Firstly, a link to Mahathir’s controversial keynote address here.

I found the speech interesting, full of rhetorical fervor and worded in just the right ways that seem to defend wrongs in one’s country by pointing out the ‘log in your eye’. All that’s well and good, but in effect does nothing to mitigate the singular fact: that there were human rights abuses — ignored in his speech — and that these occurred during Mahathir’s reign.

Those are plain, “simple” facts for which expediency was the main reason, expediency and it seems, political survival. While the overriding hypocrisy of a global, ‘concerned’ humanist majority shouldn’t be missed, it shouldn’t overwhelm the “simple” fact that there were instances of repression in our country which do amount to wrongs.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.


It’s interesting the themes he attacks. First he attacks the apparent hypocrisy of powers that accuse Malaysia of human rights abuses. Then he justifies his attack by saying that Malaysia’s accusers are just as bad as Malaysia — and I conclude this because he doesn’t actually deny the occurrence of actual human rights abuses in Malaysia.

From there, his main theme moves toward casting accusations of human rights abuses (and even globalization, dear lord!) as a tool of former colonial masters to colonize “victimized” countries. When I first read the article, I thought Mahathir was doing something really clever: exposing the inherent ambiguities in adherences to a set of ‘human rights’, and problems with definition. As I read the article again and again, I began to realize that that wasn’t his beef: his beef is a perceived challenge from countries and NGOs on apparently ‘virtuous grounds’.

Some parts of his speech were interesting:

But human rights should be upheld because they can contribute to a better quality of life. To kill 100,000 people because you suspect that the human rights of a few have been denied seem to be a contradiction. Yet the fanaticism of the champions of human rights have led to more people being deprived of their rights and many their lives than the number saved. It seems to me that we have lost our sense of proportion.

I think Mahathir seems to forget that lives are being lost by attacks from insurgents as well. These insurgents too don’t seem to understand the term ‘human rights’ and have for themselves terms that are more evocative: ‘nationalism’ or ‘invasion’, etc. Bombs that were planted by insurgents regularly kill locals, children and the police including troops. I suppose it’s extremely easy to shift the blame from insurgents to these invaders since, lives lost during a suicide attack can easily be justified as ‘necessary casualties of war’.

What nonsense.

For example those who claim to be the most civilised still believe that the misfortune which befall them as a result of the actions by their enemies are wrong but the misfortune that they inflict on their enemies are right.

‘Misfortune which befall’ is an interesting choice of words, followed by ‘the actions of their enemies’. Contrast this with ‘inflict’.

It makes it seem that terrorist attacks on these ‘most civilised’ are essentially acts of god, and therefore implying that these ‘most civilized’ really aren’t. In Mahathir’s world view, misfortunes ‘befalling’ the perpetrators are man-made and are therefore flawed, executed as a form of revenge, not retribution.

Let’s apply this to the Bali bombings. In Mahathir’s worldview, it seems as if the bombs were a misfortune which ‘befalls’ the victims, and that these attacks have a divine sanction against, who knows, the licentious western habits catered to in Bali.

So in effect, if and when Mahathir condemns a terrorist bombing, let’s be clear that it’s always conditional, ya?

This is seen from the concern and anger over the death of 1,700 US soldiers in Iraq but the death of a hundred times more of Iraqis as a result of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq and the civil war precipitated by the imposition of democratic elections are not even mentioned.

Let’s try a bit of rhetoric on our side as well: did Mahathir raise a hue and cry over the invasion of Kuwait? What about Kuwaiti lives lost in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces? It’s been some time since I’ve seen someone insist that I weep for the enemy dead who, just moments before being shot, bombed or eviscerated were hell-bent on killing me.

This one, however, takes the cake:

There is no tally of Iraqi deaths but every single death of a US soldier is reported to the world. These are soldiers who must expect to be killed. But the Iraqis who die because of US action or the civil war in Iraq that the US has precipitated are innocent civilians who under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein would be alive.

He would say that, wouldn’t he? Is this an implicit support for Saddam’s regime? The war began on 19 March 2003, but as late as 10 January 2003, Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry hosted a delegation from Iraq as part of the Malaysia-Iraq Joint Commission, the text of the ‘Welcoming Remarks’ from our Foreign Minister is found here. A brief excerpt from the above:

From: Welcoming Remarks from Seventh Session of the Malaysia-Iraq Joint Commission, 10 January 2003

“Malaysia – Iraq relations are deeply rooted as both countries share one religion, common values and similarities of views on a broad range of regional and global issues. The continued exchanges of high level visit between Malaysia and Iraq bear testimony to this. Last year Iraq’s Minister of Trade made a brief stopover in Malaysia during which I had the honour to receive him. Iraq’s Foreign Minister visited Malaysia in conjunction with the Special Session of Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on Terrorism in Kuala Lumpur. This was followed by the visit of the Minister of Awqaf and Religious Affairs who attended the Seventh Conference of Ministers of Endowments (Awqaf) and Islamic Affairs held in May 2002. On the Malaysian side, the Minister of Women and Family Development visited Iraq in May 2002 which coincided with her participation at the Seventh Baghdad Conference. Recently, our Minister of Information was also in Baghdad for an official visit and to represent UMNO at another international Conference hosted by Iraq.

“Malaysia has always viewed Iraq as one of its closest friends and important trading partner in the region. Trade between our two countries may be small but has certainly shown positive sign for improvement. For the first ten months ( Jan – Oct ) of 2002 Malaysia’s bilateral trade with Iraq increased by 145.73% from US$27.18 million to US$66.80 million. Malaysia participated in the 35th Baghdad International Fair (BIF) 2002 and will again participate in November of this year. Since the beginning of the OFF programme in 1996 up to the eleventh phase, Malaysian companies have been awarded contracts worth US$953 million, the second biggest after Vietnam among ASEAN countries. It is noted that because of the UN sanction, the scope for trade relations remained restricted; nevertheless, the Government of Malaysia will continue to encourage its private sector to participate in any trade and investment opportunities in Iraq so as to enhance our economic and trade relations further. We hope the Iraqi Government would continue to facilitate and provide enhanced market access for Malaysian products and services. We are of course happy to participate and contribute, where possible, towards Iraq’s economic and infrastructural reconstruction programme.

We are particularly pleased with the decision of the Iraqi Government to buy Malaysia’s national car, Proton, with the delivery last year of the first batch of 5000 units of Wira under Phase 8 of the OFF program. We are equally pleased that the cars are well received in Iraq and that a further delivery of another 5000 units is expected within this year.”

My, my…

But back to more of Mahathir:

Who are the terrorists? The people below who were bombed or the bombers? Whose rights have been snatched away?

I relate this because there are not just double standards where human rights are concerned, there are multiple standards. Rightly we should be concerned whether prisoners and detained foreign workers in this country are treated well or not. We should be concerned whether everyone can exercise his right to vote or not, whether the food given to detainees are wholesome or not, indeed whether detention without trial is a violation of human rights or not.

But the people whose hands are soaked in the blood of the innocents, the blood of the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Panamanians, the Nicaraguans, the Chileans, the Ecuadorians; the people who assassinated the presidents of Panama, Chile, Ecuador; the people who ignored international law and mounted military attacks, invading and killing hundreds of Panamanian in order to arrest Noriega and to try him not under Panamanian laws but under their own country’s law, have these people a right to question human rights in our country, to make a list and grade the human rights record of the countries of the world yearly, these people with blood-soaked hands.

They have not questioned the blatant abuses of human rights in countries that are friendly to them. In fact they provide the means for these countries to indulge in human rights abuses.

I’m trying to understand what he’s trying to say here: first he muddies the water by accusing soldiers of being terrorists because, simply, their actions terrorize people. I’m sure it’s a more populist rendering of the meaning of that word, and therefore any appeals to accuracy and ideas of 4th generation warfare have no place here. In fact, I’m starting to think that Mahathir conflates a terrorist with a human rights abuser.

While agreeing that human rights abuses should be looked into, as counter-argument (a great strawman, actually) he rails against judgments of such as coming from human rights abusers themselves. I don’t quite know who he refers to here: the governments who accuse Malaysia of human rights abuses or the NGOs who claim this? As far as I recall, there are 6 international organizations that actively monitor human rights abuses, and these are all NGOs with global memberships and representations; the people doing the ‘judging’ aren’t ’states’ at all. They are just people with no affiliations to government. What the hell is he talking about?

To use a broad brush and lump these international NGOs with particular governments is a blatant insult. Either he knows that these NGOs are independent but have chosen to conflate them with the actions of certain ‘western states’ or he doesn’t think they are independent at all; in latter case, then, he’s free to ignore any reports of abuse in his regime simply because they can always be viewed as colonial interests trying to destabilize a ’successful country’, nevermind if the accusations are based on fact, ya?

Just on that last paragraph, I think if you go through the latest reports on Amnesty International, you’ll see not even the U. S., Canada, France, Germany nor Pakistan are spared. So much for AI or other similar NGOs being mere colonialist puppets.

The last one for the night:

Malaysia is concerned about human rights within its borders. It does not need the interference of foreign powers before it sets up Suhakam, a body dedicated to overseeing and ensuring that there are no abuses of human rights within its borders.

No need to say so much, just read SUHAKAM’s recommendations on the ISA. Just read the Executive Summary enough. It was a report done in 2003, found here.

Paper tiger? You tell me.