The M factor, M syndrome and M phobia ?

The M factor in Malaysian politics
By Brian Gomez

For 22 years Malaysia’s political and economic fortunes were determined by the authoritarian and tough-minded Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

A succession of Australian prime ministers had angry exchanges with Dr M, as many Malaysians know him, but these days his barbs are aimed at his chosen successor, Abdullah Badawi.

Bob Hawke was among the first to get bilateral relations off on a wrong footing when he infuriated Dr Mahathir by describing as “barbaric” Malaysia’s hanging of two convicted Australian drug addicts.

More famously Paul Keating brought relations to a low by describing Dr M as “recalcitrant” after he had refused to attend the first APEC Summit in Seattle, US.

One Malay language newspaper picked its best equivalent term as “kurang ajar”, which translates into a highly derogatory equivalent of “ill-educated and ill-mannered”, infuriating many Malaysians at the time.

When he stepped down as prime minister three years ago, he had been dubbed “Father of Modernisation” and was widely admired by Malaysians for his outspoken criticism of western mores and attitudes.

Australia’s leadership was relieved ( Hahaha !!!) when Dr Mahathir made way for his long-standing deputy, Abdullah Badawi, known to be friendlier towards Australia.

Dr Mahathir, who turned 80 last December, has turned his acerbic tongue on his anointed successor, publicly stating that he had made a wrong choice. The affable and mild-mannered Abdullah has tried hard not to get caught up in a war-of-words but a recent meeting between them has failed to achieve a peaceful outcome.

In Dr Mahathir’s eyes, Abdullah has been failing the nation because he is not an adherent to his predecessor’s penchant for grandiose projects such as the troubled Malaysian-made Proton car, the country’s fibre optic information technology backbone and the highly successful Petronas twin towers that for a brief period was the world’s tallest building.

Most of all he is annoyed that Malaysia’s fifth prime minister - August 31, 2007 is the country’s 50th independence anniversary - has refused to complete a futurist bridge linking the southern state of Johore to neighbouring Singapore.

Following the peace meeting recently, Dr Mahathir issued an open letter to the citizens of Malaysia signed by “Malaysian citizen and commoner”. Dr Mahathir does not hold back, accusing his successor of creating a police state with “action taken against anyone who criticises the prime minister” and adding that “a climate of fear has enveloped this country”.

“The current prime minister cannot at all be commented upon, criticised or advised. He is almost a saint who is free from any human weaknesses or wrongs. (three Cheers !!!)

“Because of my statement that I would continue criticising if something that is not good for the religion, race and country is done by the prime minister, all sorts of condemnations and insults are thrown by these hatchet men and the mainstream media towards me.”

Ironically similar criticisms could have been levelled during Dr Mahathir’s term (1981 to 2003) when he faced two unsuccessful challenges from previously close associates within the ruling United Malay National Organisation.

Dr Mahathir always kept a tight rein on the Malaysian media and, at one stage, shut down the popular Star newspaper, owned by UMNO’s Chinese political affiliate, the Malaysian Chinese Association.

The former Malaysian prime minister’s complex psychological make-up appears to have impeded him from recognising the tremendous progress made by three prime ministers that preceded him and the likelihood this trend will persist.

If Dr Mahathir had come on the Malaysian scene any sooner it is unlikely the economy would be as sound as it is today since it might not have been able to withstand the impacts of huge loss-makers, such as the government-funded Pewaja steel complex and the likely failure of the Proton if it were not able to win a foreign manufacturing ally.

In a sense Abdullah is picking up some of the pieces, having made a start at turning around massive losses at Malaysian Airways and by indirectly forcing Proton to face up to the impending competition from within the region and elsewhere.

Another of Dr M’s “think big” projects that is a total shambles is his plan for a multi-billion dollar hydroelectric scheme in Sarawak State, the Bakun project, where millions of hectares of forest have been wiped out for a dam that the government now admits cannot viably provide electricity to Peninsula Malaysia.

The fact that Malaysia is one of the developing world’s greatest economic success stories owes itself to steady economic progress since independence in 1957 with the first economic recession only occurring in the mid-80s during Dr M’s period in office. Another such event occurred in 1997-98 during the Asian economic crisis.

Malaysia’s first and possibly greatest economic success story was provided by its response to the sectarian Biafran War (1967-70) when Malaysia took over from conflict-ridden Nigeria as the world’s biggest palm oil industry producer.

Since its former British colonial days it had been the world’s biggest producer of natural rubber and tin, but palm oil suggested to the national psyche that the country could take on immense challenges and succeed.

At the heart of this success was a rapid rural transformation engineered by the founding Prime Minister Tengku Abdul Rahman and his development-oriented deputy and successor, Tun Abdul Razak.

Tun Razak was fairly austere, highly disciplined and somewhat severe-looking, in sharp contrast to the happy-go-lucky and aristocratic Tengku. Unlike the “think big” goals of Dr Mahathir, Tun Razak worked on simple goals where the long-term impacts were just as dramatic. When the late Tun visited small remote villages, he admonished bureaucrats: “I do not mind if you make mistakes just as long as the job is getting done.”

Under his efforts Malaysia turned massive forest areas into vast rural development enclaves that the World Bank applauded as the best in the world even though capital intensity was high.

Under these integrated schemes, each family owned a plot of rubber trees or palm oil and grew crops for their own use, while availing themselves of education, health and other government-built facilities. Eventually they had to repay the government.

Malaysia’s role as a large producer of semi-conductors began in the late 1960s but it was during Dr Mahathir’s term that this and other related sectors enabled industry to overtake agriculture as the biggest contributor to gross domestic product.

The combative nature of Dr Mahathir was present even when he was aspiring for leadership of the Malay ruling party. His maverick streak first showed itself in 1969 when he attacked the Tengku, the then prime minister, in an open letter, of being the cause of the nation’s worst ever racial riots in May that year. He blamed the Tengku’s closeness to Chinese business leaders and concessions granted to the Chinese community rather than the turmoil caused by a highly ethnically divisive national election campaign and outcome.

As a result Dr Mahathir was ousted from UMNO but began a rapid rise to the top after Tun Razak appointed him a senator in 1973.

Ironically, he now finds himself in a position to take on another prime minister - one he anointed and now denounces. This time he may find himself a tougher opponent in Abdullah who, of late, appears to show some impatience against the sniping from his predecessor.

In fact after their recent private meeting, Abdullah has come out making counter-charges. No end is in sight to this confrontation and the sparks will continue to fly in Malaysian politics.

Brian Gomez is based in Sydney and is Asia-Pacific editor for The National , a daily newspaper in Papua New Guinea. He also contributes a regular column to PNGIndustrynews.net, a Perth-based website. Brian has worked as a journalist in Australia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Malaysia and has a special interest in development issues.(Source:Online Opinion)

**********

Malaysia: Ruling party uses Islam to incite hate

Because of the bizarre apartheid of Malaysia, all citizens are given an identity card, called MyKad, at the age of 12. This card states the holder's race and religious status.

by Adrian Morgan - Spero News

On Wednesday November 15 the ruling party in Malaysia, UMNO ((United Malays National Organization), began its 57th three-day-long annual conference at the Putra Center, Kuala Lumpur. Issues brought up at the conference served to reinforce the racial apartheid which has been a bedrock of Malaysia's politics since its independence from Britain on August 31, 1957.

UMNO was founded on May 11, 1946. Its core belief is that of the "ketuanan Melayu" an ideology which states that the Malay people, who are all regarded as "Muslim" are the original and defining populace of Malaya, and thus should have special status and privileges. This is in defiance of logic, as native peoples, the Orang Asli, have lived in the peninsula of Western Malaysia, particularly in Kelantan State, long before the Malay Muslims arrived in the 14th century.

UMNO cannot rule on its own. Despite its bias towards Malays and Islam, it has to share power in a coalition, called the Barisan Nasional or "National Front". This includes the MIC, the Malaysia Indian Congress, which has been in existence since 1946, and also MCA, the Malaysian Chinese Association, which has been the second largest partner in the Barisan Nasional coalition since 1946. There are ten other smaller parties in the Barisan Nasional (BN).

UMNO has ruled uninterrupted since independence, in association with other parties. Any political problems which beset Malaysia can therefore be laid at the door of UMNO.

Demographically, Malays comprise 50.8% of the population of 26 million, followed by Chinese 23.8%, Indigenous 10.9%, Indian 7.1%, and non-Malaysian citizens 6.8%. In religious terms, 60% of the population is Muslim, with Buddhists comprising 19.2%, Christians 9.1%, Hindus 6.3%, and Confucians (Taoists) 2.6%. The other faiths comprise only 2.8% of the demographic.

Because of the bizarre apartheid of Malaysia, all citizens are given an identity card, called MyKad, at the age of 12. This card states the holder's race and religious status, details which are then held at the National Registration Department (NRD). All Malays are automatically classed as Muslims.

No Muslim is legally allowed to convert from Islam. The Islamic courts (Syariah Courts) control issues such as apostasy and issues of marriage and other issues. The NRD will not allow recognition of a person's conversion out of Islam, unless such a process has been authorized by the Syariah Courts. And so far, these courts have refused to allow any Muslims to apostasize.

Famous converts such as Lina Joy and Kamariah Ali are still battling with the courts for their rights to be acknowledged as "non-Muslims". Such rights do not exist in Malaysia. Article 11 of the country's constitution states that anyone can follow any religion of their choosing. However in 1988, an amendment (1A) was made to Article 121, which stated that the civil courts have no no jurisdiction over "any matter" which falls under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Courts.

The 13 states of Malaysia have mostly adopted the Control and Restriction Bill, which gives a fine of 10,000 ringit ($2,653) or imprisonment for up to one year for "persuading, influencing a Muslim to leave Islam for another religion." On August 23, a week before independence, Mohamed Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, ordered that the "constitutional law" which forbids others to spread religions other than Islam to the Muslims must be streamlined nationwide.

Aziz said that the states of Sarawak, Sabah, Federal Territory and Penang had not yet adopted the legislation, saying: "There is no reason for these states to delay adopting the law. The Federal Constitution must be fully adhered to but religion is a state matter which is under the purview of the respective state governments. Therefore, to enforce the Federal Constitution on religion would require all the government of the states to amend their constitutions and adopt the law first." He added: "Why (do we have) to interpret (the constitution) when it is clearly said that (non-Muslims) are not allowed to spread religions other than Islam to the Muslims?"

In March, Aziz had said that anyone who criticised Islam would be tried under the Sedition Act, a legacy of British colonial rule, which existed in Malaysia before its independence in 1957. The penalty for transgressing against the Sedition Act can be three years in prison, with an additional fine of up to 5,000 ringit or $1,350.

Article 3(1) of the constitution states that "other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation". For those of other religions, there is little sense of harmony, and many feel under attack both from politicians and Islamists.

On August 26, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is head of UMNO and also is Minister of Internal Security said people should not even question the contradictions of the constitution. "My advice to everyone is to stop (raising such issues). Do not create a situation that can lead to difficulties. Difficulties will make everyone apprehensive," he said.

Badawi continued: "Adhering to the articles will not create any problem. Discussing these articles again.... this will cause a storm if left unchecked. I have stated that there is no necessity to amend Article 121 ... there is no necessity to amend Article 11. These cause problems between one side and the other." Badawi condemned the Article 11 Forum, a multi-faith grouping of eleven organizations, which had campaigned to change the Islamo-supremacist aspects of the constitution.

The issue of UMNO's adherence to the apartheid ideology of "ketuanan Melayu", despite its union with the Chinese MCA and the Hindu MIC, were bound to be exploited in its 57th annual conference.

The elderly head of the Youth Movement of UMNO (ABIM) made the biggest gesture of racial/religious supremacy. Last year, he waved a ceremonial sword, or keris at the conference. And this year he did the same . On the eve of the conference, Hishammuddin Tun Hussein pledged to defend the sovereignty of Islam and the rights of Malays. Hussein is also the Education Minister. Hussein condemned a proposal which had been made, to form an Inter-Faith Commission.

The president of ABIM, Yusri Mohamad, confirmed at the conference that UMNO Youth would "defend the sovereignty of Islam" as specified in the Federal Constitution's Article 11 and 121 (1A). Mohamad said: "His (Hishammuddin) caution to the Article 11 Group, and groups who are actively stirring religious and sensitive issues should have raised awareness that the Malay-Muslim community's status is constantly under threat."

Mohamad said that demand for freedoms, such as the right to change faiths and the formation of an Inter-Faith Commission showed no respect for Muslims' "sensitivity".

Another speaker on the first day of the conference, UMNO veteran Tan Sri Mohamed Rahmat, secretary-general of the party, also spelled out the racism and Islamofascism of UMNO. He warned the other affiliates within the Barisan Nasional to avoid testing the Malays' patience, and even invoked the threat of "amuk" - a Malay tradition of ritual insanity and killing.

He said: "Please, don't test the Malays; in another word that they know 'amuk'. We don't want to reach that level. In the present situation, the Malays can still take it but efforts to enhance the Malays' economy need to be intensified."

He said that members of other races and religions had to make sacrifices, until Malay Muslims were compensated for their (imagined sacrifices). The reference was a dig at the Chinese, who hold most of the wealth.

Rahmat said: "If the Malays' economic power cannot be balanced out, we will face worrying situations....Don't let it reach a situation where the Malays start questioning 'with the sacrifices we have made, what have we got?'. That's also the question that is very important to be answered."

He advised the other Barisan Nasional parties not to question the "Malay Agenda" or "ketuanan Melayu". He said: "We hope MCA and Gerakan (another Chinese party) adopt the BN spirit. There is no need for us to champion racial interests and be extremely racist, because they will not bring profits."

Rahmat said that meetings had resolved previous contentious issues. He said; "We didn't discuss sensitive matters outside, used the media and press. It would have appeared we were quarrelling. It's something not right."

The Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, also said that he would take strict action against any group which dared to question the status of Islam in Malaysia. He warned against any attempts to use Islam to promote intolerance, but also said that he would protect the Islamic (Syariah) courts from being undermined.

Badawi supports a notion of Islam which is called "Islam Hadhari", or "civilizational Islam", which believes that a quasi-moderate Islam can be used to promote culture and development in Malaysia, and could be exported as an example to other nations.

He said on Wednesday, November 15: "Unfortunately, some parties had misinterpreted Islam Hadhari as an excuse to become more conservative and more radical. Long-accepted cultural practices like wishing (well) other Malaysians of different religions in conjunction with their festivals had now been deemed taboo."

"Have we reached such a level of intolerance? Joint open houses are now condemned. When did we become ultra-conservative? This is not Islam Hadhari. Such an outlook threatens the unique tolerance for which Malaysian Muslims are renowned for and this should not be allowed to happen."

Badawi spoke of the issue of SMS messages which had recently been circulated, which had falsely alleged that mass Christian baptisms of Muslims had taken place. He said that "of late, we see increased polemics on issues related to race and religion. And it has reached a level where it is now worrying."

The following day, Badawi tried to reassure people that there was not a "worrying" level regarding race and religion. He told reporters on Thursday, November 16: "Not worrying level as far as I am concerned but it is time to remind the people and to lay down the ground rule and that is exactly I have said (at the conference)."

"If it has come to such a level as has been described, it will be even more difficult to control at that time."

Badawi was asked about UMNO Youth's rejection of an Inter-Faith Commission. He replied that the cabinet had discussed the matter before. He said: "The word we used was we postpone. We've no plans to revive the matter. It is as good as not having it. To me, I will meet them, I also want to meet the (Islamic) religious groups. After that, I will meet the non-muslim groups. That's important."

On Saturday, November 19, the president of the Chinese MCA party, Ong Ka Ting, said that Badawi had given a "clear message that no one race can rule the country alone. The way we fought for Merdeka (independence) together, Umno, MCA and MIC, and the concept of kongsi kuasa (power sharing) as consented by our party veterans must be upheld."

Ong, who is the Housing and Local Government Minister, said: "The PM has again demonstrated the spirit of a leader for all Malaysians."

Despite such official support, the 57th annual conference on UMNO, which had been broadcast throughout Malaysia, has raised more questions than it has allayed fears.

Articles published by Reuters, Asia Times and Associated Press suggest that the issues of race and religion are creating more problems than UMNO and Barisan Nasional representatives will publicly admit.

Even Badawi's son-in-law has exploited racial divisions to subject the Chinese groups, already resented for their success in the economy, to further mistrust. 31year old Khairy Jamaluddin is deputy chief of UMNO's youth wing, ABID. In September, he said that Chinese political groups would exploit any splits within UMNO. When questioned about this, he had responded: "What is there to apologize for?...I am only defending my race."

The sight of Hishammudin Tun Hussein waving a keris in the air, broadcast through the nation, also raised concerns. One UMNO delegate at the conference, Hashim Suboh, had said: "Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham, when is he going to use it?"

The threats made by Tan Sri Mohamed Rahmat to force the non-Muslims (Chinese) to make sacrifices financially to assist the Malay Muslims, who have failed to make economic progress, only highlights how destitute the ruling party's economic policies really are.

UMNO had formerly been led by Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003). He had been a hardliner who blamed Jews for Malaysia's problems, but still had encouraged economic development. This year Mahathir has been deliberately forced into the shadows by Badawi, seen as a liability with his rash statements and intrusions on matters of policy. Following a recent heart attack, Mahathir has become further marginalised.

In the face of rising Islamization, UMNO is failing to address the nation's problems realistically. Relying upon Hindus and Chinese to stay in power, its acceptance of the policies of destroying Hindu temples since April, and more recently the destruction of a Taoist temple in Bukit Mertajam, Penang, only serve to alienate the minorities in the so-called multi-racial state. The Nine Emperor Gods Taoist temple was relocated last year because its land had been sold to a property developer. It was demolished on Friday, November 18. Police fired shots at Chinese protesters as they supervised the destruction of the temple.

On Wednesday November 22 the cabinet questioned the wisdom of allowing the UMNO conference to be broadcast live. The Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Razak, said that at least three of the speeches from the conference could "be classified as extreme."

He told reporters: "The Cabinet has come to the opinion that there are more negative than positive implications in opening the proceedings to a live telecast. It paints an inaccurate picture of the general assembly."

On May 13, 1969, race riots between Chinese and Malays began in Kuala Lumpur. These only subsided in late July, after at least 196 people had been killed and many women had been raped. As a result of the riots, parliament was suspended until 1971.

The government had then blamed the introduction of the New Economic Policy, or NEP, for the conflict. This policy of affirmative action to promote Malay Muslims into jobs, at the expense of the Chinese, was intended to last for only 20 years, but has been indefinitely prolonged since then.

The speeches at the UMNO conference have only reminded the nation that the conditions which led to the 1969 racial situation are still in place.

Abdullah Badawi has asked for meetings with editors of Chinese-language and Malay editors of newspapers, where he is expected to ask them to "tone down" their reporting of religious and racial issues.

Lim Kit Siang, leader of the DAP (Democratic Action Party), the main opposition party, said on Friday, November 18: "If a Malaysian Chinese or Indian politician had warned of riots, being prepared to shed blood or even going amok, the Internal Security Act would have been invoked."

Malaysia's 49 years of independence have been marked by the Islamist and racist policies of UMNO. The Malay Muslims are given special rights in its policy of "ketuanan Melayu", the "Malay Agenda". It seems that only now is it starting to realize that such a racist agenda - when actual ethnic Malays only comprise 50.8% of the population - can only help to destroy a country, not to build it up.
Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society.

**********

Umno owes Malaysians an apology ?

If all the keris-waving and incendiary speeches was meant to frighten onlookers, it backfired. Instead it upset many including Umno and non-Umno members alike, and galvanised public opinion against a party that has lost touch with reality.

All the government's efforts and public money spent on inculcating positive and healthy values in our youth have been undermined by such a sad display of bigotry. Those politicians have lost the moral high ground and the public's respect. They have set a dismal example for everyone and tarred the country's image overseas.

Any political party in power that harangues its minority citizens with reminders of past bloodbaths and insensitive remarks is not fit to govern. I am aware of no other country except a tin pot dictatorship in Africa that resorts to this sort of behaviour.

Those who try to defend the use of the keris and explain it away as an integral part of Malay culture miss the point.

Every Malaysian understands the ceremonial function of the keris. But when displayed in a hostile manner with suggestions it be bathed in blood, there is no misunderstanding its evil intent. They should not add insult to injury and exhibit their dishonesty.

If anyone is qualified to wave a keris it is our King or sultans but fortunately they know better. A keris should, therefore, not be treated so disrespectfully and be used as a symbol of intimidation and disunity. It is time these zealots stop their keris waving antics. The government should show leadership and ban keris waving for political purposes.

The Malays have a reputation for gentleness and hospitality but these keris-waving zealots have brought shame to their own community and disparaged their noble image. Their thuggish acts cant be justified, let alone condoned. They showed disrespect for everyone including their own political partners in the Barisan Nasional who once saved their political scalp.

What Umno has shown others is that it has hooligans among its number. The failure of its leaders to rein in the offenders for their seditious behaviour is a sad indictment of their complicity and lack of moral authority. Because the event was televised and seen by millions, Umno owes everyone an apology.


A myth, but Bangsa Malaysia idea will endure

THE funeral at St Joseph’s Cathedral in Kuching of the wife of prominent Sarawak political and corporate figure, Datuk Amar Leonard Linggi Tun Jugah, on Thursday brought together an assembly of this city’s political and professional classes.

Those assembled not just cut across political lines but, more significantly and perhaps best showcasing Sarawak as a beacon of tolerance, represented the whole spectrum of religious diversity for which the state is renowned. There were Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and others sprinkled among the multitude.

Sarawak is justifiably famous as a state where inter-marriage among the races is not uncommon. But, while this phenomenon has blurred rigid racial delineations, identity ba- sed on one’s racial origin is still prevalent, and politics is organised, by and large, along racial lines.

With growing numbers of Sara- wakians of mixed-race origins, one would have thought there would be increasing clamour for breaking out of the rigidities of assigned racial identities. Apparently not so.

Sarawakians of mixed parentage happily go about hyphenating themselves based on their parents’ racial heritage, and presumably just as happily organise their lives around the racial categories they are officially assigned.

To these, the idea of Bangsa Malaysia is probably a practical reality, if not officially so, because there is no such racial category officially recognised as yet.

Which brings to mind the recent public debate about the very concept of Bangsa Malaysia. I am greatly heartened by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s weighing in with the view that Bangsa Malaysia is a state of mind.

I am reminded of a recent little debate with a fellow Filipino columnist when he posed the question that "isn’t it normal that official talk necessarily would talk of absolutes and other great things; and that disconnected as it is from real life, isn’t it necessary that, at least at that level, we talk that talk?"

Najib would fall into that category of leaders talking nobly about "absolutes and other great things". I can think of nothing more noble, absolute and great than talking up the idea of Bangsa Malaysia.

Most nations sustain themselves on highly noble goals and usually unat- tainable myths. The United States, for example, sustains itself on the idea of "freedom", although the "freedom" its founding fathers fought for was freedom from colonial Britain. This is far removed from the democratic freedoms the country has evolved over two centuries.

Yet those freedoms clearly have their limits and the US has been able to expand on those limits largely because of the growing amount of resources it had been able to exploit, and not the other way round.

Most nations, even dictatorial and communist ones, also will not argue about democratic freedoms, with some going to the extent of affixing the clearly fictitious label of "democratic" to their official names.

Malaysia has gone one better. This nation will obviously also not quarrel with the very notion of democratic freedom because it is smart enough to understand that this is a myth all Malaysians have no problem buying into. Unlike many other nations though, we not only pay lip service to the notions of democracy and freedom, but actually take concrete steps that incrementally expand on the limits that necessarily impinge on democracy and freedom.

We have done so admirably over a short half-a-century, if you ask me. Truly a triumph of unabashed pragmatism over woolly idealism. But back to Bangsa Malaysia. Here is a myth to place over and above democracy and freedom, if ever one was needed. It is incorrigibly idealistic.

It is sufficiently vague and lacking in specifics that, however our nation’s future course evolves, it can stay relevant.

And it certainly beats the paroxysms of communal exclusivity and chest-beating we seem to be afflicted with depressing regularity.

**********

Singapore jails opposition leader over public speaking



Link




A Singapore court jailed an opposition leader for five weeks on Thursday over his failure to pay a fine for speaking in public without a permit.

Chee Soon Juan, one of Singapore's most vocal opposition politicians and leader of the tiny Singapore Democratic Party, committed the speaking offence on April 22, two weeks before the country's general election.

The court initially fined him S$5,000 and because he refused to pay, he and two of his supporters were jailed.

"Every hour, every day, every month that I spend in jail only strengthens my resolve to fight," the 44-year-old Chee told the court before the verdict was read.

Chee hugged his wife and three young children before police led him away.

A vocal campaigner for human rights and free speech, Chee was jailed for eight days in March for questioning the independence of Singapore's judiciary. He was jailed for five weeks in 2002, and 12 days and one week in 1999 for speaking in public without permit.

Chee grabbed world headlines in September, when he and a small group of supporters spent four days in a public park as Singapore police blocked them from holding a protest march during the IMF-World Bank annual meeting in Singapore.

SDP supporters Yap Keng Ho and Gandhi Ambalam were fined S$2,000 and S$3,000 respectively. As they also refused to pay, they will be jailed for 10 days and three weeks respectively.

Singapore has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International for its tight controls on political expression, and the use of defamation lawsuits by Singapore's leaders to silence and bankrupt opposition politicians.

The city-state has been ruled by the People's Action Party (PAP) since independence in 1965. Its Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) prohibits public speaking unless speakers have been licenced by the government.

"The PEMA has been used by the PAP to prosecute and deter legitimate political activity," Chee told the court.

Chee -- declared bankrupt in February after failing to make libel payments of S$500,000 ($322,000) to former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong -- said he had "absolutely no remorse" for his actions, and vowed to continue fighting for democracy in the city-state.

The SDP did not win any parliament seats in the May election, but won 23 percent of the votes in the wards that it contested.

Chee and his sister, Chee Siok Chin -- also a senior member of the SDP -- are also facing a defamation lawsuit launched by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew over an article in the SDP's newsletter.

Chee Siok Chin told Reuters that a group of SDP supporters will hold vigils outside the Queenstown Remand Prison to protest against the imprisonment.

An acerbic critic of the Singapore government, Chee has had several run-ins with the PAP. In 1993, months after he ran in a by-election for the SDP, Chee was sacked from his job as a lecturer at the National University of Singapore, which accused him of improperly using S$226 (US$137) for postage.

When Chee said the evidence was fabricated, he was sued for defamation by his former department head -- a PAP member of parliament -- and ordered to pay $200,000 plus court costs.


Malaysia Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Tun Mahathir Islam Singapore