Visit Malaysia, visit Bolehland

SEVERAL glitches have plagued the Visit Malaysia Year 2007 campaign even as 50,000 tourists arrived on the first day of the new year. Teething problems and congestion at facilities have left some tourists hot under the collar.

Not only were there long delays on the much anticipated Hop-On-Hop-Off bus service in Kuala Lumpur, the on-board commentaries did not work.

In addition, several tourists complained about the poor language of the bus drivers and guides and said they would not recommend the service to their friends.

The Hop-On-Hop-Off bus service is a noted tourism tool in many countries, with commentaries providing information on a city's history, landmarks and cultures.

Malaysia has promised tourists a memorable and hassle-free visit, with an assurance that glitches will be resolved in the shortest time possible.

Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said a committee would be making weekly evaluations of the Visit Malaysia 2007 (VM 2007) programme, and problems would be dealt with almost immediately.

In another headache, the move to add 32 check-in counters at Penang International Airport failed to get off the ground.

Malaysia Airports senior manager Abdul Wahab Mohd Yusof said work on the additional check-in counters, costing RM12 million, would start later this month and would be completed only by the end of the year !! (How about extending the VMY until 2008 ?)

He said the extra counters were proposed in 2004, but changes to the design, technical problems and budget constraints had delayed the project.

Repairs to one of the runways have also been delayed.

'These delays are unavoidable,' he said. (Malaysia Boleh !!)

'We tried our best to complete it early, but there were constraints such as the unpredictable weather.

'A new parking apron will also be constructed but it will only be ready by next year,' he said after receiving 560 tourists from Thailand, Singapore and China.

Tourism Ministry director-general Mirza Mohammad Taiyab expressed confidence that the problems would be addressed soon and was upbeat about the increased tourist arrivals.

He said the first-day arrivals put the country well on the way to meeting its goal of welcoming 20.1 million tourists by the end of the year.

That achievement would translate into RM44.5 billion in revenue.

The last Visit Malaysia Year in 1994 drew 7.2 million visitors and earnings of RM8.3 billion

Meanwhile, A 63-year-old Japanese tourist drowned in waters off Pulau Sapi here Wednesday, barely a day after a South Korean holidaymaker died near the same spot.

Junko Noguchi , who was on holiday with her daughter Noguchi Kayo, 36, when she was seen struggling in fairly shallow waters off Pulau Sapi.

Another tourist pulled her out of the water but she was already unconscious.

Lifeguards failed to resuscitate Junko and she was taken on a tour boat to the mainland and rushed by ambulance to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

Junko’s death comes a day after a 48-year-old South Korean woman Baek Misook drowned at almost the same spot at about 11am on Tuesday.

On Nov 20, last year Ang Ga Yool, 8, from South Korea died off Pulau Sapi after being stung by a jelly fish and on May 5, a Swedish woman Eva Jackert, 67, died off Pulau Mamutik, also within the marine park area.

---

The punishment of Saddam Hussein for the deaths of 148 persons, albeit in a manner that civil society ought to find repugnant, raises compelling questions:
Who will be held accountable for sending 3,000 US troops to their deaths in Iraq, for a war based on lies?
Who will be held accountable for the deaths of over 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians during the course of this illegal war?
Where is the two trillion dollars that this war is going to cost coming from?
When will Congress be held accountable for having voted to go to war?
When will Congress be held accountable for continuing to fund a war, and for abandoning the troops to a conflict that cannot be won militarily?

Tun Dr Mahathir described the execution of Saddam Hussein as barbaric, sadistic and a public murder.

TALKING POINTS ON THE EXECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN

1) The execution of Saddam Hussein was not Nuremberg. Despite their flaws, the Nuremberg tribunals for the first time recognized that the crime of waging aggressive war lies at the root of all other war crimes. Nuremberg empowered international law in entirely new ways. Justice Jackson, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, wrote that the individual accountability determined there must apply to the victors as well as the vanquished. And while Jackson’s goal has yet to be implemented, the Nuremberg precedent set the terms for using international law as a weapon against leaders of powerful as well as defeated governments. The flawed U.S.-controlled trial of Saddam Hussein did not even abide by, let alone chart new ground in international law. This was victor's justice of the worst sort – just the opposite of what Justice Jackson called for. Despite the Iraqi faces in the judge’s chair and at the prosecutors’ table, there is no question that U.S. occupation authorities were determining how and under what kinds of laws Saddam Hussein would be brought to trial. Dozens of U.S. government-hired American and expatriate Iraqi lawyers had worked for the U.S. occupation authorities from the earliest days of the U.S. invasion and occupation in spring 2003. With U.S. officials still running the legal show in Baghdad, the U.S. military occupation still in control of the country, and the escalating war engulfing Iraq, no trial held under these conditions can be considered legitimate.

2) Some ask "if the trial had been fair, would the results have been different?" The conviction of Saddam Hussein for huge crimes against the Iraqi people would almost certainly be the same. The key difference would have been that a fair trial would have allowed -- insisted on -- including evidence implicating those who enabled those crimes: the U.S. for providing military, financial and diplomatic support for the regime, as well as providing the seed stock for biological weapons; the Brits for providing growth medium for biological weapons; the Germans for providing chemical weapons; the French for providing missile technology... etc.... Also, in a "new Iraq" the convictions after a fair trial would have led to life imprisonment -- not the death penalty.

3) Shouldn’t Saddam Hussein have been executed though? The people of Iraq have suffered enormously for more than a quarter of a century of repression, war, sanctions, invasion and occupation. There is plenty of accountability to go around, and certainly Saddam Hussein is responsible for a great deal of suffering. But he did not act alone. For U.S. officials to orchestrate a trial so profoundly flawed, that was designed to keep all evidence of U.S. (as well as European and other international) complicity from emerging, simply shows once again that real democracy and real justice were never part of the U.S. agenda in Iraq. Hanging Saddam Hussein has done nothing to improve the lives of the suffering people of Iraq. What the Iraqi people want, and so desperately need, is an end to the occupation so they can end the war. Many also want an end to the state-inflicted violence that Iraqi governments, both before and since the U.S. invasion, have practiced – that means an end to the death penalty.

4) The fact that the first confirmation, for almost an hour, came only from the U.S.-backed propaganda station al-Hurra, indicates again that the U.S., not the Iraqi government, is still calling the shots around the trial and execution. (U.S. and some British outlets were running headlines saying "Arabic language media reporting SH's execution..." as if al-Hurra was a legitimate independent news outlet.)

5) Most Iraqis are facing such dire circumstances in their day-to-day lives, with escalating violence and other consequences of the U.S. occupation, that after years of his imprisonment the execution of Saddam Hussein is unlikely to have much impact on them. Many Iraqis will no doubt be pleased, some will be angry; the violence is so intense that any violent attack specifically tied to the execution is unlikely to have much additional impact.

6) George Bush is likely to claim the execution heralds "a new Iraq" much as the "mission accomplished," the capture of Saddam Hussein, the election, the constitution, etc. were all supposed to mean a "new Iraq." No one in Iraq is seeing a new Iraq today.

7) There are reports of Iraqi government officials and perhaps others, witnesses to the execution, who danced around the body "shouting Shi'a chants" (according to CNN). Whether true or not, such reports are clearly designed to further inflame sectarian hostilities.


So America's one-time ally has been sentenced to death for war crimes he committed when he was Washington's best friend in the Arab world. America knew all about his atrocities and even supplied the gas - along with the British, of course - yet there we were yesterday declaring it to be, in the White House's words, another "great day for Iraq". That's what Tony Blair announced when Saddam Hussein was pulled from his hole in the ground on 13 December 2003. And now we're going to string him up, and it's another great day.

"Allahu Akbar," the awful man shouted - God is greater. No surprise there. He it was who insisted these words should be inscribed upon the Iraqi flag, the same flag which now hangs over the palace of the government that has condemned him after a trial at which the former Iraqi mass murderer was formally forbidden from describing his relationship with Donald Rumsfeld, now George Bush's Secretary of Defence. Remember that handshake? Nor, of course, was he permitted to talk about the support he received from George Bush Snr, the current US President's father. Little wonder, then, that Iraqi officials claimed last week the Americans had been urging them to sentence Saddam before the mid-term US elections.

Saddam mistake was to invade the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait, which he claimed should have been part of Iraq all along. His envoys said he'd gotten the nod from Washington. But his new conquest put Saddam in a position to threaten Saudi Arabia and dominate the world oil market. When he refused to pull back, the administration of President George H.W. Bush forged an international coalition of Western powers and Arab countries to demolish his forces in 1991's Desert Storm.

The final hanging of Saddam, twisting, twisting slowly in the wind. Americans have won. We have inflicted justice upon the man whose country we invaded and eviscerated and caused to break apart. No, there is no sympathy for this man. "President Saddam Hussein has no fear of being executed," Bouchra Khalil, a Lebanese lawyer on his team, said in Beirut a few days ago. "He will not come out of prison to count his days and years in exile in Qatar or any other place. He will come out of prison to go to the presidency or to his grave." It looks like the grave. Keitel went there. Ceausescu went there. Milosevic escaped sentence.

The odd thing is that Iraq is now swamped with mass murderers, guilty of rape and massacre and throat-slitting and torture in the years since the "liberation" of Iraq.

As Bush searches for ways to extricate the United States from the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, which has now cost almost 3,000 American lives and drains more than $2 billion a week from U.S. coffers, little is gained from Saddam's demise. The challenge was not how to eliminate him: he ceased to be a factor when he was dragged out of a "spider hole" three years ago. The problem remains how to replace him.

Latest :
Iraq has launched an investigation into who recorded and distributed images of the execution of Saddam Hussein, as well as the taunting of the former leader just prior to his death, according to a government spokesman.

The announcement of the investigation follows reports of U.S. officials who tried to delay Hussein's execution, fearing it would deepen a civil divide in Iraq.


Death of a Tyrant - Newsweek
This was a guilty verdict on America as well - The Independent
Iraqi government to investigate disorder at Saddam execution - International Herald Tribune
TALKING POINTS ON THE EXECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN - Znet
Iraq probes Hussein execution - CNN


malaysia visit Malaysia year hop-on-hop-off tour bus Mid East US Saddam

Singapore's Tiger Airways refuses to board disabled passenger

"With this unjust and unconscionable behaviouir this airline should not be allowed to operate in Australia"

Helen Barnett of Gold Coast, Australia said .

A NORTHERN Territory family's dream holiday has been left in tatters after not being allowed to board a Tiger Airways flight from Darwin to Singapore because their daughter is disabled.

Savvas and Irini Maillis were taking their four children on a month-long holiday to Greece, but could not board the Tiger Airways flight on Saturday.

They have now lost about $15,000 in airfares, transfers and accommodation.

Their daughter Artemis said the family got special permission to board the budget airline flight with her disabled sister, but as they were about to board the plane they were told they could not go on.

"We weren't allowed to board the flight,'' Artemis, 24, said.

"We had checked in and were told not to expect any help from the staff, but we said that was ok.

"We went through customs and were all ready to board the plane and then a man stopped us and said we couldn't go on.

"We told him that we had special permission from Tiger Airways in Singapore, and he said even if we did have the ok from the airline, the captain does whatever he likes.

"If we knew that we weren't allowed to travel we would have made other arrangements - now we've lost $15,000.''

The family had their travel agent contact Tiger Airways in Singapore in September and write a letter confirming that Anastasia could board the flight.

The letter says: "I spoke to Sarah from the Tiger Air office in Singapore ... who stated that providing Anastasia has assistance from the people that she is travelling with and does not require assistance from Tiger Air personnel she will be fine to travel on board the flight.''

Artemis said the airport staff made the family demonstrate that Anastasia could walk in front of all the passengers.

"The man said, 'why don't you leave your sister here and you all still go','' Artemis said.

"We asked to talk to the captain, but he didn't even come out - he didn't even see my sister.

"The man then asked what's wrong with my sister ... she has been crying all weekend, just because she can't talk, doesn't mean that she doesn't understand.

"They accept wheelchairs on the plane, but they don't accept the people.

"They treated us like garbage, like we were clowns.''

The Maillis' were told by Tiger Airways that they could not get a, refund and if they wanted their money back they would have to go to court.

A Tiger Airways spokesperson in Singapore said last night it was "unfortunate'' and would investigate the matter further.

"The truth is at this point our planes are not wheelchair friendly,'' she said.

The spokesperson then added: "We do have a policy that if the passengers themselves can actively assist the disabled person on to the plane and everything is sorted out, it is up to the travellers, that's our policy.''


Media Statement: Malaysia's Economy Has Lost Its Direction

Malaysia is currently at a crossroads: we can either move forward by focusing by building national competitiveness and addressing the widening gap between rich and poor; or we can remain without a clear direction by squabbling on racial quotas as the mediocrity, corruption and inequality reign.

While the recent UMNO Assembly talked about more governent intervention and regulation not so much to help the poor but the politically connected, countries which were lagging far behind a decade ago are swiftly and surely overtaking us, either now or in the near future. In the 1970s and 1980s our peers were Singapore, Taiwan and Korea – they are now far ahead of us. China and India have emerged as economic giants. We are now losing out to Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand.

The government has failed miserably in propelling our economy. To enjoy the economic growth we had from the 1970s to the 1990s, we need to attract foreign investment. In 1990, UNCTAD placed Malaysia fourth in the world in terms of attracting foreign direct investment; now we are 62nd. Even Indonesia has overtaken us in terms of foreign direct investment. Even our own private investment has crashed to a percentage less than it was in 1990. In spite of the recent excitement at Bursa Malaysia – Thailand, Singapore, Korea and Taiwan - which lagged behind a decade ago in terms of market capitalisation has overtaken us.

The current administration made battling corruption their main pledge in the last general elections. Yet no politial will has been shown to prosecute the major corruption cases, whilst the Prime Minister and former Prime Minister engage in a surreal battle on who has given more contracts to their children. No wonder we have fallen a further five places – from 39th to 44th – in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index.

On the ground, 80,000 of our graduates are unemployed. The country is not moving sufficiently high up in the value chain as we continue to rely on foreign workers to keep wages low. But just as we cannot compete with the high-skill workforce of Korea, Taiwan or Singapore; neither can we hope to compete with the low wages of China, Vietnam or Indonesia. The public also has to cope with rising prices as inflation is projected to be the highest in seven years whilst wages have remained unchanged.

ANWAR IBRAHIM
(Anwar Ibrahim . com )



Medal Obsession Continues... (Part II)

I've written in the first part of "Medal Obsession Continues..." on how our universities were gloating about their achievements to the press. And how, with a little common sense and research, it is obvious for all the (lack of) value of the multi-coloured medals collected by our academics.

Many readers have also commented on the post that I should submit the article to the mainstream and online press... Should I? I doubt that the mainstream media will print the letter though, given its fairly "tough" language. If however, any journalist who are reading this, who'd like to do an article on it, I'm more than happy to be quoted or for the article to be used. Or you can contact me for further clarifications. ;)

Now, back to the second part of my "Medal Obsession" thesis ;). Again using the example of the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)'s participation at the World Exhibition of Innovation, Research and New Technologies Brussels Innova & Eureka in Belgium.

While I have discredited the value of the medals and awards achieved by the Malaysian contingent in Brussels, I'd like to also emphasize the fact that I am not suggesting that universities should not be taking part in trade fairs and exhibitions altogether.

Let's have a look at the Brussels-Eureka event and its target visitors.

Brussels-Eureka is looking to attract manufacturers, distributors, investors and sales professionals from Belgium and several foreign countries, wanting to establish specific commercial and industrial relationships.

The organisers hence seek to attract exhibitors

* To make your inventions, original prototypes or new technology known.
* To establish the necessary contacts to commercialize your patent.
* To realize your commercial or industrial relations.
* To meet manufacturers, financiers and/or traders from various countries.

The event was clearly not a "competition" for judging "inventions" for the award of ego-boosting medals.

However, by looking at the objectives of the event and the types of exhibitors it sought to attract, there may be useful reasons why university researchers could take part in the event. If, for example, the UiTM academics are truly interested to meet financiers or manufacturers to market their products, then such events could possibly be the platform for their commercialisation.

The problem is, it is clear from the total emphasis given to the medal tally by all participating local universities in the past 3 years, and none on the commercialisation aspects, the universities aren't particularly interested in the latter objective of the exercise.

The Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) must insist on establishing certain parameters and ground rules for participation of local universities in such events. These ground rules are to ensure that taking part in trade fairs overseas do not become junkett trips for academics to have a jolly time at exotic destinations in Europe. Or equivalent to our local councils toilet inspection trips to Maldives.

First to be established must be key performance indicators (KPIs) to judge the usefulness of the academics participation in the events. MoHE must seek replies from the universities on some of the following questions:

* For the past 3 years, with millions spent on taking part in these trade fairs, how much tangible (medals not included) returns are there.

* How many contracts have been signed between our universities with international manufacturers or venture capitalists to explore the potential of the "award-winning" inventions?

* Have there even been any serious discussions with international manufacturers or venture capitalists to develop the products or inventions exhibited by our university academics?

* Or for that matter, have there even been any interest at all, by these foreign parties in our so-called inventions at these trade fairs? After spending millions, how many of the international venture capitalists or businessmen have our academics even had a conversation with?

Surely, if even a single multi-million contract have been signed by the universities, that will be a better achievement to gloat about than bringing home dozens of coloured medals.

No, our local universities chose to prove their worth by simply taking the easier route, by spending precious funds in dog and pony shows to collect medals of little or no value. And given that the gullible government administration and the uninformed public, the universities have the opportunity to showcase themselves as multiple international award-winning "academics".

(Source: Tony P "Education In Malaysia", full name Tony Pua, Malaysian , CEO of a public listed IT company, graduated from Keble College, Oxford University with a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) with a scholarship from MTC Foundation in 1994. His other blog : "Philosophy Politics Economics")

********

Departing Annan attacks Bush's 'war on terror'
(Full text: Kofi Annan's final speech)

Kofi Annan has delivered his final speech as United Nations Secretary General at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library in Independence, Missouri. The following is the text of the speech; subheadings inserted by the BBC.

Thank you, Senator [Hagel] for that wonderful introduction. It is a great honour to be introduced by such a distinguished legislator.

And thanks to you, Mr Devine, and all your staff, and to the wonderful UNA chapter of Kansas City, for all you have done to make this occasion possible.

What a pleasure, and a privilege, to be here in Missouri. It is almost a homecoming for me. Nearly half a century ago I was a student about 400 miles north of here, in Minnesota.

I arrived there straight from Africa - and I can tell you, Minnesota soon taught me the value of a thick overcoat, a warm scarf and even ear-muffs!

When you leave one home for another, there are always lessons to be learnt. And I had more to learn when I moved on from Minnesota to the United Nations - the indispensable common house of the entire human family, which has been my main home for the last 44 years.

Today I want to talk particularly about five lessons I have learnt in the last 10 years, during which I have had the difficult but exhilarating role of Secretary General.

I think it is especially fitting that I do that here in the house that honours the legacy of Harry S Truman. If FDR [Franklin D Roosevelt] was the architect of the United Nations, President Truman was the master-builder, and the faithful champion of the Organisation in its first years, when it had to face quite different problems from the ones FDR had expected.

Truman's name will for ever be associated with the memory of far-sighted American leadership in a great global endeavour. And you will see that every one of my five lessons brings me to the conclusion that such leadership is no less sorely needed now than it was 60 years ago.

Collective responsibility

My first lesson is that, in today's world, the security of every one of us is linked to that of everyone else.

That was already true in Truman's time. The man who in 1945 gave the order for nuclear weapons to be used - for the first, and let us hope the only, time in history - understood that security for some could never again be achieved at the price of insecurity for others.

He was determined, as he had told the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, to "prevent, if human mind, heart, and hope can prevent it, the repetition of the disaster [meaning the world war] from which the entire world will suffer for years to come".

He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible.

That was why, for instance, he insisted, when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations and placing US troops under the UN flag, at the head of a multinational force.

But how much more true it is in our open world today: a world where deadly weapons can be obtained not only by rogue states but by extremist groups; a world where Sars or avian flu can be carried across oceans, let alone national borders, in a matter of hours; a world where failed states in the heart of Asia or Africa can become havens for terrorists; a world where even the climate is changing in ways that will affect the lives of everyone on the planet.

Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We all share responsibility for each other's security, and only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves.

And I would add that this responsibility is not simply a matter of states being ready to come to each other's aid when attacked - important though that is.

It also includes our shared responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity - a responsibility solemnly accepted by all nations at last year's UN summit.

That means that respect for national sovereignty can no longer be used as a shield by governments intent on massacring their own people, or as an excuse for the rest of us to do nothing when such heinous crimes are committed.

But, as Truman said, "If we should pay merely lip service to inspiring ideals, and later do violence to simple justice, we would draw down upon us the bitter wrath of generations yet unborn."

And when I look at the murder, rape and starvation to which the people of Darfur are being subjected, I fear that we have not got far beyond "lip service".

The lesson here is that high-sounding doctrines like the "responsibility to protect" will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively - by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle - are prepared to take the lead.

And I believe we have a responsibility not only to our contemporaries but also to future generations - a responsibility to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us, and without which none of us can survive.

That means we must do much more, and urgently, to prevent or slow down climate change. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, imposes higher costs on our children and our children's children.

Global solidarity

My second lesson is that we are not only all responsible for each other's security. We are also, in some measure, responsible for each other's welfare.

Global solidarity is both necessary and possible. It is necessary because without a measure of solidarity no society can be truly stable, and no one's prosperity truly secure.

That applies to national societies - as all the great industrial democracies learned in the 20th century - but it also applies to the increasingly integrated global market economy we live in today.

It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of their fellow human beings are left in abject poverty, or even thrown into it.

We have to give our fellow citizens, not only within each nation but in the global community, at least a chance to share in our prosperity.

That is why, five years ago, the UN Millennium Summit adopted a set of goals - the "Millennium Development Goals" - to be reached by 2015: goals such as halving the proportion of people in the world who do not have clean water to drink; making sure all girls, as well as boys, receive at least primary education; slashing infant and maternal mortality; and stopping the spread of HIV/Aids.

Much of that can only be done by governments and people in the poor countries themselves. But richer countries, too, have a vital role.

Here too, Harry Truman proved himself a pioneer, proposing in his 1949 inaugural address a program of what came to be known as development assistance. And our success in mobilising donor countries to support the Millennium Development Goals, through debt relief and increased foreign aid, convinces me that global solidarity is not only necessary but possible.

Of course, foreign aid by itself is not enough. Today, we realise that market access, fair terms of trade and a non-discriminatory financial system are equally vital to the chances of poor countries.

Even in the next few weeks and months, you Americans can make a crucial difference to many millions of poor people, if you are prepared to save the Doha Round of trade negotiations.

You can do that by putting your broader national interest above that of some powerful sectional lobbies, while challenging Europe and the large developing countries to do the same.

The rule of law

My third lesson is that both security and development ultimately depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Although increasingly interdependent, our world continues to be divided - not only by economic differences, but also by religion and culture.

That is not in itself a problem. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learnt from each other.

But if our different communities are to live together in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and our shared belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law.

That is vital for development, too. Both foreign investors and a country's own citizens are more likely to engage in productive activity when their basic rights are protected and they can be confident of fair treatment under the law.

And policies that genuinely favour economic development are much more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard.

In short, human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity. As Truman said, "We must, once and for all, prove by our acts conclusively that Right Has Might."

That is why this country has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement. But that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism.

When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.

And states need to play by the rules towards each other, as well as towards their own citizens. That can sometimes be inconvenient, but ultimately what matters is not convenience. It is doing the right thing.

No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose - for broadly shared aims - in accordance with broadly accepted norms.

No community anywhere suffers from too much rule of law; many do suffer from too little - and the international community is among them. This we must change.

The US has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level.

As Harry Truman said, "We all have to recognise, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the licence to do always as we please."

Mutual accountability

My fourth lesson - closely related to the last one - is that governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena, as well as in the domestic one.

Today the actions of one state can often have a decisive effect on the lives of people in other states.

So does it not owe some account to those other states and their citizens, as well as to its own? I believe it does.

As things stand, accountability between states is highly skewed. Poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign assistance. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people, working through their domestic institutions.

That gives the people and institutions of such powerful states a special responsibility to take account of global views and interests, as well as national ones.

And today they need to take into account also the views of what, in UN jargon, we call "non-state actors". I mean commercial corporations, charities and pressure groups, labour unions, philanthropic foundations, universities and think tanks - all the myriad forms in which people come together voluntarily to think about, or try to change, the world.

None of these should be allowed to substitute itself for the state, or for the democratic process by which citizens choose their governments and decide policy. But they all have the capacity to influence political processes, on the international as well as the national level.

States that try to ignore this are hiding their heads in the sand.

The fact is that states can no longer - if they ever could - confront global challenges alone. Increasingly, we need to enlist the help of these other actors, both in working out global strategies and in putting those strategies into action once agreed.

It has been one of my guiding principles as Secretary General to get them to help achieve UN aims - for instance through the Global Compact with international business, which I initiated in 1999, or in the worldwide fight against polio, which I hope is now in its final chapter, thanks to a wonderful partnership between the UN family, the US Centers for Disease Control and - crucially - Rotary International.

Multilateralism

So that is four lessons. Let me briefly remind you of them: First, we are all responsible for each other's security. Second, we can and must give everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity. Third, both security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law. Fourth, states must be accountable to each other, and to a broad range of non-state actors, in their international conduct.

My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.

In fact, it is only through multilateral institutions that states can hold each other to account. And that makes it very important to organize those institutions in a fair and democratic way, giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong.

That applies particularly to the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Developing countries should have a stronger voice in these bodies, whose decisions can have almost a life-or-death impact on their fate.

And it also applies to the UN Security Council, whose membership still reflects the reality of 1945, not of today's world.

That is why I have continued to press for Security Council reform. But reform involves two separate issues.

One is that new members should be added, on a permanent or long-term basis, to give greater representation to parts of the world which have limited voice today.

The other, perhaps even more important, is that all Council members, and especially the major powers who are permanent members, must accept the special responsibility that comes with their privilege.

The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests. It is the management committee, if you will, of our fledgling collective security system.

As President Truman said, "The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world."

He showed what can be achieved when the US assumes that responsibility. And still today, none of our global institutions can accomplish much when the US remains aloof. But when it is fully engaged, the sky is the limit.

These five lessons can be summed up as five principles, which I believe are essential for the future conduct of international relations: collective responsibility, global solidarity, the rule of law, mutual accountability, and multilateralism.

Let me leave them with you, in solemn trust, as I hand over to a new Secretary General in three weeks' time.

My friends, we have achieved much since 1945, when the United Nations was established.

But much remains to be done to put those five principles into practice.

Standing here, I am reminded of Winston Churchill's last visit to the White House, just before Truman left office in 1953. Churchill recalled their only previous meeting, at the Potsdam conference in 1945.

"I must confess, sir," he said boldly, "I held you in very low regard then. I loathed your taking the place of Franklin Roosevelt." Then he paused for a moment, and continued: "I misjudged you badly. Since that time, you more than any other man, have saved Western civilisation."

My friends, our challenge today is not to save Western civilisation - or Eastern, for that matter. All civilisation is at stake, and we can save it only if all peoples join together in the task.

You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart.

Do you need it less today, and does it need you less, than 60 years ago? Surely not.

More than ever today Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system through which the world's peoples can face global challenges together.

And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition.

I hope and pray that the American leaders of today, and tomorrow, will provide it. Thank you very much.

Kofi Annan, the outgoing UN secretary general, has delivered a barely disguised broadside against President George Bush in his last major speech before leaving office at the end of the month.

He suggested that in the "war on terror", President Bush had ridden roughshod over the international community and compromised America's respect for human rights. Mr Annan made plain his concern that the United States had allowed its status as the world's sole superpower, coupled with its desire to protect itself against terrorists, to undermine its historical commitment to multilateralism.

malaysia Abdullah Anwar Annan Bush Iraq Singapore Tiger Airway

Islamists Demand Women "Cover Up"

Malaysia - Sexy Attire disallowed in Kelantan. Egypt -Muslim Woman Gives Sex Advice on Arab TV

Women working in retail outlets and restaurants in Kelantan have been warned to mind their dressing or be prepared to face a fine.

The Kota Baru Municipal Council (MPKB) has announced that it would “no longer tolerate indecent dressing” by women, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Public relations officer Mohd Azman Daham said that under local council by-laws women who “dressed sexily or indecently” could be fined up to RM500.

“Such outfits are prohibited here as it smears the reputation of Kota Baru and affects its status as an Islamic City,” he said in an interview.

He added that although punishment for indecent dressing was in place under the by-laws, it had not been totally enforced.

“But now, MPKB will no longer tolerate skimpy outfits, following mounting complaints from the public,” Mohd Azman said, adding that under the by-laws, women working in retail outlets should wear decent clothes.

Several women's organisations are up in arms over the decision of the Kota Baru Municipal Council (MPKB) to fine women working in retail outlets and restaurants who wear clothes deemed to be revealing.

The offending items include tight fitting blouses, pants, jeans and mini-skirts.


In 1990, PAS gained control of Kelantan state from then prime minister Mahathir Mohammad's UMNO party, and in Kota Baru Municipal Council (MPKB), Islamist laws were soon enacted. In 1996, the city council ordered that all supermarkets should have separate check-out lines for males and females, though this was loosely enforced. Additionally, unisex hair salons were banned, and thus many hair salons had their clientele halved.

Lipstick-wearing at work was banned, cinemas were ordered to keep lights on during performances (lest un-Islamic things went on in the dark) and women were ordered to wear the tudung (the Malaysian equivalent of the Hijab or Muslim headscarf), whilst at work. In 2000, 23 women were fined for not wearing this garment.

Laws on Islamic dress can only apply to Muslims, but this does not include images of Muslim or non-Muslim women with their heads uncovered. In May 2002, the head of Kota Baru Municipal Council, Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman, ordered that images of women on advertising billboards should not show them without the tudung.

In 1992, PAS had introduced an order that asserted that in Kelantan state, all female models should be shown wearing the tudung. Rahman noted that by 2002 this ruling was not being followed. He announced that any advertisements showing women without headscarves would be ripped down. He said: "However, lately we have noticed some sections of the business community are not adhering to the requirement." He claimed he was acting to protect "the image of women in the state."

Once again, Kota Baru Municipal Council has decided to ensure that women's image in the state is protected, by imposing more restrictions upon the women themselves. And women's groups are not happy at this demeaning treatment.

Mohammad Azman Daham, who is public relations officer for the MPKB, said that under local council by-laws, any woman, Muslim or non-Muslim, who "dressed sexily or indecently" could be fined up to 500 ringgit ($140). It was announced by MPKB that it would "no longer tolerate indecent dressing".

Meanwhile, Fox News reported that Muslim Woman Gives Sex Advice on Arab TV.

Heba Kotb is a conservative Muslim, wears an Islamic head scarf, and goes on television once a week to talk _ frankly and in great detail _ about sex.

On her show, "Big Talk," Kotb answers questions from Muslims all over the Middle East about the most intimate bedroom issues with an openness that is shocking and revolutionary in a society where discussing the subject is taboo.

"How do I talk about these issues? Very seriously," the Egyptian sexologist says. "I put on a mask-like face and make sure I speak in the right tone of voice."

She also does it by talking about sex in an Islamic light, arguing that the faith is in favor of pleasure for both men and women, with one important caveat _ that it be only in the context of marriage.

"I'm very proud of my religion," Kotb told The Associated Press in an interview at Cairo University, where she teaches forensic medicine. "My studies revealed to me more and more how Islam was ahead in all sexual matters ... I discovered that Islam understood sex long before the rest of the world."

For example, Islam "stresses the importance of foreplay," Kotb said, and she often stresses to listeners that women should also enjoy sex.

She started "Big Talk" on the independent Egyptian satellite channel El-Mehwar more than two months ago.

Much of her advice is straight biology _ laying out facts rarely aired elsewhere. Nothing is too sensitive. She discusses sexual positions, female orgasm, oral sex (allowed, "since there is no religious text banning it"), even masturbation (frowned upon but at least preferable to unmarried or adulterous sex, which is "haram," meaning forbidden by religion).

She takes a strict Islamic line on homosexuality _ she calls it a disease.

Along with doctors, she sometimes brings Islamic clerics onto her show, and many callers ask about the religion's rulings on sexual issues.

Because Islam trumps all else on her show, some complain that it's part of a general inclination in the Middle East to view everything through the prism of religion.

"After Islamic banks, Islamic fashion, Islamic TV channels, Islamic hairdressers, Islamic swimsuits, Islamic writers ... now Islamic sex? This is too much," protested feminist writer Mona Helmi in a column in the Egyptian pro-government weekly Rose el-Youssef.

"Sex is an emotional and human condition, not a religious or identity issue," she said.

She gives sex education courses for unmarried youths with the consent of their parents, but in her consulting practice takes only married couples. She says she is booked up for two months with couples from across the Arab world.

"It's a beautiful thing what she is doing," said Abier El-Barbary, a psychotherapist and faculty member of American University in Cairo. "It's a long overdue topic tastefully done," she said.

***********

Outrage over fine for ‘revealing clothes’

Women's representatives have been infuriated by the latest enforcement of Muslim prudery. The executive director of Women's Aid Organisation (WAO), Ivy Josiah, called the ruling unacceptable and ridiculous. She said women were continually blamed for being raped or subjected to sexual harassment on account of the way they dressed, while men were never blamed for their predatory behavior.

She said: "I would like to know what is the (acceptable) level of tightness of a pair of pants or jeans, and what happens to those of us who have larger buttocks? Is the MPKB saying that we cannot wear pants or jeans as it will emphasise the buttocks?"

She said that the MPKB should stick to cleaning drains, managing parks, collecting garbage and providing child care centers.

The women's section chief of the MCA party, Dr Ng Yen Yen, was not amused. MCA (the Malaysian Chinese Association), is the second largest partner in a coalition with the ruling UMNO party. Dr Ng said: "If men wear tight fitting jeans, is that not deemed sexy? Why is it only the women are targeted, so much so that the ruling covers non-Muslim women as well?"

Maria Chin Abdullah, who is executive director of the Women's Development Collective wondered if the MPKB intended to impose rulings on decency to men who dressed in singlets and shorts, exposing their thighs, arms and armpits.

She said: "Firstly, are these gatal (lecherous) men intending to buy products or eat at the restaurants, or are they there to see how the women are dressed? If that is their purpose, then it is an insult to the mentality of Malaysian men."

Honey Tam, executive director of the All-Women's Action Society (Awam) said that forcing women to be the ones to be responsible in issues of morality is both discriminatory and a violation of women's rights.

Ms Tam said: "It is not the job of the council to become the 'moral police', and if it is concerned about the community it serves, it should encourage men and women to respect each other regardless of their dressing."
(Star "Outrage over fine for ‘revealing clothes")

---

China Says Use Toilet Before Take-Off To Save Fuel

A Chinese airline has calculated that it takes more than a litre of fuel to flush the toilet at 30,000 feet and is urging passengers to go to the bathroom before they board the plane.

Chinese airlines have come under pressure to cut fuel costs and their latest strategy is to encourage passengers, as a national newspaper puts it, "to spend their pennies before boarding the aircraft".

Another cost-saving technique the airlines are looking at is "to fill the water tank only 60 percent full".

Chinese airlines are estimated to be losing millions each year but we're not sure ow much "spending your pennies before boarding" will help.
(News Vault)



Malaysia Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Asia Islamists

Malaysia - Five highways to charge new rates from Jan 1

Toll rates will be increased for five concessionaires come Jan 1, 2007, according to Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

He said the Government could not afford to compensate the concessionaires for the Guthrie Corridor Expressway, Karak Highway, Grand Saga Cheras-Kajang Highway, Lebuhraya Damansara Puchong (LDP) and Kesas Shah Alam Highway the estimated RM2bil, if no increase was approved during this round of concession agreements.

You see ? Malaysia Boleh or Malaysia Bodoh ?


Mirzan's wife withdraws application for divorce. It was earlier reported that Jane, 45, who married Mirzan in 1992 had filed for a divorce from the son of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the syariah registry on Oct 20.

Jane is the daughter of the richest man in Indonesia, Liem Sioe Liong. She and Mirzan have three sons and a daughter.

THE New Straits Times and Utusan Melayu, two of Malaysia's oldest media groups, will be merged in a corporate union that will establish the country's largest media grouping, according Singapore Straits Times via Google alert.

It looks like another mega merger is in the making, just when we have the mega merger deal resulting in the world's largest listed palm oil company in the form of Synergy Drive Sdn Bhd . Read more -
(Entire Merger Deal To Be Transparent, Says Nazir Razak )

Meanwhile, Malaysia may revisit a massive 2.5 billion dollar project to link a powerstation on Borneo island to the mainland using undersea cables, a senior minister has said.

Lim Keng Yaik, energy minister said Monday the power cables, if approved, could transport up to 5,000 kilowatts of electricity to the Malaysian peninsula from the controversial hydro-power generation plant in Bakun, in the eastern Sarawak state.

Also, A railway line linking Asian nations from Singapore to China -- part of a broader "Iron Silk Road" network stretching to Europe -- will be completed by 2015, Malaysia said Monday.

Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy said the eastern link of the Trans-Asian Railway network would start from Singapore and travel north through Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam before ending at Kunming in southern China.

Three sections of the eastern link are waiting to be built in Cambodia and Vietnam.

Mega merger, mega projects, who said Malaysia Bodoh? Did anyone mention about white elephant projects ?

Thailand Army chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin yesterday left for a one-day visit to Malaysia to discuss the southern insurgency with his counterparts, a military source said. The visit to Malaysia comes as violence in the strife-torn South has escalated. Kuala Lumpur was recently angered by remarks by Prime Minister Gen Surayud Chulanont that a network of Thai restaurants in Malaysia was aiding militants.

''Malaysia used to help us, but we didn't behave. They had handed over people [suspected militants] but we killed them. Now they are reluctant to help. So I'll see how they can help us this time,'' he said.

Malaysians have been reminded to be extra careful in dealing with racial and religious issues.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who issued this reminder, said: ”Race and religious issues are still very sensitive issues. We shouldn't be too alarmed but at the same time, it must serve as a lesson to us.”

He was referring to people's unhappiness with speakers who touched on religious issues at the last Umno General Assembly, which was televised live.


Muslim nations have right to pursue nuke prog

Muslim countries shouldn't be prevented from developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, a Malaysian government minister said on Sunday at an International Conference on Nuclear Energy.

World powers must not "misinterpret the interest of Muslim nations to generate nuclear energy as having a hidden motive," Science and Technology Minister Jamaluddin Jarjis was quoted as saying by the National News Agency, Bernama.

"The tendency for such misinterpretations based on a country's religious beliefs is truly tragic and should be tackled accordingly," Jamaluddin told reporters on the sidelines of the forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia, held in Malaysia's Eastern Pahang state.

Keris-wielding Hishammuddin the most divisive and polarised Education Minister in history

**********

Malaysia seeks to ease rivalry, deepen cooperation with Singapore

Malaysia and Singapore must set aside their economic rivalry and intensify cooperation if they want to survive in a competitive global economy, Malaysia's deputy leader said Monday.

The two neighbors must invest in each other and encourage their businesses to join forces to venture offshore in new areas amid growing competition from China, India and Southeast Asian nations like Vietnam and Thailand, said Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak.

He noted that Singapore's acquisitions of Malaysian companies far outnumbered purchases of Singaporean assets by Malaysians and urged the island-state to "show a greater degree of reciprocity" to achieve equitable partnership.

"For Malaysia and Singapore, the stakes are high. We are no longer the darling of foreign investors as we were in the previous decade," Najib told a regional business conference.

The conference was attended by Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.

"We must raise our political will to work together where we can and accommodate each other in areas where we cannot," he said. "We have no real choice. The economic logic is as clear as the day. We must build the necessary partnerships in order to take advantage of new opportunities present within the region."

Najib said Malaysia and Singapore can together become winners in the global landscape. "But if we choose to remain aloof, to go it alone, we risk being torn apart by the competition," he warned.

The two countries, which briefly united in the 1960s, share close social and historical ties but have had a history of testy relations. Disputes have ranged from the price of water to airspace use to territorial disagreements.

In September, Singapore's elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew sparked a furor in Malaysia when he told an international conference that Malaysia and Indonesia "systematically" marginalize Chinese minorities.

Malaysia's government strongly protested Lee's remark, warning it could stir up Malaysian Chinese, who make up about a quarter of the country's 26 million people. Lee apologized for causing "discomfort" to Malaysia's leadership but didn't retract his criticism.

Najib reiterated that Lee's comments were not appreciated and described it as "little bumps in the road" that the two countries must contend with.

"Whether we like it or not, our two nations are joined at the hip," he said. "With increasing competition, it simply makes common sense for Malaysia and Singapore to invest in each other's future."

Najib presses S'pore button

**********

Man In the Net

His Royal Blog-ness: Prince Charles adds 'blogging' to his list of talents

It's the 21st Century cult that has spawned the careers of chart toppers Lily Allen and The Arctic Monkeys.

Now Prince Charles has latched onto the internet to broaden his appeal with his very own royal 'blog'.

Unfortunately, the prince's fly-on-the-wall video diary isn't quite as rock and roll those usually posted on the web, however.

Instead users are treated to footage of the heir-to-the-the-throne and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, on a day-trip to Birmingham.

The blog features on Charles's newly revamped website, whose home page is littered with glossy photographs of the prince, his wife and children.

Charles also uses the website to lay out his 'personal manifesto' , espousing his views on everything from health and 'responsible business' to faith and ethnic communities and farming.

On it he says he sees one of his roles as Prince of Wales to raise issues of national importance that might otherwise be overlooked.

Surprisingly given the criticism he has received in recent years for intervening in politically sensitive subjects, the web-site boldly states the Prince lobbys through 'meetings with Government Ministers and other people of influence, by giving speeches, writing articles and participating in television programmes'.

It adds: "The Prince's work aims to promote and protect what is good about Britain and its people. This will often involve The Prince acting personally as a catalyst to facilitate chance, to generate debate or to raise overlooked issues.

"In all these areas, the Prince aims to encourage a public debate over what he sees as vital issues to the health of the nation while avoiding party political issues.

"When issues become a matter for party political debate or the subject of Government police, The prince stops raising them publicly."

Earlier this year Charles's former aide, Mark Bolland, claimed the Prince views himself as a 'political dissident', bombarding senior ministers with memos on his views about everything from farming to the armed forces.

Camilla is something of a figure in her own right with a personal profile - minus, it has to be said, any mention of her previous marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles - and links to pages featuring her 'at work'.

There is also a segment on her interests featuring fascinating facts such as her passion for fishing, walking and gardening.

It also reveals that she has three horses stabled at Highgrove - Molly, Willie and Bearskin - and owns three Jack Russell terriers, Tosca, Rosie and Freddie.

A Clarence House spokesman refused to reveal how much has been spent re-designing the web-site, saying it was a private matter for the Prince who paid for it personally, although industry figures estimate it to be around £40,000.

"The last time it was updated was more than eight years ago, which made it quite archaic," the spokesman said.

"The Prince was very much involved in the project on a personal level and feels it is an important tool in explaining and publicising tdifferent aspects of his work.

"The video diary helps to make it even more accessible."

The web-site, which was re-designed by Soho-based company Reading Room and features a children's section with games and quizzes as well as a complete back catalogue of speeches the Prince has made over the past five decades, took four months to create.

Royal fans can also sign up for free email updates on everything from Princes William and Harry to Duchy Originals food products.

The Prince of Wales


Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Malaysia Najib Prince Charles Wales

British Deputy PM in Malaysia to Learn About Religious Co-Existence

British Deputy PM in Malaysia to Learn About Religious Co-Existence

By VOA News

British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is visiting Malaysia to learn about its approach to peaceful co-existence between communities of different religions.

In a letter published Saturday in a Malaysian newspaper, Prescott praises the country for becoming "a successful multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural society in a rapidly changing world."

Malaysia is a mainly Muslim country that is 60 percent ethnic Malay, but also is about 25 percent Chinese and eight percent Indian, with large numbers of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists.

Prescott says there is a lot of discussion in Britain about how to create harmony amid increasing disputes between the Muslim community and the rest of the country. In a recent controversy, some British politicians criticized Muslim women who wear veils.

The deputy British leader says the answer to such disputes is to have an open and respectful debate and to be sensitive to differences that arise from religious beliefs.

Prescott is visiting the Islamic Art Museum in Kuala Lumpur Sunday for a dialogue session with Muslim scholars. He will have talks with Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak Monday


Go ahead and criticise me, says Abdullah

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has never been free of criticism.


The prime minister has been criticised in Cabinet meetings, the Umno supreme council and Barisan Nasional meetings.

This was because they sometimes held views that differed from the prime minister’s.

But Abdullah said yesterday that such differences of opinion were resolved through consensus.

"We discuss and express our views before reaching an agreement.

"When a decision is made, it’s a collective decision. That makes it easier for us to implement... This is my way," he said at the state Hari Raya Aidilfitri open house at the Melaka International Trade Centre in Ayer Keroh yesterday.

"If anyone wants to criticise me, go ahead," he said in commenting on a statement yesterday by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that he was criticising Abdullah as no one else was able to do so.

Dr Mahathir had claimed that Cabinet members and others holding government and party posts were not allowed to criticise Abdullah.

He had also alleged that the media was muzzled in the matter while the Internet and websites were bugged to enable action to be taken against those who criticised the prime minister.

On his two-hour meeting with his predecessor on Sunday, he said he had maintained silence during the first 1½ hour as he wanted to give Dr Mahathir a chance to express his feelings on the administration of the government and his leadership.

"I wanted to reply but I didn’t want to interrupt because eventually he would say that I’m wrong. So I waited for him to stop talking before commenting one by one on the issues ranging from the police state, Umno, family interference and the economy and finally on the crooked bridge.

"I was satisfied that Tun had expressed himself. However, I am slightly disappointed as I had many things to say and to reply to what Tun had expressed but I had to stop because of the limited time."

Abdullah also touched on the fifth annual Reporters Without Borders worldwide Press freedom index, which indicated that the freedom of Press in Malaysia was better compared with several Asean countries, including Singapore and Thailand.

"This is the view of outsiders who are constantly assessing us in terms of competitiveness, quality, human rights and Press freedom."

It was reported in the media yesterday, that Malaysia ranked 92 in a poll carried out in 158 countries on Press freedom. Malaysia was ranked 113th last year.

Earlier, Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam said the country, its leaders and people were happy that Dr Mahathir and Abdullah had met to resolve various issues but unhappy with the outcome.

"We were all hoping that things would have been different with Tun during this auspicious month. Our hopes were high that he would have a change of heart and together we could work towards developing the nation.

"But it looks as if Tun has let us all down. We know how it feels like for Abdullah and we share his sentiments and promise to support him in his endeavours for the nation’s good."


Euphoria of hope fizzles out
By Joceline Tan (The Star)

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s gleaming black Mercedes-Benz glided out of the Prime Minister’s official residence a little after 5pm.

Dr Mahathir had arrived and left on the dot, leaving the media who had been milling about since early afternoon empty-handed.

As such, it was a very hungry media, desperate for news about the highly anticipated meeting between Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Dr Mahathir, that decided to head for his Mines Resort City home about 20 minutes drive from Putrajaya.

They got through the security at the gate with surprisingly little fuss and even managed to park their cars near the porch, next to a posh Bentley.

They were even more surprised when the former premier agreed to see them although he was due at his eldest son Datuk Mirzan’s house for buka puasa.

It had been a long day and his voice was soft and a little hoarse but he answered most of their queries. It was not a very long interview and reporters were still popping questions as his other two sons Datuk Mokhzani and Datuk Mukhriz ushered him to the car after about 30 minutes.

But what an impact it made when aired over primetime news that night on the main TV channels.

It was not only what he said but the way he said it that suggested the meeting had not had the desired consequence, at least as far as Dr Mahathir was concerned.

Bera MP Datuk Ismail Sabri remembered feeling rather stunned on hearing the news.

“When they agreed to meet we thought, good, they really want to settle the whole thing. But after the meeting he is still attacking Pak Lah. I’m really disappointed, I think my friends in Umno feel the same,” said Ismail.

The following day, Dr Mahathir held a packed press conference in the inner courtyard of his house where, responding to questions, he elaborated on what he said the day before plus a few well-aimed opinion statements.

By then, it was crystal clear that the meeting had not changed his stance about anything. He seemed no less frustrated about the issues he had been talking about nor did he seem anywhere close to appeasement.

Dr Mahathir was still on the warpath. Dr Mahathir’s second son, Mokhzani, has made a loyal effort to defend his father in the face of criticism.

“My father saw the meeting as an opportunity to state the facts without adulteration. What he said on Monday was what he said during the meeting. It’s not fair to say that Tun has renewed his attacks on Pak Lah,” said Mokhzani.

But the point is that Dr Mahathir’s indomitable spirit ruled the day and there was quite little that anyone, his sons included, could do to dilute his mood.

Some have been blunt, calling the meeting a flop, even a disaster.

Others remained optimistic, saying that, “Dr Mahathir will be Dr Mahathir,” and that things could still work out between them.

But mostly, people felt let down by Dr Mahathir’s tell-all about the meeting.

They thought it did not reflect the spirit in which the meeting was arranged, that the senior man had been too exacting, even disparaging. They felt the senior man could have exercised some restraint in the spirit of Ramadan and Aidilfitri.

Besides, as Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar pointed out, the underlying principle of a four-eyed meeting is confidentiality and discretion.

“There’s been so much negative comment which I think is a great pity after what he has done for the country. It should not have come to this,” said Syed Hamid for whom some of the issues raised by Dr Mahathir have struck close to home.

Also, the fact that Dr Mahathir had walked in with a tape recorder was hint of the lack of trust and confidence about how the meeting was going to turn out.

Many, especially Umno members, had hoped that Sunday's face-to-face would lead to further meetings.

But the prospect of another meeting seems rather remote, as things stand now.

The Prime Minister has described his predecessor's post-meeting criticism as “stronger doses of venom” and was clearly riled that Dr Mahathir had chosen to go public without waiting for his response.

Going by the point-blank manner with which he rebutted some of the offensives, it looks like Abdullah may have come to the end of his tether or, as his friend Tun Musa Hitam would say, the end of his elegant silence.

According to Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Azalina Othman Said: “No one likes to negotiate or budge under pressure. You can’t have someone dictating to the sitting PM. He will listen but he can’t do everything you say.

“That is not the way to deal with Pak Lah. He may seem soft but he’s hard to budge when he believes he is on the right lane. Most of all, you’ve to remember he is a man of faith.”

But more stunning was the statement by the Johor Sultan on the first day of Hari Raya. After prayers on Tuesday, the Tuanku told those congregated that Dr Mahathir should not interfere in the government and asked Johoreans to rally behind Abdullah.

It was a brief but momentous royal remark. After all, the aborted Johor-Singapore bridge was a central issue in Dr Mahathir’s offensive against the Abdullah administration.

Since then Dr Mahathir has stepped up the tempo, claiming that the police were harassing his family members and that there was a climate of fear in the country.

The former premier, an Umno official noted, is pushing the Government against the wall.

“Dr Mahathir wants things done his way and he will only rest if Pak Lah follows his instructions,” said Umno supreme council member Datuk Shahrir Samad. He said there was no need debate Dr Mahathir, much less dance to his tune.

“However, the PM has to make sure that his policies are implemented and deliver on his promises. He has to think about the hopes of the people and the changes they expect him to make. He has to correct mistakes and do it fast.

“He also has to keep tabs on the mentris besar and ministers so that they carry out his policies of transparency, improving human capital, public delivery system and so on. If they don’t perform, he has to change them. The faster he gets his team going in the right direction the better.

“I’m glad he’s beginning to use and involve the Umno political bureaus. Issues involving his family also have to be addressed. I believe he has the courage to act on complaints about his family and to draw the line between family and Government. That will win him immense respect and boost his image,” said Shahrir.

The point that Shahrir, who is also Johor Baru MP, is trying to make is that the endurance of Abdullah’s administration does not depend on submitting to all of Dr Mahatir’s demands but it lies in fulfilling the people’s expectations.

“Ultimately, what’s important is how successful we are in addressing the demands and dissatisfactions of our constituency. When the constituents are contented, Dr Mahathir’s attacks will grow irrelevant,” said Shahrir.

But what now between the present and the ex-prime minister?

The Mubarak group that mooted last week’s meeting has not abandoned hope of bringing them together again despite the bitter exchange of words.

“We are not giving up so easily, we want to organise more meetings. But we appeal to Dr Mahathir to be less confrontational. Some of the issues take time to resolve and he should give some time to the PM,” said Kelantan Mubarak head Datuk Rozali Isohak.


Rubbishing a 'sampah' statement
(Rafidah Abdullah-The Sun)

What is 'sampah'?

Sampah is Malay for rubbish, garbage, things to be thrown away. According to the Kamus Dewan, sampah also means something or someone that is useless or of no value.

And why're we talking about 'sampah'?

This word has cropped up quite a bit lately, largely in relation to the infamous Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute's Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) report titled Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy. The report asserted that bumiputra-owned equity in Malaysia could be as high as 45%, far exceeding the government's target of 30%.

Immediately, there was uproar among Umno politicians, condemning the report as "inaccurate" and, yes, sampah. There were accusations of a hidden agenda behind the report; some claimed that the report was intended to "incite anger" and "confuse the Malays".

Under pressure to retract the report and "admit" its flaws, CPPS director Dr Lim Teck Ghee resigned on principle. The whole debacle made news headlines for weeks.

But anyway, back to sampah. In the midst of the brouhaha, the report was not the only thing to be given that auspicious title. When interviewed about the CPPS report (Mingguan Malaysia, Oct 8), Umno vice-president and Minister of Agriculture Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was asked this question: If the Malays are no longer assisted, what would happen in the future?

His answer? Melayu akan jadi 'sampah' dalam masyarakat.

I take it you are not happy with that response?

I am absolutely livid! How insulting is that statement? Is he saying that the Malays are so weak that they could not possibly survive without the government's help? Conversely, is he not implying that other races are superior, because they can succeed without help no matter what their circumstances? Can we Malays then blame them if they look down on us as weak and dependent?

It is because of this mentality that I have lived my life in constant irritation.

Let me get one thing straight - my parents were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. One of my grandfathers was a policeman and the other, a fisherman. Neither had a high education. Yet my parents rose above their circumstances by the time-tested method of working hard. Fast forward to me finishing secondary school and asking my dad to sign loan/scholarship application papers for my university education. My dad flatly refused, saying: "We can afford it. Let the money go to people who need it."

I remember being annoyed with him, knowing full well that there are Datuks and Tan Sris whose children are educated on public funds. Yet, looking back now, I can appreciate his wisdom and it is a source of pride to me that I never took the government's money.

I'm sorry, how is that living life in constant irritation?

I'm getting to that! So, I entered Universiti Malaya, funded by my parents. For the most part, this fact was of no consequence, except for the resigned and sometimes snide remarks that came from some of my fellow students who were non-Malay. They seemed to think that Malays had it easy, and it was no wonder that I had parents who could afford to pay for my education - after all, the Malays received so much help!

This was, for me, a surprise and an eye-opener. All this while, I had been socially conditioned to think that the Chinese were the loaded ones, but for the first time I was meeting Chinese who were poor, struggling, and under the impression that Malays were the ones with money!

And I soon discovered that this was not the only misconception they had about Malays. They were also surprised to

discover that I entered the university with Form Six qualification. But why? they asked. Form Six is tough; it's for people who have no other choice. You are Malay, why didn't you take the matriculation course or a diploma in ITM?

I didn't know how to answer. I had never thought about it. Wasn't Form Six the natural progression from Form Five?

Not satisfied, they asked me about my STPM results. They were completely convinced that, by virtue of the quota system which required far less of Malays than of other races, I had managed to get into the prestigious law faculty by the barest minimum. I told them my results. Seventy-six out of 80 points, which qualified me quite comfortably regardless of skin colour. They were awed. "Wow," they said, "You're really smart for a Malay."

For a Malay.

That remark annoyed me at that time, yet, not nearly as much as the minister's sampah comment annoys me now. Can I really blame a bunch of non-Malay students for having such views when one of our own leaders seems to have no faith in the ability of the Malays?

So are you saying that the government should stop giving help to the Malays?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ALL poor people, regardless of ethnicity, should be helped, not only because this will avoid resentment, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because I pay taxes and I should be allowed to express my opinion on how to spend the money.

But the bigger part of what I'm saying is that it is irresponsible of the minister to make such a statement because it conditions the Malays to think that if they don't receive government help, they will amount to nothing. It conditions the Malays to think that on a level playing field, they will surely lose. Even the best athletes, if conditioned to rely on a

particular product, will become mentally vulnerable regardless of their true capabilities.

Surely the minister realises all this. What then is his motive in making such a sampah statement?


Dr M's Criticism Of PM Akin To His Own Era, Says Zam

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 (Bernama) -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's criticism of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is akin to criticising his own era, including from the aspect of "Malays forget easily", says Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin.

"Dr Mahathir has forgotten or had purposely chose to forget his ways in implementing freedom of the press, in politics and economy when he was the prime minister.

"It cannot be denied that his success in practising democracy had shown firmness and authoritativeness. Although he allowed freedom of expression and forgived his friends who were his political foes, in the process of enhancing his power, he has built his own era which made him not only to be respected but also feared," he told reporters.

Zainuddin said the former prime minister might not have realised this when he was the prime minister but it was very much felt by the people who dealt with him then, especially cabinet ministers.

"What Dr Mahathir is doing now to Pak Lah (Abdullah) is the same as what Tunku Abdul Rahman (Putra Al-Haj) (Malaysia's first prime minister) did to him (Dr Mahathir) to the extent that Tunku supported the Opposition and Tunku was used by the Opposition in the elections...only the ways are different.

"Tunku was more diplomatic but Dr Mahathir is more aggressive," he added.

Datuk Joseph Salang said "Criticism On Pak Lah No Impact On M'sia's Image Abroad"

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's persistent criticism of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's leadership has no impact on Malaysia's image overseas, says Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Joseph Salang.

He said neither it had any bearing on Malaysia's ties with other countries.

Salang said leaders of countries whom he had met so far are not worried over the misunderstanding between the two leaders.

"To them the spat between the two are personal matters," he told reporters after attending a dinner to raise funds to renovate and extend the St John's Anglican Church here last night.

Salang said: "This is the Foreign Ministry's view. As far as the leaders are concerned Abdullah's position as prime minister is not threatened since he has been duly elected and won the last general election with overwhelming majority."

In fact, many foreign leaders praised Malaysia for its political stability, he said.

Also, foreign investors did not feel insecure over the latest development in the country, he said.

"Nevertheless, the sooner the spat can be resolved between the two leaders, the better it is for the country in a lot of ways.

"It is among Malaysians that the criticisms are evoking all kinds of thoughts and reactions.

"But we must remember they need to stop as we all need to focus on our unity, energy and resources to successfully implement the Ninth Malaysia Plan and equally important to achieve the Vision 2020 goals," he said.

*********

After the UN-imposed sanctions Cracks in the anti-Pyongyang front

South Korea in contrast has been reluctant to give up its “sunshine policy” of rapprochement with the isolated communist regime or to take economic actions that could cause the collapse of its impoverished neighbor.
North Korea has called the sanctions a “declaration of war” and warned of a “merciless” response to anyone who undermines its sovereignty.
Senior US officials said a key message Rice would give South Korean leaders is that Washington would not seek to impose the UN sanctions in a way that would further destabilize the situation.
“We’ll make clear to the Koreans that the United States has no interest in ratcheting up tensions”, said one senior official accompanying her.
The UN resolution bans trade with North Korea related to its development of nuclear arms, ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction, and imposes financial controls to starve the North Korean military of funds.
But the most controversial measure calls for the inspection of cargo to and from North Korea, aimed at preventing its cash-strapped government from selling material for an atomic bomb or other illicit weapons to terrorists.
Rice met with President Roh Moo-Hyun and then held a trilateral meeting with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon and his Japanese counterpart Taro Aso -- the first such three-way ministerial encounter in more than a year.
Her visit came amid reports that North Korea could try to test another nuclear weapon, and as a senior US official revealed that a high-powered Chinese delegation was in Pyongyang Thursday in a bid to talk them out of it.
“I’m pretty convinced that the Chinese will have a very strong message about future tests”, the official said.
“My understanding is that [the delegation’s trip] would be part of Chinese efforts to convince the North Koreans to comply with [UN] Resolution 1718, as well as the other relevant Security Council measures that are out there”, State Department Tom Casey noted.
The delegation was also expected to press North Korea to return to six-party negotiations involving China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.
The six reached an agreement in September 2005 under which North Korea would give up its nuclear program in return for security guarantees and a massive influx of aid. But Pyongyang walked out of the talks last November to protest at US sanctions aimed at locking it out of the international banking system.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the delegation was led by State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan, a former foreign minister, and included “all the Foreign Ministry’s point people on North Korea”.
Before going to North Korea, Tang met the previous week with US President George W. Bush in Washington and Russian leaders in Moscow, though he did not discuss his plans for the Pyongyang trip with American officials.
The outcome of the talks was expected to be discussed when Rice visited Beijing on Friday, but Washington officials downplayed suggestions of an immediate breakthrough.
China is North Korea’s oldest ally and biggest trading partner and has been reluctant to impose sanctions on its neighbor.
But the State Department official said there had been a “dramatic shift” in China’s policy since North Korea test-fired a series of ballistic missiles in July and then carried out last week’s nuclear test.
“China is very concerned about the development of nuclear weapons on its border, the proliferation of those weapons and the possible transfer of those weapons”.
In Seoul, Rice discussed South Korea’s participation in efforts to track and inspect North Korean shipping, aimed at preventing it from trafficking in nuclear materials or weapons of mass destruction, US officials said.
The Americans were also pressing South Korea to curb or end a large tourist complex it finances at Mount Kumgang which provides North Korea with tens of millions of dollars in hard currency each year.
But they cautioned that Rice was unlikely to seek any specific commitments from the South Koreans at this time.
While in Tokyo, Rice warned North Korea that the United States would respond with the full range of its military might to any attack on its allies as it called for the swift implementation of UN sanctions.
Rice issued the warning in Tokyo on the first stop of her regional tour, triggered by the crisis over Pyongyang’s first atom bomb test and amid fears the North might carry out a second test.
“The role of the United States is to make certain that everybody, including the North Koreans, know very well that the United States will fully recognize and act upon its obligations under its mutual defense treaty” with Japan, Rice said.
“The United States has the will and the capability to meet the full range, and I underscore the full range, of its deterrence and security commitment to Japan”, she said after talks with her Japanese counterpart, Taro Aso.
Rice said the United States and Japan, which has taken a tough line on North Korea, wanted all countries to comply with a UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on the North.
“The foreign minister and I pledged we will work together and with other states for the swift implementation and the effective implementation of all of the measures” under the resolution”, Rice said.
North Korea has denounced the sanctions resolution as a “declaration of war” and promised to inflict “merciless blows without hesitation” on any countries enforcing them.
Such bellicose rhetoric has prompted calls in Japan for debate on the long-taboo option of developing its own nuclear weapons since North Korea tested its first atom bomb, triggering fears of a regional arms race.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has ruled out acquiring atomic weapons in Japan, the only country to have suffered nuclear attack. But others in his ruling party have said the option should be at least discussed.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that more countries are likely to go nuclear unless the international community acts cohesively to stop them.
“There is at least a reasonable likelihood that some other countries will decide that they need to have nuclear weapons”, Rumsfeld said in a speech to a military audience at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.
“And... in a relatively short period you could have two, four, six other countries decide that”.
The effect would be “exactly the opposite of what the international community wants to have happen. A lower nuclear threshold, more countries with nuclear weapons, a greater likelihood that one of the countries or more might transfer those weapons to a non-state entity”.
Rumsfeld’s comments came 10 days after North Korea detonated its first nuclear explosion.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey confirmed that a senior Chinese official was visiting North Korea amid fear Pyongyang may conduct another nuclear test.
China is North Korea’s leading political ally and trading partner and is believed to have the most leverage over the reclusive communist state.
UN Resolution 1718, unanimously approved on October 14 by the Security Council, calls on North Korea to return to negotiations about its nuclear program and imposes sanctions on the state.
Although China supported the resolution, which imposed tough sanctions on North Korea, it has shown mixed feelings about a key measure for countries to search North Korean cargo ships.

Japan, US step up work on missile shield

Japan and the United States agreed in top-level talks last week to strengthen their military alliance and step up work on missile defense.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a conservative who took office last month, backed a tough line on North Korea as he met with Rice.
“Japan will make an effort to strengthen the Japan-US alliance, including on missile defense”, Abe told Rice, according to Abe’s adviser Hiroshige Seko, who also attended the meeting.
Rice in turn said that “strengthening and modernizing the US-Japan alliance will be a base of responding to this situation” with North Korea, Seko said.
US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Abe and Rice “talked about the importance of cooperative defense measures such as intelligence-sharing and missile defense”.
More than any other country, Japan feels a direct threat from North Korea, which fired a missile over its main island in 1998.
That incident led the United States and Japan to team up to build a missile defense shield. The American military also installed Patriot surface-to-air missiles in Japan after North Korea test-fired seven missiles in July.
Abe, who rose to popularity by campaigning against North Korea, has championed a greater military role for Japan, which was forced by the Allies to renounce the right to wage war after its defeat in World War II.
American and Japanese officials said Abe and Rice agreed on the need to enforce sanctions on North Korea imposed by the UN Security Council.
“North Korea must understand that things will get worse if it fails to respond to the international community’s concerns”, Abe was quoted by Seko as telling Rice.
North Korea’s nuclear test last week has raised US fears of a nuclear arms race in East Asia and led to calls in Japan to debate the long-taboo idea of building its own atomic weapons.
Rice reaffirmed to Abe that “the United States regards Japan’s security as US security”, Seko said.
“She said that North Koreans should not believe they can change the security environment and that the Japan-US alliance has an ability to respond to their challenge”.
Hiroshi Suzuki, the deputy cabinet secretary for public relations, played down the attention given to the calls to debate the nuclear option.
“Despite many reports inside and abroad suggesting that there could be a possible review, the Japanese government strictly upholds and adheres to its three non-nuclear principles” of not producing, possessing or allowing entry of nuclear weapons onto its territory, Suzuki said.
Rice was the first high-ranking US official to meet Abe since he took office last month, succeeding his mentor, Junichiro Koizumi, who was one of US President George W. Bush’s closest foreign allies.
Abe asked Rice to tell Bush that he is “looking forward to” holding their first summit on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit in Vietnam in November.
In a meeting with Aso, Rice praised Abe for visiting China and South Korea the previous week in a bid to improve ties that were tense under Koizumi, according to another Japanese official at the talks.

‘A second test would show North Korea has the bomb’

North Korea is eager to conduct a second atom bomb test to erase any doubts after a first attempt on October 9 that it truly is capable of producing nuclear weapons, according to Western arms experts.
A new test could be imminent simply “because the first one failed”, argues Joseph Bermudez, a researcher at Jane’s Defense Weekly in Britain.
Many experts worldwide have suggested that the underground explosion that took place earlier this month was too small to have been a successful nuclear explosion.
Which is why, Bermudez said, “it is likely that the North Korean scientific community wants” to try again, he said.
“If you look at what Pakistan did in 1998, the initial explosion had failed”, Bermudez said by way of precedent. “It didn’t get to full yield -- it didn’t have full explosive power -- so they... carried on a series of follow-up tests validating their design”.
North Korea, he said, could be facing a similar situation.
“Until you actually test it -- using your manufacturing capabilities, your equipment, and your fissile material -- you can never know if the design was good or if the computer models you used were good”.
Whether North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il will be discouraged from conducting such a test for political reasons, he mused, was another matter.
Japanese and South Korean officials have cited information of possible preparations for a second test, triggering warnings from around the world and an immediate call for restraint from China, Pyongyang’s closest ally.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has urged North Korea to heed concerns and take a “rational decision” that would lead to talks.
Thérèse Delpech, director of strategic affairs at the French Atomic Energy Commission, agrees that something did not go as planned during North Korea’s first attempt to detonate an atomic device: “If the explosion on October 9 was nuclear test, then it was a failure”, yielding a force of less than one kiloton, she said.
The mid-air blast that devastated Hiroshima at the end of World War II was between 12 and 16 kilotons, according to most estimates.
While North Korea has not yet proven its ability to make and detonate an atom bomb, it is certainly close to that goal, according the François Gère, director of the French Institute for Strategic Analysis.
“They are in the process of conducting experiments that will allow them to produce a real atomic weapon within three months, perhaps six”, he said. It would probably not, he added, be more sophisticated than the plutonium bomb dropped over Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.
The test North Korea conducted earlier this month might, in fact, be a “very advanced form of laboratory experiment” designed to test the fuses and the explosive material used to trigger the nuclear reaction.
Technically speaking, “they are moving in the right direction, but until we have the results of the test and we know exactly what they wanted to test”, Gère said, “we cannot know whether it was a failure or not”.
From a strategic standpoint, “if North Korea really wants to show the world that it has a nuclear weapon, and to improve its program”, opined Pascal Boniface, director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations, “one can understand that it would conduct several tests.”
“One can say with certainty that North Korea has a nuclear capacity, but we don’t know its degree of sophistication or to what extent it has been perfected”.
South Korea has stepped up its monitoring, although a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff told journalists there were no signs yet of a second test.
But experts said Pyongyang’s announcement indicated the North was ready for a further trial.
South Korean and Japanese officials cited information of possible preparations for another test, triggering a plea for restraint from China, but arms experts say North Korea may want to go ahead and prove itself

'Russia bending to China’s will on North Korea’

Russia’s cautious approach to supporting sanctions against North Korea reflects a growing desire to please China rather than any fondness for the hard-line leadership in Pyongyang, analysts in Moscow say.
Pragmatism seems to have been the name of the game when Russia set strict pre-conditions before eventually supporting the US-sponsored resolution on Pyongyang’s nuclear program in the United Nations Security Council.
“China is a more important player in this field and we’re sort of allies... Here we coordinated with China and didn’t stick out on our own”, Moscow-based defense analyst Pavel Felgenhauer indicated.
In particular, any nostalgia for the friendship between the Soviet Union and North Korea in the early years of its independence has long ago been overtaken under President Vladimir Putin by hard-nosed realism, analysts say.
This partly derives from a visit to Pyongyang by Putin in 2000 which led to the Russian president being humiliated by his host, President Kim Jong-Il.
The visit -- extremely rare for a world leader -- ended with Putin telling Western leaders that Kim had promised to give up his nuclear ambitions, but only days later Kim announced that he had been joking.
Putin “strongly hates” Kim Jong-Il because of the incident, Felgenhauer explained.
Return visits by Kim in 2001 and 2002 have done little to cement ties, prompting instead bewilderment at his decision on the first visit to spend weeks traveling by train from North Korea to St. Petersburg and back again.
In the view of Anton Khlopkov, deputy director of the Moscow-based research group PIR, Russia has genuine reasons to be cautious about being more aggressive towards North Korea, as increased pressure could have dangerous consequences.
“It’s hard to predict their reaction to sanctions and they don’t impinge on the leadership but the people”, Khlopkov said, referring to the North Koreans. “They would resort to any lengths to protect their regime”.
But others say that Russia’s reluctance to impose stronger sanctions reflects a lack of serious concern about the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, which shares an 18-kilometer border with Russia’s Far Eastern province of Primorsky.
“I don’t think Russia is seriously worried about North Korea’s nuclear program. The conventional wisdom is that North Korea wants nuclear weapons not to attack Russia or anyone but to have a symbol of power”, said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs.
Others are disturbed by Russia’s willingness to follow the lead of China, which has sought closer ties with Moscow on issues ranging from energy to defense.
Vladimir Pribylovsky, head of the Panorama research center, sees a growing anti-Americanism in Russia’s caution on the North Korea issue.
In part Russia fears any international approval for forceful regime change because it was deeply shaken by the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), he says.
“Russia is very afraid of America... Russia feels the only guarantee that it will not be punished itself is its nuclear weapons and having allies like China, Iran, North Korea and Libya”, Pribylovsky indicated.
Moscow’s desire to maintain the status quo in North Korea and follow China’s lead has been sharply criticized by Asia specialist Alexander Lukin, of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.
Warning that “anti-Americanism can’t become the hub of Russian foreign policy”, he argued in the Kommersant newspaper that going soft on nuclear proliferation threatened regional stability, while also de-valuing Russia’s advantage as a nuclear-armed state.
A change of leadership in North Korea would lead to reunification of the peninsula, which in turn would be in Russia’s interest, he argued.
“Russia should support more severe sanctions... and should advise Beijing to do the same.
“For Russia, which also has some tricky problems in relations with Japan and for which a powerful China is also a strategic challenge, a united Korea could turn into a geopolitical partner”, Lukin said.

Doomsday clock counts down to nuclear Armageddon
amid North Korea talks

Just steps from the birthplace of nuclear power, the Doomsday Clock is counting down to nuclear Armageddon and North Korea could push it closer to midnight.
The Korean Peninsula is not even pictured on the map etched onto the flat copper clock: only the Americas, Europe and Africa are shown. But it will dominate the discussion when a group of leading experts meet in Chicago next month close to the site where nuclear fission was first achieved to discuss the global nuclear threat.
“What we are concerned about is the domino effects from the test”, said Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has kept the clock since 1947 as a reminder of the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
First set at seven minutes to midnight -- a phrase that has become part of pop culture -- the clock has been moved 17 times in response to global events.
The most recent shift was in 2002 when it moved two minutes forward because the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and terrorists were known to be seeking nuclear and biological weapons. It now stands back at seven minutes to midnight, the closest to danger since the end of the Cold War.
“The North Korean test will be important for the cascading events that can happen and the incentives it provides for other countries, and other people, to acquire them”, Benedict told reporters on a rainy afternoon in the book-lined conference room that houses the Doomsday Clock.
There is “every reason to believe” that an impoverished and isolated North Korea will sell bombs or the technology to develop them in order to raise much-needed capital, Benedict said, noting that Al-Qaeda has declared its desire for a nuclear bomb.
Beyond the black market threat, however, is the impact of further proliferation: should North Korea escape punishment, there will be little disincentive for other states with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran, to follow suit. It could also stimulate an arms race in Asia, she suggested.
While North Korea’s fulfillment of its nuclear ambition is a frightening development, there is still an opportunity for diplomacy to win out, Benedict said.
“Other countries have shut down their nuclear weapons programs: Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Libya. We’d like to give the players a chance to have those options acted upon before we move the clock hastily because of the test that has taken place”.
And ultimately, North Korea’s possession of a nuclear bomb does not radically tip the nuclear balance.
There are currently about 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world, down from around 70,000 at the height of the Cold War, and a thousand of them are ready to launch within 30 minutes, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Nuclear Notebook.
About half of Russia’s 16,000 warheads are not properly secured, Benedict said, adding that “there are still places with just a padlock on a fence”.
Meanwhile, the global network of illicit trade in nuclear technology developed by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan remains active and tensions in along the Pakistani borders with Afghanistan and India remain high, she added.
“In an odd way, even though the numbers of weapons are down, because the political dialogue and the diplomacy that’s going on is so limited, we actually -- I think all of us -- have a sense of foreboding and that’s what makes this time so much more difficult than others”, Benedict said.
A short walk from the three-story brick house used as the Bulletin’s offices, the University of Chicago has erected a monument to nuclear power at the site where nuclear fission was first achieved on December 2, 1942.
It’s a bronze sculpture by Henry Moore of a mushroom cloud. As world leaders struggled to convince North Korea to “take a different course”, a small blackbird lay dead at its base, wings stretched out in the rain.
(Monday Morning Com)



Bush & Blair: two leaders searching for a way out of Iraq, and finding none

Their credibility undermined, their moral authority shot, their populatrity in tatters, yet still they fight on. Rupert Cornwell on the bleakest week of the bloodiest month for the war leaders (Independent News)


Their faces alone said everything. At his press conference on Wednesday, in the sumptuous setting of the White House East Room, George Bush was grim, bemused and aged. In the House of Commons 3,000 miles away, Tony Blair stood rooted to the same political spot he has occupied for more than three years. Two leaders, mesmerised and transfixed by the enormity of the crisis they face, searching for an exit and finding none.

In the bleak recent history of Iraq, this last week may have been the most despairing for them, when the converging disasters set in motion by their misconceived invasion of March 2003 became impossible to deny and the gap between their aspirations for Iraq and the reality on the ground there became a chasm.

Events have now acquired a terrible momentum of their own. This month alone the insurgency has claimed more than 1,000 lives, to add to the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives already lost. Another 1.3 million Iraqis are now refugees. The American and British armies are stretched to breaking point. The cost of the war, for America alone, now tops $300bn (£158bn). The moral authority of both countries has been grievously damaged.

Never in modern history has the solution to one problem resulted in the creation of so many larger problems, especially since the initial "problem", Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, turned out to be non-existent.

It was a fitting irony that the week's most lapidary judgement on the disaster of Iraq came from Hans Blix, the former UN chief weapons inspector, scornfully thrust aside by London and Washington in the rush to war. "Iraq is a pure failure," Dr Blix told the Danish newspaper Politiken. "If the Americans pull out, there is a risk that they will leave a country in civil war. At the same time it doesn't seem that the United States can help to stabilise the situation by staying there."

The news from the battlefield yesterday only proved his point. Two more US soldiers were killed, 11 Iraqi police were captured at a fake checkpoint; at least two roadside bombs went off in Baghdad, killing and wounding dozens. At least six bodies bearing signs of torture were found on roads south of the capital. And that is only a sampling.

The pressures on Mr Bush and Mr Blair are now immense. The sheer scale of the bloodshed and chaos their invasion unleashed - coupled with the dissembling that preceded it - has undermined their credibility and destroyed their popularity. The latest US polls show only one in five Americans believes Washington is winning in Iraq, a figure halved since December, while two out of three oppose the war.

The level of scepticism in Britain is even greater, as Mr Blair next week faces the first parliamentary debate on Iraq in two years. Mr Bush's domestic problems however run much deeper than an uncomfortable afternoon in the Commons. It is his troops that are enduring their heaviest death toll in a year. As of yesterday, 98 American soldiers have already died since 1 October, the most in a single month since January 2005. It is his Republican Party that faces defeat in the mid-term elections in nine days' time, and the probable loss of the absolute control of Congress he has enjoyed for the past four years.

Hence the frenzy of activity last week. Mr Bush conferred with his top military commanders, while Mr Blair reassured Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister that Britain would not "lose its nerve". Generals and ambassadors held forth; military operations were intensified.

There are now 20,000 more US troops in Iraq than in early summer. In Baghdad, American forces have moved into the Shia stronghold of Sadr City in their hunt for a kidnapped soldier. But each patrol, each air strike, carries risks of yet another US soldier being killed, or of terrible mistakes that only further alienate the civilian populace.

On Tuesday, for instance, American soldiers shot dead four innocent Iraqi firemen; yesterday in Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, three women and two children were killed by an errant American bomb.

Both leaders know (though they cannot admit) that, short of their committing every available soldier and turning Iraq into an occupied state like post-war Germany, events are largely beyond their control. Both want nothing more than to extricate themselves from the crisis. Their goal must be, somehow, to declare "victory" and bring the troops home - a retreat camouflaged by some fig-leaf of achievement.

But it will be desperately difficult. Britain and America are damned for staying in Iraq, but they will be damned if they leave. An overhasty departure would not only be irresponsible, but also an acknowledgement that the invasion was a blunder. There are only two possible exit scenarios: either when some sort of peace settlement (however short-lived) is achieved, or if the Iraq government asks the coalition to leave. Neither looks likely.

"For some time to come we will need the support of the international community," Barham Salih, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, said after his visit to Downing Street.In the holy month of Ramadan alone, 300 Iraqi security forces were killed, while civilian casualties have been four times that.

Last week both Mr Bush and Mr Blair were at pains to point out that "cut and run" is not on the agenda. "One thing we will not do," the President said. "We will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." Mr Blair's language was almost identical. To do otherwise, he said, would be a "complete betrayal of the Iraqi people". And, once again, Mr Bush endorsed his much-criticised Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

But on both sides of the Atlantic, political reality is forcing change. Desperation is prodding diplomacy in hitherto untested directions. US officials are said to be holding talks in the Jordanian capital, Amman, with leaders of the insurgency, including representatives of Saddam's banned Baathist party - none other than Mr Rumsfeld's famous "regime remnants". An amnesty, a prisoner release, and even possible disarmament, are apparently on offer.

"There's been a change in the position of the Americans," says Jabr Hadeeb Jabr, Shia politician and member of the Baghdad government's Council for Reconciliation. No change is greater than the readiness to contemplate the involvement of Syria and Iran in the search for a solution.

The Foreign Office and Condoleezza Rice are interested in the idea, but Mr Bush, Mr Rumsfeld, and Vice-President Cheney thus far will have none of it.

There is also ongoing debate about some level of devolution to Sunni, Shia and Kurdish regions. The idea has been publicly aired by the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, but dismissed by Gordon Brown (for once, the Chancellor is presumed to be speaking for Mr Blair).

Just how far Washington is prepared to go in thinking the previously unthinkable may be clearer when the bipartisan commission chaired by James Baker, former secretary of state to Bush the elder, reports after the mid-term elections. Mr Baker is known to support an approach to Iran and Syria.

But there are huge, possibly insuperable obstacles to any solution in Iraq. The most immediate is the strength of the insurgency and of the militias. True, Kurdistan and the southern state of Muthanna are broadly peaceful, while Iraqi security forces have enjoyed success in Tikrit and Najaf. But the massacres of Sunnis earlier this month in Balad, north of Baghdad, and the brief militia takeover of Amara in the south, tell another story.

On Monday, Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, announced a crackdown to tackle the armed violence.Events gave him the lie, even as he spoke. In Amara, militiamen loyal to an anti-US cleric re-emerged, hunting down and killing four policemen from a rival militia. Almost simultaneously, the rival Badr Brigades fighters beheaded the kidnapped nephew of the slain Mahdi army commander.

The Iraqi army set up a few roadblocks but did not interfere in the movement of Muqtada al-Sadr's fighters, after police had fled the streets. Nonetheless, Mr al-Maliki's deputy, Barham Salih, was still saying Iraqi forces could be in control of eight of the 18 provinces by the end of the year.

General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, does not share this optimism. "We are about 75 per cent of the way through a three-step process in building those [Iraqi] forces," Gen Casey said on Tuesday. It would take "another 12 to 18 months or so" until Iraqi security forces were "completely capable" of taking over, albeit "still coupled with some level of support from us".

Then there is the disconnect between the US government and the Shia-dominated administration in Baghdad. On Tuesday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador, said that Iraqi leaders had agreed to a timetable of security measures, including a new law on oil revenue sharing, "in a way that unites the country"; a timeline for dealing with the militias; and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing democratic rights and equality for all Iraqis.

But within 24 hours, Mr al-Maliki - absent from the previous day's press conference - distanced himself from the plan, especially the "timeline" for eliminating death squads. "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq, it is the coalition," he noted tartly. By Friday, ambassador and Prime Minister had finally met. Mr al-Maliki seemed to move towards the US position, not least on "timelines". But yesterday, the premier was hedging again: "I am America's friend, but not America's man in Iraq."

Most intractable is the sectarianism that has grown in three years from a politically repressive, but secular, society. In the post-invasion chaos, long-suppressed poisons have bubbled to the surface. More visibly than at any time in a half century, Iraq stands as the artificial construct that emerged from three Ottoman provinces after the First World War. That now comprises the oil-rich Shia south, with 60 per cent of the population, a predominantly Sunni centre with next to no oil, and the Kurdish north, also oil rich.

The two national elections of 2005 solidified sectarian and ethnic divisions and helped set the stage for the drive the country towards all-out civil war.

Mr al-Maliki's Shia alliance controls 130 of the 275 parliament seats, but it is divided among several factions, two of which - the largest of them headed by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the biggest faction, and that of Muqtada al-Sadr - severely constrain his room for manoeuvre. Both men control armed militias; between them they command more seats than Mr al-Maliki's faction, so any move against the militias without their would threaten the al-Maliki power base.

Meanwhile, US-backed plans to create autonomous regions with varying access to Iraq's oil wealth threaten only to make the problem worse, inflaming the dynastic struggles among Shia Muslim clerics who dominate the politics of Iraq as they do in neighbouring Iran.

The scheduled provincial elections next year - ahead of the possible formation of new federal regions in 2008 - will bring those struggles to a head, several officials said.

So what now?Once the 7 November elections are out of the way, Donald Rumsfeld may or may not lose his job. But not only is this President loyal to a fault; to fire the architect of his war would be seen as an admission that his entire Iraq policy has failed. That fact, however, has kept Mr Rumsfeld in office, against all the odds, for the past year.

Last week, in short, was the week when everything changed - and nothing changed at all.


Malaysia Mahathir Ahmad Badawi Blair Religious Co-Existence Sampah