Aku dan Kongres Nasional PKR 2010

Buat pertama kalinya, aku menghadiri dalam Kongres Nasional Parti Keadilan Rakyat. Aku bukan anggota Keadilan. Aku juga bukan anak era Reformasi. Aku masih di bangku sekolah pada tahun 1998. Waktu sama ketika Anwar Ibrahim dizalimi oleh Mahathir. Aku baca buku karangan Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance di Perpustakaan Sultanah Bahiyah, Universiti Utara Malaysia sebelum bangkit melawan kepimpinan Tan Sri Dr Nordin Kardi pada awal tahun 2009. Ingatkan cerdik orang tua itu, rupa-rupanya masih tidak tahu bezakan minyak dan gas dengan Penjana Tenaga Bebas (IPP). Malu aku mengaku mahasiswa UUM. Apa hendak aku jawab pada orang luar?

Tiga hari aku di sana, aku menumpukan perhatian sepenuhnya dalam sesi ucapan dasar Presiden dan perbahasan para peserta. Banyak sekali ungkapan-ungkapan indah dikatakan oleh pembahas-pembahas baik memuji ketokohan Anwar Ibrahim mahupun mengangkat nilai-nilai reformasi agar kekal segar dalam perjuangan arus perdana parti. Melawan Barisan Nasional habis-habisan juga turut ditekankan.

Banyak juga aku dengar cadangan-cadangan memantapkan parti dan tidak kurang juga yang berucap memperingatkan sesetengah pemimpin parti yang mudah lupa. Ada juga pembahas-pembahas Sarawak yang kelihatannya bersungguh-sungguh menyuarakan rintihan dan kesukaran jentera parti sebagai persediaan dalam pilihanraya negeri yang bakal berlangsung pada tahun hadapan.

Aku adalah anak muda yang berjiwa besar. Yang punya iltizam tinggi melakukan perubahan. Aku mungkin tidak hadir di jalanan pada tahun 1998 bersama-sama dengan teman reformis, tetapi dengan semangat kental dan tidak putus asa aku, aku berjuang akal dengan terus mengenengahkan idea-idea bernas agar Malaysia, pada suatu hari kelak diperintah oleh barisan Pakatan Rakyat yang punya ketetapan kerajaan bertanggungjawab, yang faham akan demokrasi, yang faham akan kebebasan individu dan ekonomi dan yang tidak akan mengulangi kesilapan lampau.

Bagi aku, Anwar Ibrahim adalah pemimpin Pencerahan Asia. Bukan senang hendak aku carikan seorang sosok politik yang suka berfalsafah dan teguh keyakinannya seperti beliau di Malaysia. Kenal Anwar Ibrahim, aku mula berkenalan dengan Pak Khalid dan konco-konconya. Aku sangka aku keseorangan, akhirnya tidak lagi. Teman sesama aliran fikiran bercambah banyaknya di Kuala Lumpur.

Kelebihan Anwar Ibrahim, walau diancam, diserang kiri dan kanan, Anwar Ibrahim tetap Anwar Ibrahim. Tidak ada media Keadilan segagah BN dapat tumpaskan dakyah jahat itu, Anwar Ibrahim belum lagi berkubur. Ada kesempatan, Anwar Ibrahim harus menjadi Perdana Menteri Rakyat Malaysia. Aku puji Keadilan kerana tetap teguh di atas kebenaran, bukan kepalsuan. Utusan Malaysia menyerang tiap-tiap hari. Tugas aku tiap-tiap hari baca Utusan Malaysia dan membuat rumusan. Tetapi, aku tidak bimbang kerana propaganda ini tidak akan meranapkan keyakinan umum terhadap slogan Keadilan Untuk Semua.

Peace Requires Strength

Here is the situation. I decided to write this notes simply because I urge North Korea to be punished for its action against South Korea in recent attacks. I do not know how many are killed, and how many civilians are wounded. We must respond the escalating tensions accordingly that there is no way else for North Korea to stop threatening the region by their nuclear weapon unless the United States of America and allies acknowledges military strike options on the table this time. I shall say a must. North Korea is the axis of evil. They are representing great danger of modern world. They are constantly posing belligerent behavior towards their neighbors. And all these must be addressed with the commitment of disarming completely North Korea from weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq once upon a time ruled by a tyrant and he is no longer here. He is gone. Iraq now, in the transition of a nascent democratic nation and emerges to be respected in the region. I must say that former President Bush has done a costly decision combating terrorism in order to achieve stability and security within quite some time. Is President Obama willing to make tough decision this time around? What choices left then? Sit down in White House watching North Korea dark vision provocation the entire region? Of course, Obama is relatively weak compare to Republican neoconservatives. Robert Gates is losing his key neocon person in planning to combat rogue states like Iran and Burma. America, the declining role of your superiority is the choices, not permanently.

Talks, is absolutely delusion because the more time given to them, the more aggressive they are to conquer our dream as a free nation. I don’t prefer negotiations after negotiations and party talks to persuade North Korea to jettison the nuclear state ambition. It is just a tactical approach to build up more weapon of mass destruction. I actually oppose when you consuming plenty of time to build talks, and they are build up more sophisticated tools for destruction. War is the healthy of North Korea. And it is the responsibility of the United States of America and allies to continue their objectives as the only blessed and powerful nation on earth to protect international community.

Supportive regimes in China, Iran, even Burma toward North Korea which pose risk to erupt a second Korean War is overwhelming. It is frightening and inevitably as I see the intractable political interest. They are subsidizing North Korea with political interest, feeding them with aids under the guise of humanitarian and do whatever it takes to conceals North Korea regimes nukes intention in United Nation (UN) talks. Change Iran, change Burma, and change North Korea.

Malaysia and rest of the world have not strongly condemning North Korea. Disappointing, ironically Malaysia and rest of the world had series of condemnation towards Israel including United States of America particularly President Obama. The struggle of Israel existence on their own sovereign land has caused so much pain and sacrifices among Jewish against intruders. Anti Israel campaigns continues everywhere; campuses, streets and political orations. Life under Hamas is hell, life under Israel is benign. I will not abandon Israel at whatever cost. Abandoning Israel, it is also means you abandoning the frontline of civilization. We shall not disregard the facts that to acquire peace require strength!

I Give You, Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren. While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president. During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice. Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles. Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

§ He has never voted to raise taxes.

§ He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

§ He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

§ He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

§ He has never taken a government-paid junket.

§ He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

§ He voted against the Patriot Act.

§ He voted against regulating the Internet.

§ He voted against the Iraq war.

§ He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

§ He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Myself And Compulsion

He has confirmed to walk away from the party due to differences after months in PKR. Clashes of personality, or perhaps a distinction between what I want and what do you want. I tell you, if you are new member of the party, do not ever wish to go against so called superior or leadership. Here, we recognized 'subservient' as a norm.

They know best. I, myself is nothing than just a freshmen who need to be taught about obedience and respect the only man in the party. Yes, follow me then you will be secured. Dislike. Myself for the instance, I like to do what I want. I don’t care what they said about me. As I strongly believe, I rather become inefficient and I deserve meet the failure. That’s the only way to progress and become more resilient in the future. Why they need to spread abhorrence in order to epitomizing popularity?

Well, I lose my sense of individualist, what I can do given my best knowledge and what does collectively decide for the greater good. Collective thinking is absolutely violating my desire to create, foresee and emotionally which distorted by majority. Those who advocates ‘togetherness’ and common benefits, I had been in that situation previously, somewhere. It was a moral transgression and absurd!

You don’t agree, you are ‘told’ to quit although no one ask you to do so. In the case of Zaid Ibrahim, I don’t have many things to speak about him but if he thinks that he feels better with quitting the party, let him be. At the other side, who apparently happy with the news, should look forward and rectifying all claims and complaints for a better party. Democracy is fine and hard to exercise. One man, one vote providing us means to convince the people that PKR is a democratic party. What about each of them? Are they democratically elected? Are these means corrupted conscience and individual sense in the party?

A Marxist scholar, don't remember the name but it is likely, obviously the state of alliance between the leadership and intellectual or scholars in nineteenth century House of Hohenzollern at Berlin. As a result, they become venerable and invulnerable institutions. Do they (PKR or PR) emulate this? So? Who afraid now? You or me? They or me alone? Who feels insecure?

One man appears so threatens to the strength of party and leadership just because of freedom and individual liberty. I am not part of reformist age. I wasn’t there on the street screaming for justice and corrupted government to be wiped off. But I have a conviction to say and implement it if they (politicians) have in their mind as mine.

Someone reiterates me since day one; the history of the party must not be forgotten by, especially new members. If you are the member or part of the struggle whether during reformist age, then you are considered experienced and respected. Yes, this is the perception I always deal with.

My conviction and belief is relevant and I think if Zaid’s new party of himself endorses it, I will not hesitate to walk the talk with them. You don’t like him and there is goes saying a technical excuse such as “PKR is very disappointing with him as a result using BN’s media to launch attack against the party”. They use ‘we’ now. What if I say no? What is my platform to say no? Can ‘we’ fulfill my needs and expectation then? Oh, majority takes all! Is the decision irrevocable?

My hope is Zaid Ibrahim willing to embrace our determination of liberal matured democracy. It requires small government, market driven economy, and more vibrant individual liberty. My proposal to him, establish a movement which call more principles rather than political gimmick. Why not? The time has come to let new movement sparking their Enlightening and Reason to shine our beloved nation.

A Pas Man Should Lead Pakatan: Zaid Ibrahim

Exclusive interview with Zaid Ibrahim

'A Pas man should lead Pakatan'

By Rashid Yusof, Sajahan Waheed and Shuhada Elis

KUALA LUMPUR: Someone from the ranks of Pas should be the leader of Pakatan Rakyat, said Datuk Zaid Ibrahim whose exit from Parti Keadilan Rakyat looks inevitable.

He named in an interview Kelantan exco member Datuk Husam Musa and four Pas parliamentarians -- Dr Hatta Ramli (Kuala Krai), Dr Mujahid Yusuf Rawa (Parit Buntar), Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Kuala Selangor) and Khalid Samad (Shah Alam) as prospective leaders.

Speaking of Pas and its personalities in general terms, Zaid said they would have to be more assertive, demonstrate greater confidence and step out of the shadows of PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Zaid said PKR had declined following the inroads it had made in the March 2008 general election and this was why he had offered to contest the No. 2 post in PKR.

At the same time, there was a sense that Pas was lacking in confidence as its leaders seemed to think that Anwar was the saviour.

"Pas has always been the strongest Malay party in the opposition."

On the other hand, "if you think Anwar can deliver to you, he is not going to do that, so you might as well face the issues yourself".

Asked if a Malay leader from DAP could hold the reins of Pakatan instead, he said: "DAP will take a longer time to change."

Zaid agreed to the hour-long interview at his house -- the scene of a number of highly-visible press conferences in the past few weeks -- to address allegations and concerns that his actions had weakened Pakatan.

He spoke of those who had asked him to stop criticising Anwar.

He chronicled his political career beginning with his 23 years in Umno, his 17 months, so far, in PKR, including the last tumultuous months. He downplayed his ambitions and made it clear he was not about to go on a rampage against Anwar.

Zaid has dropped out of the contest for the deputy president's post of PKR in the ongoing party elections.

He was asked if he had not known of criticisms against Anwar's leadership style and that the party was deemed to have been founded mainly to pursue Anwar's cause.

"I have never had a close relationship with Anwar, not in Umno, and not now. Initially, we used to discuss about the direction and decision-making in the party but after a while, I began to see that it was difficult to work with him because he changes things.

"Actually, the party itself is Anwar, so if you expect to see empowerment, you cannot see that. It is hard for me accept that."

Zaid said he was surprised that PKR has not sacked him and admitted that he was taken aback by Anwar's faith in his former private secretary and now front-runner for the No. 2 post, Mohamed Azmin Ali.

Asked if Azmin could lead Pakatan, Zaid said: "I just don't think Azmin can be a leader of the pact because he is loyal to Anwar.

"To have someone as a leader, you must be prepared to see things differently.

"I don't think the party will be very strong if Anwar and Azmin stay. In fact, it has declined since 2008.

If you look at PKR membership, they claim to have 400,000 members but people who turned out to vote were very small, probably only 9,000 people up to now."

Asked who actually runs the party, Zaid replied: "PKR is all about Anwar alone. Anwar does not care about what others think and only his views count."

Zaid did not appear flustered as some of the most adverse analyses were thrown at him during the interview -- ranging from the oft-repeated caricature of Zaid Ibrahim the troubled soul who seems to be suggesting he had been hard done by both Umno and PKR.

It was conspicuous during the interview that Zaid hardly discussed the role of PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

This is interesting because when Zaid gave media interviews starting with Mingguan Malaysia in September, he had publicly asked Anwar to contest the PKR presidency and to exercise power with responsibility.

He had since been subjected to vilification by Anwar, who had among others said Zaid had conspired with Utusan Malaysia.

Yesterday, Zaid told the New Sunday Times that Anwar had a low tolerance of dissent.

Asked if he was now an isolated figure in PKR, he said: "I do not care. As long as my views are important to the public, I will speak up. I am now 60 years old."

His intentions were made obvious, including the possible establishment of a "smallish party" and made admiring references to "Mr Opposition", the late Tan Sri Tan Chee Khoon.

"If I can, I want to go back to Parliament in 2012. I will have to find a seat somewhere.

"If I have to form my own party, I will do it. Maybe not a big party. I will do what I feel."

He said he was an issues-related politician and spoke of the possibility of finding common ground with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Zaid addressed the issue of "conspiracy" which seemed to have stirred the sentiments of a segment of Pakatan supporters.

"I always come back to the issue of conspiracy because when you talk about Anwar, there is always 'conspiracy' but I can't buy that. Anwar was charged during Pak Lah's (Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) time.

"He is a good man so he can't be conspiring. I see a lot of PKR people singing to this tune as if they knew the verdict and this is the sort of politics I can't follow.

"There are people who are generally concerned but they don't believe everything the government does is a conspiracy.

"To be an enlightened decision- maker, you need proper facts and analyses, engagement, this is why it is important to have many voices to talk about issues."

-----------------------------------------------
Opening remarks by Zaid: The reason why I wanted this interview was not to talk so much about problems in Parti Keadilan Rakyat but I want to thank well-meaning friends and people who want to see a strong opposition. They are concerned with my action, as if it is counter productive. Some say that I should not have attacked (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim). If that is the sort of tendency which people have, then I think I need to explain.

Q: You are talking to the national media at the time when your colleagues from Pakatan Rakyat have banned media organisations from covering functions like the recent case in Kedah. Do you think that they are wrong to do that? Have your statements or remarks been routinely twisted?

A: I am against boycott from before because I think boycott is never effective anyway, whether it is economic boycott or “don’t drink Coca-Cola” boycott. Boycotting the media also is not effective. You lose that opportunity to tell the people your side of the story.

Even if there are distortions or errors, sometimes it is not intended to be so. Even if it is deliberate, it can be rectified. I myself have been subject of criticisms especially during election campaign but I think that politics is like that. You just have to continue to engage and tell your side, if people carry (the story) it will be good.

Q: You must be aware of a perception against you. That you had issues with Umno and now PKR. Are you not concerned that you are said to be a troubled soul?

A: I am not concerned at all because it is not true. There are a lot of people hired to do political smearing against me but you have to look at the facts when you decide on something. I was in Umno for over 23 years. I have gone through a lot. I got suspended, got dropped as a candidate, lost election over 10 year- period before I won but I did not resign. My record is a very tenacious political fighter. I was sacked from Umno because of my views. I am not a trouble-maker but my views have always been different from the mainstream.

I was sacked because of my strong views on the Internal Security Act (ISA). As far as resignation from the Cabinet, I think you understand that the principle of collective responsibility of ministers is a very important principle of governance. Ministers must abide by collective decision of the cabinet and if you don’t, you must resign.

So when the government decided to detain the three civilians under ISA in 2008, I did not agree so I was just following a cardinal principle. Of course, there are ministers who probably shared my view but stayed as ministers, that is their call but that should not make me a coward or troublemaker.

So I joined PKR as it is a party that promised a lot of lofty political ideals. And then we have this election process that is totally flawed and fraudulent in many ways and I did not want to be a part of that because that means I am inconsistent. So I have my political views but that does mean that I have to succumb to these practices because I have different goals that I want to achieve. I have not been a trouble-maker but I just followed certain principles and in the case of the election, I just did not want to be part of it.

Q: You must be aware of (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim’s political style even before when you were in Umno? You must have been aware that he was described variously as someone big on rhetorics but not on substance, and things like that?

A: If I was mistaken about Anwar, so was (former Prime Minister Tun Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad) and many other people so you cannot fault me by that. I was just an ordinary Umno member. I did not join PKR because of Anwar, I joined a political party that suited my political beliefs and ideals. I thought PKR is the vehicle but I never joined with my eyes closed. It takes a while for you to be convinced of a person. I did not want to be hasty as well. I have heard a lot about him before and when you do not know the person, you give him the benefit of the doubt.

Q: How would you describe your relationship with Anwar now?

A: I have never had a close relationship with Anwar, not in Umno, and not now. Initially we used to discuss about the direction and decision-making in the party but after a while, I began to see that it was difficult to work with him because he changes things. Actually the party itself is Anwar, so if you expect to see empowerment, you cannot see that. It is hard for me accept that. There are many members who joined the party not just because of Anwar but they want to see change for the country and reforms. That is why I have my supporters as well. If everyone in PKR joined because of Anwar, I would not have any supporters.

Q: Does he (Anwar) tolerate dissent?

A: I do not know whether he tolerates or not but only his views count.

Q: There are talks that several hours before submitting your nomination form to contest the deputy presidency, you had a closed-door discussion with PKR president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and her daughter Nurul Izzah Anwar and there were reportedly some drama.

A: There is no drama. It was only made up by political analysts who do not even know what is going on. They make projections, they take bits and pieces. I know from day one that Anwar wanted (Mohamed) Azmin (Ali) to be the deputy president. And I thought that someone else was suitable but I also knew that I was new in the party. That is why I posted in my blog that (Tan Sri Abdul) Khalid (Ibrahim) should go in but Khalid did not go in. So I said maybe (Nurul) Izzah (Anwar) should do it. I was really serious and there is no drama and tricks. I do not think that Azmin should get it free. Then I met Kak Wan (Azizah) on the last day before nomination, but Khalid did not show interest and Nurul was keen but did not do anything so I was waiting for confirmation. Is this the conduct of a power-crazy guy?

Q: As you said, you were aware that Anwar wanted Azmin as the deputy. So, couldn’t you see that Anwar would do anything to achieve this?

A: My supporters also asked me why I am not contesting. I got nomination from divisions whom I did not even know. I submitted my nomination because I knew that Khalid and nobody else was coming in. Even after the first week when I was leading (in the vote-count), I made a call to stop the election as the election officials were deliberately campaigning for Azmin. This is public record. I said stop it because the process is more important than the outcome. It is in shambles, a joke. If I do not raise all these, what about the other members? For Anwar to say that there is no proof, than it shows that he does not know what is going on.

Q: You had previously said that you were given (Tun Abdul) Ghafar (Baba) treatment. What were you hinting at?

A: I said that I know the preference of Anwar but I tried to warn the party do not be like Ghafar those days where you do not even allow (for) nominations. You cannot be overzealous. If members want to contest, let them, I did not say that I was treated like Ghafar.

Q: Did not you know from day one that you were going against something impossible?

A: You still have to find out, don’t you?

Q: Were you taken aback by the goings on?

A: Yes. It is a disappointment. I do not like to talk about people, it is internal matters and only relevant that it shows Anwar’s style of leadership. I do not want to go into details on how to run a party. The party is run by Anwar, not the family.

Q: Has Wan Azizah or anyone else from the party contacted you?

A: No.

Q: Pakatan allies have been watching the goings on in PKR. Do you think someone like you should be the new leader, perhaps representing DAP?

A: I do not desire or have any experience to be leader of Pakatan. I know myself and I am not a leader of any big political party, I am not even a member of parliament. As I said I just want to see opposition being strong because I believe the government will be more accountable if the opposition is strong. As far as Pas and DAP, they will not be able to progress under Pakatan if Anwar is the leader. Anwar has not done very much in terms of policy. His handling of his own party is such that he cannot handle bigger things. But it is not for me to tell Pas and DAP what to do. They should probably identify someone else, not me of course. Pas has got many good young leaders, like Dr Zul (Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, MP for Kuala Selangor); Dr Hatta Ramli (Kuala Krai), Dr Mujahid Yusuf Rawa (Parit Buntar), Khalid Samad (Shah Alam) and (Datuk) Husam Musa ... these are leaders who have the potential but they must get out of Anwar’s shadow. The problem is everybody thinks that the future of the opposition depends on Anwar. I think that the future of the opposition depends on the opposition parties. They must not be afraid to reorganise themselves because that is what they should do.

Q: Can you take us through the dynamics of race within PKR?

A: I think that the concept of multiracial party can work and move forward as it has a future. I believe that the leadership can address issues. If the concerns of the community is taken care off, you can make it viable.

Q: Don’t you have a sense now - looking back - that Umno is a much better party?

A: I was sacked. But I thought that I could not change my style if I stayed. I remember in the 90s, I was just an ordinary member in Umno and I talked about the immunity of the rulers and I took some risks. But in my years in Umno, I was always like that. I was a government backbencher (MP for Kota Baru, 2004-08) but they called me “Mr Opposition”. I wanted them to change because I kind of felt that 2008 was coming and I was right. I think that I have been persistent in my political discourse.

Q: Considering the events of the past few weeks, your criticisms that culminated in your withdrawal from the race, are you now an isolated figure in PKR?

A: I do not care as long as my views are important to the public, I will speak up. I am now 60 years old. My style is different than other politicians. I have clear view of what the country needs. If can, I want to go back to the parliament in 2012. I will have to find a seat somewhere. If I have to form my own party, I will do it. Maybe not a big party. I will do what I feel. I am a issue related politician, I will support the PM if I feel so and I am free to criticise BN or the opposition or anyone. I just want to be someone who can help the public to understand the issues and appreciate why certain things need to be done in certain ways. I am not a trouble-maker and that is how I see myself.

Q: Would you consider contesting as an Independent?
A: I remember (Tan Sri) Tan Chee Khoon who was a respected parliamentarian. He was Mr Opposition because the opposition then was very small. But I will have my style if there is a place for that role in parliament.

Q: Some kind of our own Green Party?

A: I would like to go back if I can, whether as independent or small party or yellow party. I hope there is a space for all kind of voices in democracy.

Q: So have you decided whether you will stay or quit PKR?

A: People ask me when I am going to quit but I have small groups of supporters all over the place and I have to talk to them. If there are options to leave I will. They might even sack me. In fact I am quite surprised they haven’t. It’s quite strange because you describe me as a “Trojan horse” then why are you keeping me? That’s very hurting because Umno haven’t paid me a sen but Anwar will come out with something like that. He’s capable with that sort of things which is ridiculous. The latest was that I conspire with Utusan but why would I? I never said “no” to the media because I think reporters have a duty to write, so when they want to interview me I said: “why not?” I have never met former Perlis Mufti Dr Asri Zainul Abidin in my life so how can I conspire with him to ask Anwar to step down? This is the sort of politics I opposed to. You spread lies and perpetuate it. That is not responsible politics and you can’t condone that. The point is I hope this political transformation somehow will take place and I’ll do whatever I can do.

Q: Do you think it is possible that one day you will find a common ground with Umno?

A: I think Umno and BN are already strong and they don’t need someone like me to be there. And I don’t see my role in Umno can add value (to the party), I rather be the voice from outside. I am prepared to support them if the issues are consistent with my views. But I value my independence. That is probably what Umno needs anyway. Sometimes when you have too many yes-men, it will not change you.

Q: Would you say that your days in PKR are numbered?

A: Of course. I don’t think I can work with Anwar, that is why I suggested the solution; Anwar must go. But in reality it is not possible. But I don’t see myself in PKR. I just don’t want to leave now because I want to see my friends around.

Q: There was a time when overnight the a multitude of debate was unleashed. Do you think we could have managed the consequences?

A: (Heightened) political discourse could be a danger because people have different understanding on the same thing, it’s like six blind men discovering an elephant. So is Malaysian politics. Everybody from both side of divide understand different things about the constitution. You have to go through the right understanding of what citizenship means and what rights mean, unfortunately Umno hasn’t been united in certain things. They are only being obedient and compliant when voices in Umno should be welcomed. It’s not my party but I am just saying it from the outside. We spend a lot of time going in circles, always backtracking and defining what social contract means, for example. We should move forward.

Q: What have you got against Azmin?

A: Nothing, but I just don’t think he can be a leader of the pact because he is loyal to Anwar. To have someone as a leader, you must be prepared to see things differently.

Q: There were talks that Azmin’s team had sabotaged your campaign in Hulu Selangor (Zaid was fielded as PKR candidate in the April 15 by-election) and now this. What have you got to say?

A: If we have a proper election I will probably beat him but that will be a matter of time. (laughs) You see when you join an organisation, you know they are not perfect but you somehow think you can do something and re-organise it. It’s not a waste of time but you go through political discourse and sometimes you make narrow judgment about certain things, you can’t be likeable all the time.

Q: How do you see the direction of the party if Anwar and Azmin stay on?

A: I don’t think the party will be very strong. In fact it has declined since 2008, that is why I offered myself to do something. If you look at PKR membership, they claimed to have 400,000 members but people who turned out to vote were very small, probably only 9,000 people up to now. Things like the structure of the party and strength of membership, jentera (machinery) is my interest, I’d like to work on these issues. Anwar is preoccupied with his own case, it’s a distraction, I suppose.

Q: To recap, it is interesting that you specifically said Pas leaders should be projected as the leader of Pakatan. Can’t a Malay leader from the ranks of DAP be considered instead?

A: I think from the reality of our political framework, it has to be a Malay leader. Someone who understand issues and acceptable to all races. Whether Pas can transform as a party and allow such a leader to rise, that is for them to think. I don’t think you can enter national politics unless you are happy to control a few states and become opposition at different level but if you aspire to replace BN, you have to take the giant leap and transform yourself as a national party, image and leader.

Q: Not the DAP?..

A: I think DAP will take a longer time to transform itself. That is why I prefer Pas. I don’t know about PKR because I don’t see how they can get out of Anwar’s shadow. So that is my two cents’ worth.

Q: Is there a sense that non-Malay segment of PKR warms up to you, rather than identify themselves with Azmin?

A: Sometimes image created by outside forces has nothing to do with reality. Maybe because Anwar has been painted friendly to non-Malays so I was painted the same way. I don’t know where Azmin stands though. Probably because he has been telling the Malays that Zaid is not good for the Malays and Muslims. But I never campaign along those lines.

Q: Could the results of 2008 be an aberration?

A: I don’t think it is the sign of the time but you cannot take things for granted. Not BN nor the opposition. The voters are more mobile and interactive with issues, they are more prepared. I think this is good because I believe in vibrant democracy.

Q: You had tossed names of Pas personalities as potential leaders of Pakatan but in the same breath you said they are loyalists of Anwar. Please explain.

A: I think these people lacked confidence, they seem to think Anwar is the saviour. So when you have that mindset, it is difficult for you to move forward and transform yourself. So to be a national party, Pas has to take risks and develop its own leaders and come forward. If you put all eggs in one basket, what if the basket can’t deliver? Pas has always been the strongest Malay party in the opposition although it has conservative and reformist groups. But if you think Anwar can deliver to you, he is not going to do that so you might as well face issues yourself.

Q: We have been speaking to groups of young voters. In your reckoning, do you think they are turned off by politics?

A: I think there is a lot of apathy and a lack of interest. You have to deal with it, young people form the bulk of voters and it is a young country. We must engage with them and get them to be interested, get them on your side. I blame the education system especially the university for the reason on apathy. I think young people have idealism and ideas but you can’t kill that, that is a cause.

Q: When you joined PKR you were garlanded and hailed as a future leader. Seventeen months on do you think you are less popular now that you have gone against Anwar?

A: Popularity is never my concern. I don’t have somebody conducting opinion polls for me, if there is something which requires me to speak, I will. I try not to be their concern. They say I’m a spoiler and I’m trying to break up opposition and go back to BN, but I don’t support the opposition for the sake of opposing. I want a different style and who becomes the prime minister is not my interest. I’m probably less popular now but i didn’t want to be a hero for anybody.

Q: Based on your descriptions of PKR and the opposition, it does seem that it is not issues and policies that galvanise them?

A: A lot of people voted the opposition because they want to see substantive change in the way the country is being ruled. The leader of the opposition should have a sense of responsibility. I always come back to issue of conspiracy because when you talk about Anwar, there is always conspiracy but I can’t buy that. Anwar was charged during Pak Lah’s (Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) time. He is a good man so he can’t be conspiring. I see a lot of Keadilan people singing to this tune as if they knew the verdict and this is the sort of politics I can’t follow. There are people who generally concern but they don’t believe everything government does is a conspiracy. To be an enlightened decision-maker, you need proper fact and analysis, engagement, this is why it is important to have many voices to talk about issues.

(Via nst.com.my: Exclusive interview with Zaid Ibrahim: 'A Pas man should lead Pakatan')

I Don't Need A Parachute

One of the hilarious moment when I was in Dewan Rakyat last week was when Deputy Minister of Rural Development answered his ruling coalition partner, also from Sarawak, the fact that the infrastructures projects have not been going on for a very long time. The answer given was the project is on going with several technical issues and will be resolved soon. Oh, I really think that government has failed to ensure its money spending for greater value.

I was “what actually happen on the ground?” Why there are two different propositions of public interest projects within ruling coalition? Could this case happen to Warisan Merdeka later on? Wait and see.

Now, I believe more and more projects under the surveillance and planning by the government are seriously plagued whether in terms of implementation or bloating cost. As I mentioned previously, if you have simply a mega vision and dreams without proper capacity to perform, the losses will be socialized. Absolutely socialize.

I prefer and advocate a small and limited government. Some of you might think so; small government is the solution of all these bad repercussions of bigger intervention. If I were a politician, certainly I will do necessary such as, cutting spending on welfare an subsidies programs, empowering state governments, reform taxes friendlier to small businesses, no too big too fail philosophy, reward the performed while punish the failure, no monopoly, more free trade and economic freedom and lastly privatization.

Those in opposites may assume these principles as fallacy or mirage. Some point out that I might put status quo in discontentment. Agree. Malaysia’s politics is very intractable from popularity and modeling a street fighter version whereas I do understand it still important, but looking at the other side of you encouraging them to be highly dependence to the government! I am not surprise at all if your politician endeavor their best to bring more pork spending to their constituencies.

This is not a contemplat ion against politicians who committed to the sort of agenda. But I would like to emphasize on the truth, accuracy is much more vital than popularity. Anyway, I do understand our society is emerging into free and open matured democracy. What I define as less intervention is the best managed resources and even the best form of government ever. The more government intervention, the more disappointing result you will get.

It does not mean if I were a politician, peoples are not my top priority. Why there must be thinking a capitalist man is the oppressor or destroying foundation of good socio economy? Left thinker justified by saying capitalist and free market leads to starvation, selfishness and immoral. In 1916, H.L Meckhen said “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.’’ In my interpretation, let the peoples feel good and hard in many life of democracy; be it spending, taxing and voting.

Well, I say your misleading facts that wealth distribution exercising by the government all this while is absolutely futile. I tell you, government seems like to define poor peoples as recipient of benefits and it will always remains be. Government redistributing wealth must result in destruction of capital, less job creation and prosperity. Thus, reduces income too. You make it worst for poverty because breaking down of capital cycle and wealth creation. Is Malaysia designing itself to that path?

I say, if all of us well employed well paid, well business and as a result wages increase, I believe the poor also enjoy the benefits from it through job employment unless you are lazy. Who needs politicians both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional then?

Economist Schumpeter was indeed question “Can the capitalism survive” blatantly “No”. At the other hand, let me quote a former top International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist, Vito Tanzi described how difficult it has been for entrepreneurs to compete with governments;

“When in the past the government entered a sector, it introduced laws and regulations that facilitated and justified its own intervention in that sector. It inevitably made it more difficult, or at times even impossible, for the private sector to develop in that sector . . . the only realistic option became, or appeared to be, the government’s activity. Public monopolies in electricity, communications, transportation, the provision of pensions, health services, education and several other services prevented the private sector of many countries from developing efficient alternatives to the government.”

Vito Tanzi was absolutely right about the freedom of every one of us from government intervention. In addition, I supposed enjoy listening Yusmadi Yusoff’s (MP of Balik Pulau) debate in property ownership or property rights. Property rights as part of human rights. Many heard of all men are created equal, free and independent by nature and thus have all inherent rights.

We also possess free mind and bodies (using natural law approach) and government again must not interfered in the intention to master anyone else. We do seek property and we defend it, and there is role of government to do what it constitutionally avoiding our property from being deprived. I want to tell you this is violation of my liberty and unjust acts if there is deprivation. In the point of justice, whether you are poor and determine to acquire property, you are allow to do so and the government must provide necessary mean of acquiring for both benefits.

I can understand Yusmadi stand points is to urges the government to protect the faculties (free mind and bodies) themselves, not the physical property itself. If Pakatan Rakyat MP’s have this ideas in their mind, for the beginner, I think it is good enough. I will endorse to those politician who believe Mises and Hayek creed.

The Withdrawal of Zaid Ibrahim. Why?

I wish to announce my withdrawal as a candidate from the contest of Deputy President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat and my resignation from all posts held in the party.

I was offered to join this party under the belief that I could promote enlightened and progressive politics; nurture and develop principled political values and culture that I consider indispensable to the development of democracy and good governance in this country. I was mistaken.

Over the course of the party elections, events have shown that the leadership actively condones malpractices and electoral fraud to achieve its designed objectives. I am certain that any political party with such hypocritical and false values will not be able to offer meaningful reforms to the people of this country.

I have made this decision because there is no attempt on the part of the party leadership to address the various issues of manipulation and unfair electoral practices, although these issues were raised repeatedly.

I wish to thank all the members who have supported me and placed their faith in the cause of reform. It is of utmost disappointment that I am unable to continue in this flawed election process. I remain committed to the Opposition’s cause and will continue to speak about the issues of the common people. Together, we will continue our unabated struggle towards a better government for the people.

Finally, I hope those adoring fans of Anwar Ibrahim will no longer regard me as a “spoiler” standing in the way of their march to Putrajaya. I wish them well.

Source: Zaiduntukrakyat.com

ZAID IBRAHIM

MONDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2010

The Lecture of Dr Paul

Reviving The Conservative Momentum

You know what; I think Ron Paul is absolutely right about the teaching of Keynes is undermining the discourse of Hayek’s. Now, I’m suggesting that all university in this country must encourage or emphasize this subject into learning syllabus. I still remember when I was in Economic in Public Sector and Fiscal in Public Policy lectures, I was taught to be a Keynesian whenever economic crises struck! Pump priming style according to my lecturer will help the government to rebound the economy. Sometimes, extreme ideas like raising taxes according to them as well, the so called taxing the rich benefiting the poor is suggested as major priority balancing the bad side of free market.

At one time, I referred to Keynes literatures doing my assignment! I don’t know anything about the opposite until I found Hayek’s at the next book shelves. Surprisingly, only three students borrowed the book! Why? I think nobody is interested or perhaps lazy to read The Road to Serfdom because it’s too philosophical and time consuming. I ran few pages before stopped due to examination week. I found it as enlightening and unusual lines of thought ever since!

Now, I can’t find where I could write this source in the exams. No where because if I write it despite true and attempted to provide variety of solutions, lecturers, for certain, mark the answer as wrong according to you again! Hayek is too bizarre and too absurd for them. The lesson is popularity being utmost vital than accuracy in university education.

I want them to have a clear sense of rule of law, free market system and individuals and most crucial, the role of government within the size of Federal Constitutions as framed by Founding Father.

Radicalize our students with the ideas and thoughts. Lacking of these would jeopardize our individual freedom, subservient to government completely, regulations to impeding true potential of market and job creation. Defending the prosperity as a result of free market and individual orders are those thoughts should be enshrined in our life.

I guess we are all come to one stage of saturated agenda of reforms since March 08! My line of thinking is to promote liberal views in many aspects, stressing on liberty in politics and economics. Many friends believe we can free politically but not to economic freedom! They are socialist of course that believe championing the peoples and at the same time creates moral hazard of irresponsibility.

If we want the third force apart of two coalition in this country, it must come from this line of thinking; sending them out from the House if they fails to upholding these principles, bring in who advocates principles such as cutting spending, market led economy, and full scales adoption of New Economic Model (NEM).