitutional matters," opposition leader Lim Kit Siang in an IPS interview.
"A political solution is urgently needed to resolve this potentially dangerous disquiet," he told IPS. ‘'It is necessary for the government to take immediate steps to promote and protect the supremacy of the constitution," Lim said.
Sisters in Islam, a prominent rights group for Muslim women, said it was disappointed the constitution had not been upheld. "For us, the dissenting judgment is significant," said Zainah Anwar, executive director. "The Federal Court, the apex court of the country, is divided over this issue, as the country is divided on it."
‘'There is a strong dissenting judgmentàthis issue is not over yet,'' said Malik Imtiaz Sarvar who handled several apostasy and other related cases in court.
‘'This decision reflects a growing trend of decisions in the courts where civil courts are abdicating their responsibility of providing legal redress to individuals who only seek to profess and live their religion according to their conscience,'' said Bishop Paul Tan of the Christian Federation of Malaysia.
‘'It is pressing for the government and lawmakers to revisit the relevant legislation and to reinstate the jurisdiction of the civil courts so that equal protection of the right to choose and express one's religion is accorded to all Malaysians, as enshrined in Article 11,'' he said in a statement.
The ruling threatens to polarise an already polarised society with non-Muslims seeing the verdict as a confirmation that "creeping Islam" is eating into constitutional guarantees to religious freedom.
Muslims however see the verdict as a victory and final confirmation that Shariah is superior to secular laws that are based on English common law foundation.
Yusri Mohamad, the head of a coalition of about 80 Muslim NGOs called Pembela (Protector) that strongly campaigned for supremacy of Shariah, said justice had been served by the verdict. "The verdict is just and a relief to all Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims," Yusri told about 300 Muslims gathered outside the court. "It should not be perceived as a victory for Muslims and a loss to non-Muslims," he said.
The verdict centred on a Malay woman, Azlina Jailani, 43, born a Muslim, who converted to Christianity in 1989 and changed her name to Lina Joy. She fell in love with an Indian Christian cook and wanted to marry in a civil ceremony and raise a family of her own.
But Joy's national identity card referred to her as a Muslim although she had embraced Christianity. She fought the Islamic authorities and the national registration department for nine years to change her religious identity officially and move on.
Joy's struggle became a test case for religious freedom in Malaysia with Muslims and non-Muslims rallying to her cause, especially her right to freedom of worship.
"There was widespread hope that the Federal Court would stand firm and uphold the constitution especially Article 11, but that is not the case," said a prominent human rights activist who did not want to be identified fearing persecution. "It is a sad day for freedom and judicial independence," she said.
Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, who delivered the main judgment, held that Muslims cannot join or leave a religion according to their "whims and fancies.''
Muslims, he said, ‘'have to follow the requirements of their religion which is a complete religionàa way of life."
Joy, who is believed to be in hiding, through her lawyer Benjamin Dawson expressed deep dissatisfaction at the verdict.
"I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists for all persons; namely, the right to believe in the religion of one's choice and equally important, the right to marry a person of one's choice and to raise a family," she said.
"The Court has not only denied me that right but to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms," she said. "It is extremely difficult to exercise freedom of conscience here now."
"Freedom of religion here is an illusion," said Leonard Teoh, a lawyer for the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism which also campaigned to protect Article 11.
Lawyers feel that outside of a political solution, there is little else that activists can do after the court ruling. "A political solution has to come from the office of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawiàhe has to lead the way to protect the constitution and the rule of law," said Lim Guan Eng, secretary general of the Democratic Action party, the biggest opposition party in parliament.
"When the courts have failed, parliament has to step in and make legislative changes to clarify issues and uphold secular rights which are the basis for a legal and modern society," Lim told IPS.
But Badawi's ruling National Front government has a stranglehold on parliament controlling 90 percent of the 217 seats -- a massive majority that can steamroll any opposition.
"Ultimately the solution is in the hands of the voters," Lim said. "Whether they speak up or remain silent." (END/2007)
