Remember remember the reformer's words...

Anwar Ibrahim: “My political agenda is clear”
AsiaViews, Edition: 49/III/Jan/2007

MALAYSIA’S former Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, 59, was back visiting Indonesia last week, warmly welcomed by colleagues and admirers here. He met with intellectual Adi Sasono, businessmen Abdul Latief and Chairul Tanjung, and even Vice President Jusuf Kalla. He arrived at the Al-Azhar University in Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta, to strong applause from its academic community.

He looked fresh, his demeanor was open and friendly. Arriving late at the Sultan Hotel for an interview last Monday, he delivered his apology with a touch of humor. “My apologies, I had to do my hair first. Even men have male menopause,” he told Tempo reporters Bina Bektiati, Akmal Nasery Basral, Ahmad Taufik, Faisal Assegaf and photographer, Hendra Suhara. He modestly asked not to be called by his honorific Datuk. “Don’t call me Datuk, Anwar is fine,” he said.

You recently announced you will be taking part in the 2008 general elections.

I’m not nominating myself. I am only using my rights as a citizen after my deprivation following my release from prison.

What do you mean?

After my release, I was forced to lecture at Oxford and now at Georgetown University. I am doing this because I was restricted, I could not work and I could not enter campuses [in Malaysia]. Yet, I love to teach. So, I accept invitations to be a speaker at conferences.

So, what is it that you are seeking?

Under the current government of Pak Abdullah [Badawi], the system has not changed—it is still the same as during the Mahathir era, particularly since there is now racial and religious tension. The economy is uncertain. The corruption index, press freedom and direct foreign investment are down. This is what I want to focus more on [if elected prime minister].

What would be your agenda?

Economically, we must be more competitive and accept globalization. Right now we are behind China, India, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan in terms of technology and better salaries. Yet, we have smart people in the country as well as outside. They are from different races: Malay, Chinese and Indian. Why not pick the intelligent ones to head the universities in Malaysia? Don’t expect good results if you pick heads of political party branches.

What about the political arena?

Human rights violations must be stopped. The Internal Security Act (ISA) must be withdrawn. The press must be free, the justice system must be reformed and the anticorruption body must be independent. It is not true that corruption has been eradicated. In the 1960s, Hong Kong was rife with corruption, but now it’s one of the cleanest societies in Asia.

You are thinking of returning to politics, so you have not been traumatized [by the experience]?

In fact, I think about it seriously, but I never think about retreating. So long as I am convinced that truth will win, I will play a role to the best of my ability.

You certainly look ready to do so.

It’s part of the political process. What I will do is to be active with my colleagues in carrying out a special agenda by applying clear political ethics. It will not form an alternative party, but an alternative agenda on reforms. I am very determined about this. Whether we can attract the elite and professional groups, and the people at large, we will have to see. It’s too early to give an aswer right now.

Are you keeping it secret?

It’s not secret. There is a time when we must be quiet. In the past, I tried the soft approach to the point of making excessive compromises. Today, I choose to follow a clear agenda.

Are you convinced you will win?

We can only try and pray, God willing, particularly with help from friends in Indonesia.

If you win, what will you do about Indonesia?

Indonesia is an important sub-regional force. We should be cooperating closer on political-economic and security issues. Problems like terrorism must be resolved rapidly and convincingly.

Will you return to UMNO?

My friends invited me back to UMNO, but I am not pleased with the party. It is too corrupt.

What is actually going on in UMNO?

UMNO has reached the point of corruption, the party has become very feudal. There has never been any discourse on how to stamp out corruption. But there are a lot of people who like Mahathir’s loud statements [frequently attacking Prime Minister Badawi], because not everyone dares to speak his mind.

Now it seems that Badawi is restricting Mahathir’s moves. What is your view on this?

I don’t agree with the way Abdullah Badawi is attacking and blocking Mahathir. As a citizen he has rights. But when Mahathir declared that Malaysia has become a police state, that there is no free press, and he was treated very badly, he was unable to respond and defend himself. This is ironic and laughable. Didn’t Mahathir do the same thing in the past?

How do you position yourself in the conflict between these two people?

Mahathir once met with Abdullah. He brought a tape recorder and quietly recorded Abdullah’s statement, “Let us not quarrel, otherwise people will not like you, and the same goes for me. The one person to benefit from all this would be Anwar,” he said. After that friends called me up and said that I should be grateful to Mahathir (laughing).

Are you ready to join up with Mahathir again?

As a matter of principle, no.

There are reports, however, that you offered Mahathir an alliance to oppose Abdullah Badawi?

That was something twisted by The New Straits Times. Their reporter asked me whether I was willing to accept Mahathir as an advisor to the opposition. I replied: “Is there an offer?” He replied: “What if there was?” And I responded: “Has there been an answer?” The reporter asked again: “But if all the opposition want to nominate him, what would be your opinion?” I said: “It depends on the opposition, but I am not too happy about it. Mahathir has some explaining to do, because he’s to blame for what happened in Malaysia, from the elections, to [the lack of] free press and a corrupt justice system, even to blaming George Soros for the monetary crisis. But it was his children who ruined everything.” No, I am not willing to join forces with him.

You are still bitter about Mahathir?

I am no angel. Al Gore once asked me whether I could ever forgive Mahathir. I said, if he did me wrong, I forgive him. But if he stole from the people, he must give it back. That’s another problem. I am not a people’s representative who could make such a decision. But Mahathir himself always feels he is in the right. He feels the country’s economic foundation is sound. He said he never gave his kids and his family anything, that they never involved themselves in politics, that the press under his government was sufficiently free, the police never oppressed the people, and so forth. I think Mahathir has a major psychological problem. (At the time Anwar Ibrahim was tried in court in 2000, Al Gore, who was then the US Vice President, said that the government had abused the standards of international justice. Mahathir retorted strongly by saying that Al Gore’s statement was proof of ‘international interference.’—Ed.)

Have you spoken to Mahathir since you were released?

Not yet. We have never met. But when we do, there would be no problem. I will greet him with “Assalamualaikum, how is your wife?”

Have you ever contacted him by telephone?

No.

During Lebaran?

No. I was never invited and I did not invite him. It doesn’t bother me. No problem.

You mentioned there was religious and racial tension in Malaysia. Can you explain?

The last racial tension happened in 1969. Since then, the government’s socio-economic policy was aimed at improving race relations. But lately, the religious issue has come up again. The extremist Islamic groups are hard-liners. In my view, they should not be like that. Meanwhile, the liberals are not showing a tolerant attitude either.

What would be an example of such intolerance?

I recently attended a dialog forum among Muslims. The liberals said they would only participate if the discussions were held in English. This does not make sense. How will that affect the clerics and religious leaders present? That was not good.

What about the extremists’ hard line you mentioned?

On the macro level, I agree in principle that Muslims can choose a number of regulations, including Shari’a. But it cannot be used to force other people [to adhere to it]. I am a tolerant Muslim, I value diversity and a multicultural and multi-religious environment. Meanwhile, among the non-Muslims, there is a feeling that the new laws or regulations are aimed at forcing them to bow to Islamic rules. So the result is a problem of perception.

Is it true that this tension worsened because the Malays were given [extra] facilities?

Yes, that was the result of the New Economic Policy. Last year, I proposed that the New Economic Policy be replaced with a Malaysian Economic Agenda. But then I was accused of being anti-Malay, pro-Chinese and a traitor. Actually those who rejected this agenda were the middlemen who profited from the New Economic Policy. The policy reportedly was aimed at benefitting the Malay people, but in reality those people ransacked the country in the name of that policy. They are the robbers who enriched themselves, their families and their cronies. The implementation of the New Economic Policy cost us tens of millions of dollars.

Isn’t there anything positive about that policy?

One positive result was social and educational mobility, and a reduction in poverty. But should poverty reduction be implemented through a tough racial policy? I say no. The policy must be transparent. I agree with the basic premise to help the poor and the marginalized, who are mostly Malay Muslims. But that policy, according to the Chinese and Indians, discriminates against them.

But aren’t the Chinese and Indians more economically advanced?

Yes. The fact is that the Chinese are much better off than the Malays. But they still perceive themselves to be marginalized.

How did that economic distortion emerge?

The Chinese are ahead not because of economics. They are industrious people. They are capable of coming up with economic programs and projects on their own, not dependent on anyone. But the rich ones, like the financiers, have been manipulated by the ministers and the cronies. Ultimately, this became the justification to be on the side of the common people. I am a Malay and I don’t want to sacrifice the interests of the Malays. But as a Malay and a Muslim, I don’t want to do anything that is unjust to other people.

What is the government’s role in these tense times?

The government is currently weak because of corruption and they don’t dare to initiate any changes. Malaysia is losing its competitiveness. Foreign direct investment here is less than in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. This doesn’t make sense because we have never been behind since 1957. We are losing because at the end of Mahathir’s rule, government agencies were ruined. The police, the justice department, representative councils and anticorruption organizations were restricted. Then came Abdullah Badawi, but his government is weak and is unable to make it right.

Is this caused by Badawi’s weak leadership?

It’s not just about leadership, there is an overall weakness. This can be seen in the reaction towards Mahathir’s charges that Abdullah is corrupt and a liar, that Badawi’s son got a huge project and his son-in-law was in control. It was only after some weeks that Abdullah came out to deny the statement, declaring it to be libelous. He insisted the projects were offshore. But a week later, he had to clarify his position on television. He said, “It is not proper for Mahathir to make that statement. I respect him as a former leader. He has done a lot service. It’s true that I gave projects to my children, but not much. Not as much as Mahathir himself.” In my view, that is a dangerous response. From the legal point of view, that constitutes a crime.

What do you think about terrorists in Indonesia, who turn out to be Malaysians, like Dr. Azahari and Noordin M. Top?

Pak Jusuf Kalla once jokingly chastised me: “Dont export your terrorists to our country.” As neighboring nations, we need to intensify our antiterrorism cooperation. The case of Noordin and Azahari shows that Malaysia is not free of the problem. The Malaysian government must keep on monitoring the situation, not waste their time monitoring me.

What about the war against terrorism according to George W. Bush?

I don’t agree with that because Bush’s approach is unclear, no direction and full of bias towards developing countries, specifically Islamic countries. He doesn’t help at all. In fact, he has angered everyone. If any groups are involved, we must be firm, but with an approach that will solve the situation, not complicate it.What do you think about the controversy over the new palace?
Actually, the Malaysian people are not making an issue out of it. People are upset because of the high cost. And I agree with the people.

Can the monarchy in Malaysia survive in this day and age?

If the monarchy becomes institutionalized, I don’t think there would be a problem.


Answers by: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim

Place & Date of Birth: Penang, Malaysia, August 10, 1947

Education: University of Malaya -Malay studies

Organization Affiliations:

President, Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (1968-1971)(Malaysian Islamic Students Association)
President, Majlis Belia Malaysia (1971)(Malaysian Youth Council)
Founder & President, Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (1982) (Malaysian Islamic Youth Association)

Political Career:

Joined UMNO (1982)
Minister of Culture, Youth & Sports (1983)
Minister of Agriculture (1984)
Minister of Education (1986)
Minister of Finance (1991)
Deputy Prime Minister (1993-1998)

Professional Career:

Visiting Professor, Oxford and Georgetown University, USA
Special Adviser to the People's Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat)