The US lost its legitimacy to criticise

By MT Webmaster Last updated Dec 12, 2014

We can criticise what happened in Sabah. But Anwar cannot. Anwar has lost his legitimacy to criticise since he was part of the government that he alleges created this problem. And the US, too, can criticise Malaysia if it is prepared to criticise Saudi Arabia for not holding free and fair elections.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Politicians must be skilled in the art of double-speak. They must also be able to separate the moral from the legal. Doing something illegal will result in you ending up in jail. Doing something immoral may result in you getting kicked out of office or result in you not getting votes. Being skilled in the art of double-speak will enable you to navigate the fine boundaries of immorality and explain that it is not illegal, and get away with it.

When President Clinton turned the oval office into the oral office and was accused of having sex with an intern, his response was ‘define having sex’. So, instead of focusing on the immorality of the President, we are now locked in a debate on semantics as to what ‘having sex’ means and whether oral sex comes under that category or not.

US Vice-President Joe Biden has criticised Malaysia’s Sedition Act and is now under fire. There is nothing wrong with a foreign leader commenting on the human rights situation in other countries. I, too, once faced the United States Foreign Relations and Human Rights Committee 14 years ago back in 2000 to give them a presentation on the human rights situation in Malaysia.

So, as I said, there is nothing wrong with what Joe Biden did. But it becomes hypocritical when he criticises Malaysia but remains silent on even bigger and more important issues.

How much money is Saudi Arabia pouring into the civil war in the Middle East? We condemn the Muslim militants such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, IS, ISIS, ISIL and so on. But the wars these groups are perpetuating costs a lot of money, huge sums indeed, and someone is funding them to the tune of billions.

So, we condemn the militants but we do not condemn those financing these militants because those financing these militants are pro-West or pro-US. And they fund the militants so that the Sunnis can engage the Shias in a civil war and Saudi Arabia wants this civil war so that the Shias can be kept busy and not become a threat to Saudi Arabia.

Basically, it is a divide and rule strategy. Divide the Muslims and allow them to fight. Then the US and the Arab friends of the US, such as Saudi Arabia, will not come under threat.

Saudi Arabia does not just use its vast reserves of money to perpetuate wars in the Middle East. It also does not have democratic elections and arrests women who drive. Does the US endorse this? If not then why does Joe Biden not criticise the Saudis for violations of human rights that is far worse than Malaysia’s Sedition Act?

Just as we can accuse Malaysia of selective prosecution, we can also accuse the US of selective criticism. If the US is really the defender of human rights and civil liberties then nothing and no one should be spared. If Malaysia was to make a statement against China and pledge allegiance and loyalty to the US would Joe Biden still criticise Malaysia’s Sedition Act? Or is Malaysia being criticised because the country is seen as too friendly with China?

From 1775 to 1783, America fought a bloody War of Independence. The Americans wanted democracy and freedom where all men are equal. Hence it was a noble war for the rights of man.

But women in the US were not allowed to vote until 1920. So the rights of man did not include women. And even as recent as the 1960s there were still riots in many parts of the US when the government tried to abolish segregation. Many Americans still wanted blacks to be treated as second-class citizens. Dogs could be brought onto buses or into restaurants but blacks were barred.

Yes, we want the US to play the role of policeman of the world. But it must be a sincere role. And the US is not sincere. It upholds despotic regimes that are pro-US and topples democracies that are not. It criticises countries that are not pro-US enough and remains silent on countries that serve US interests.

Was it not pro-US Pakistan that created the Taliban? So why bomb Afghanistan when the monster was created by America’s friend with funding from the US? No doubt Pakistan created the Taliban with America’s assistance so that Russia could be brought down. This is the same as the British creating the MPAJA to fight the Japanese that later turned into the CPM and which resulted in 12 years of chaos in Malaya at a loss of so many lives.

When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was Malaysia’s Prime Minister they screamed that the Cabinet works on the principle of collective responsibility. Musa Hitam, the Deputy Prime Minister, who did not agree with some of the government decisions, resigned from the government. He did not wish to share the collective responsibility. The others, Anwar Ibrahim included, did not resign. They stayed on and Anwar, in fact, went on to take over Musa Hitam’s job of Deputy Prime Minister.

Now people like Anwar blame Dr Mahathir alone for the illegal immigrant fiasco in Sabah. Was it not, as they told us back in the 1980s and 1990s, a collective decision and collective responsibility?

Anwar says he was not aware of what was going on. The people I spoke to ten years ago who were involved in this, some who testified at the RCI, told me that Anwar was definitely aware and not in the least in the dark. People like Dr Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan and his brother, Pairin, can shed light on the matter because they were running Sabah at that time and, therefore, knew what was going on. And they knew that Anwar was very much involved, contra to what he is saying now.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK