Do Not Involve External Politics - Mohd Ismail Khuzairi

Authors share the same flight with the opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from Manila to Kuala Lumpur on the way home after attending a national task at the end of January.

The presence of Anwar have a very extensive coverage by the print media, electronic media and cyber media there. Status reports and news published on the cover of many local newspapers.

During the two days was reported in Manila, Anwar opportunity to speak at the University of Malcolm Hall. He also had the opportunity to meet with former Philippines President Joseph Estrada who is referred by the media there as a close friend and the boat with him.

In addition to Estrada a meeting held at the Manila Polo Club, Makati, Anwar also met with his political associates of Benigno Aquino Jr.. A lot is said by Anwar while he was there, as quoted from the report of the local newspapers. Of the issues on the wind of political change and democracy in Pakistan until the cases of sodomy that is exposed.

Anwar as reported claims, sodomy charges on it is a political conspiracy to divert attention from government corruption cases. He also said the sodomy charge was unfair and illusory, and added that the lack of evidence will deny conviction on it.

But Anwar's claim that the alleged lack of evidence does not reflect the actual fact he is facing trial in court today.

If true then the lack of evidence of alleged sodomy, why Anwar seem so afraid of the court and avoid a variety of reasons? Is not the 'lack of evidence' that Anwar will be released easily, and this case can be resolved quickly?

Beyond the issue of sodomy, the other things that can be evaluated from the action kecenderugan Anwar is that he finds support in other countries.

In China, South Korea and Japan, for example, the attitude of leaders of the drugs out of sympathy with such a review is not dignity, turned back and betraying the country.

In the case of Anwar, the Philippines is the country's second visit to Anwar in the period of about three months after Australia in December last year. While Manila has not officially expressed support for Anwar, but the support is clearly there.

It is possible, there are those in Manila later will follow the footsteps of about 58 members of the Australian Parliament urges government to drop Anwar sodomy case. Recent, Anwar claimed that the support and attention from the U.S., Turkey and Qatar on the case reflected that.

It should be a leader who has held the position of number two in the country, Anwar is very familiar with the legal and political question. Let any reason whatsoever, the legislative process can not be tainted or influenced by political decisions.

The action had the support of other countries is like denying the law of the country. More unfortunate, it was done on the basis of personal interest. Not just for Saiful Bukhari is a human dwarf to deal with Anwar's action in this case clearly make full use of political power is in him.

How so Anwar relations with countries such as Indonesia, Flipina, Australia, Turkey and many more can not be denied by anyone. In fact, Washington himself more comfortable dealing with Anwar. But what about Saiful? Leaders of countries that want to hear the pressures he faced?

Because it is not fair for these countries accused of sodomy is a political agenda that the government wanted to prevent Anwar's political ambitions. From a broader perspective, the act of seeking foreign support is only open to foreign intervention in the issue of sovereignty in this country. It can cause loss of national sovereignty and the decision of which direction the country will be determined by foreign powers and not the people of this country itself.

We should refer to and learn from the experiences of other countries in this issue. Examples of the simplest, as described by international observers and security, Mohamad Faisol Keling, the U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of Pakistan. The country now had to submit and be "donkey" to the implementation of U.S. policy.

Faisol Mohamad who is also a lecturer at the College of Law, Government and International Relations at the University of Utara Malaysia (UUM) added that there were people in the country to be confused with the promotion of human rights by the U.S..

This also directly pawn security and national sovereignty to foreign powers. While he said the U.S. itself is the worst country in the records of human rights and ignore the values of humanity.

Mohamad Faisol added, and the country's dependence on U.S. allies including hand power to manage the internal affairs such as the fate of the whole people to submit to the U.S.. This means people will lose authority over as we had experienced before 1957. The reality of foreign powers will make ligh other countries to their advantage.

Thus, whether parties are aware of their actions as being mortgage fate, stability, peace and prosperity? What we need to understand, human rights grounds only when the goal is to dominate a country that is under the index and results.

Wealth, prosperity, and stability of the country will be in the hands of "colonialism" and the people will continue to invade through a puppet government. ''This is the price to be paid to actions that support community groups like this, "he said.

The involvement of the U.S. and its allies could be addressed by the Malaysian government should provide a comprehensive explanation to the country. For Faisol Mohamad, the government should insist on the establishment to carry out justice based on the practices of their own country and not by the unseen from the outside.

Specificity is based on the method of justice that is based on valid legislation. At the same time he said, the government also needs to deliver and promote the integrity of the supremacy of law in Pakistan in the eyes of the world either through bilateral or multilateral.

This includes the time to attend the conference, through the embassy and so on. This method is very effective despite the fact that the U.S. and its allies at the time denounced loudly and Malaysia.

''But in this case, the government must ensure that the process is fair and does not involve political influences. This is to convince people of the crimes committed. This action would be to bring the offenders punished, and defend the oppressed, " he said. - Utusan Malaysia

1Malaysia=1Israel?

Israeli Opposition Leader Ehud Barak has had a good couple of weeks. First, on March 4, he managed to put together the “One Israel” bloc, the linchpin of his plans to re-position his Labor party to gain more swing votes and deliver him government in the Israeli elections scheduled for May 17. Then, the results of an inquiry by the Israeli State Comptroller, released on March 15, cleared Barak of any improper conduct during the 1992 Tzeelim training accident, hopefully clearing him of allegations which have dogged his political career since he retired as IDF Chief of Staff to eventually become Foreign Minister under Shimon Peres in 1996. And finally, opinion polls have taken a turn for the better for Barak, moving him from a position where he was at best neck and neck with Prime Minister Netanyahu to a position where he seems to have opened up a lead over Netanyahu of at least five percentage points (although Israeli opinion polling is notoriously inaccurate).

Israeli political analysts have begun to rethink their political wisdom. A few weeks ago, the majority view was that, barring a major scandal or political shake-up, Netanyahu was more likely than not to retain government. Today, the majority view is that election results are at this point too close to call. However, so far Barak is doing everything right.

One Israel is a new electoral coalition of Labor, the Gesher party associated with former Likud Foreign Minister David Levy, and Meimad, a party that marries a religiously observant supporter base and dovish views on the peace process. Under agreements signed between the three, the combined One Israel list will see the Labor party list of candidates, established in party primaries last month, modified to include a number of candidates from the two other parties. Gesher is to get three safe positions for its candidates, including the Number 3 spot (behind Barak and former party leader Shimon Peres) for Levy, and a promise that Levy can have a senior ministerial position in any Barak government. Meimad receives one safe slot, one doubtful slot, and a promise that a Meimad leader who is not a Knesset member will be a cabinet minister. (Changes to Israeli electoral laws in 1992 make it permissible for up to half the Cabinet to non-elected.)

The One Israel concept has been pursued by Barak since last year as a way to make his candidacy more acceptable to the large number of Israelis who would never vote for Labor. For many Israelis, Labor has been seen as elitist, leftist, snobbish and dominated by European secular Jews (Ashkenazi) to the exclusion of both the large number of Israelis who hail from the Middle East and North Africa (Sephardi) and the religiously observant. One Israel has been Barak’s attempt to cure that stigma. It is an idea that is modelled on several forebears; one is Tony Blair’s transformation of the British Labour Party into “New Labour,” another is the “One Jerusalem” coalition developed by the long-serving Labor-aligned Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kolleck, which kept him in power for more than 20 years despite the unpopularity of the Labor party in the city generally.

The specific parties that One Israel brings into the Labor fold theoretically represent precisely those political sectors which have been most suspicious of Labor, and which Labor most needs to reach out to if it is to have any chance of securing government.

Levy and his Gesher movement offer Labor the opportunity to obtain greater support among Jews hailing from the Middle East and North Africa. Sephardim are generally poorer on average than Ashkenazim, often live in outlying areas with high unemployment, and generally resent what they see as the condescending attitude of the Ashkenazim who largely dominate the country’s elites. They also frequently blame Labor, in power from 1948 to 1977, for the poor economic conditions and social discrimination they experienced during the early years of the state.

Levy is of Moroccan origin, and himself the product of one of the poorer Sephardi neighbourhoods. He was originally a protege of Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin, but after Begin’s departure from the political scene, came into conflict with his successors, Shamir and Netanyahu, over social welfare for his constituents and his own ambitions within the Likud party. This eventually led to the formation of his Gesher party, first as a faction within the Likud and later as an independent party. Conflicts over Netanyahu’s failure to implement promised social spending led Levy to leave the governing coalition last year. Barak has been reaching out to Sephardi voters since his selection as Labor leader, for instance, by offering a public apology for Labor’s past policies, and clearly hopes that the addition of Levy and Gesher can win him some votes in the Sephardi sector.

One Israel faces significant competition for Sephardi votes from the Centre Party leader Yitzhak Mordechai, a Kurdish Sephardi, and the religious Shas party, which is able to garner almost all the religious Sephardi vote.

Meimad, it is also hoped, can attract some religious voters to Labor. Religious voters, who are about 20% of the Israeli population, are even less likely to vote for Labor than Sephardi voters. In many religious neighbourhoods in 1996, votes were 98% for Netanyahu, and only 2% for Labor leader Peres.

For its future political survival Labor must increase its vote among religious and Sephardi Israelis because demographics are against the Labor party. Political analysts say that changes in Israeli population demographics have made the right-left divide in the Israel population approximately 55%-45% since the late 1970s. And since this period, the Likud has come out ahead in most of the elections. Furthermore, the faster population growth in the religious and Sephardi communities, as well as the influx of immigrants from the Soviet Union, is making matters worse for Labor as time passes. Unless Labor can re-position itself to capture larger segments of these three communities, it may gradually drift into perpetual opposition and political irrelevance.

This is one reason that, unusually for Israel and despite being Israel’s most decorated General, Barak has chosen to focus on social issues as the centrepiece of his campaign. While Netanyahu hammers his ability to protect Israel’s security in radio and television interviews, Barak has used many election appearances as opportunities to tell stories about elderly women unable to get hospital treatment, and about the effects of unemployment on families, and to promise remedies. His hope is to gain a “hip-pocket vote” from some segments of the Sephardi community, and as part of this process he needs to overcome the stigma against voting Labor to do it.

Levy, in part, gives Barak this opportunity and he was quick to exploit it. Within days of the signing of the One Israel agreement, Levy and Barak were out campaigning together in several poor towns with a heavily Sephardi population, normally Likud heartland.

However, there are some positive signs. Barak’s success in getting his One Israel project off the ground seems to be reflected in improved poll numbers. Polls in late February had placed Barak barely neck and neck in a one-on-one contest with Netanyahu. A poll on March 13 showed Barak ahead on two party preferred by 5%. And Barak also continues to increase his lead over the third major candidate, former Defence Minister Yitzhak Mordechai of the new Centre Party.

On top of the One Israel success and the positive polls, Barak seemed particularly pleased with the results of report by Israel’s State Comptroller, an independent auditing and investigation body, into the 1992 Tzeelim II training accident. Barak was accused by some of the families of the 5 soldiers killed at Tzeelim of having fled the scene in his helicopter without seeing to wounded soldiers or taking one severely wound man, who later died, with him, and in newspapers reports of possibly having orchestrated an army cover-up of the circumstances behind the incident. When the report was released on March 15, Barak told the media “The blood libel to which I fell victim for several years, as a man and as chief of staff, comes to an end today.” The report exonerates him of both charges: it found that he did not leave until after all the wounded had been evacuated, and that there had been no cover-up.

Still, despite the gains of the past two weeks, there are almost two months until polling day, and likely, a further run-off poll to decide the Prime Ministership will be required two weeks after that. Despite his current poll lead, Israeli political experts do not rate Barak’s chances as more than even because there is still a large undecided segment, and the majority of undecided voters are aligned with the Israeli right and most likely to vote as they have in previous elections. Both these facts indicate that most of these votes will go to Netanyahu.

It is also the case that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a much better media performer than Barak. It remains unclear whether Barak can overcome this clear disadvantage in the long run, especially as the fight for undecided voters heats up.

Furthermore, other parties have been moving to form alliances to counter Barak’s One Israel. The small right-wing Herut party of Benny Begin, the son of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, has set up a joint electoral list with two other small right-wing parties, Moledet and Tkuma. Likud is talking to the right-wing Tsomet party, led by another former IDF Chief-of-Staff Raful Eitan, which is also likely to include some defectors from Gesher who did not follow Levy into the One Israel combination.

Barak has had a couple of good weeks, and the truth is, he badly needed them. Whether he can sustain his current momentum into an election victory on May 17 is still very much an open question.

Sumber: AIJAC

Pejabat Ketua Angkatan Muda Keadilan
Malaysia