Musings of the (occasional) thinker; planner; do-er

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad turns 100 today.

In most nations, this would be cause for national reflection. Not because of unanimous admiration, but because of historical magnitude. A centenary invites us to pause, to reconcile, and to ask not just what he was, but what we have become.

Instead, we have seen something else: muted institutional response, cautious political triangulation, and silence from state-linked bodies that ought to be record-keepers of national memory, not just instruments of political convenience.

A Life Larger Than Politics

Tun Dr Mahathir served as Malaysia’s Prime Minister not once, but twice. First for 22 years. Then again for 22 months.

He oversaw the rise of our industrial economy, created a dominant Malay capitalist class, opened the door to global markets, and left behind infrastructure – both physical and institutional – that continues to define the country.

He was, and remains, a deeply controversial figure. His legacy invites debate: from the centralisation of power to the weakening of judicial independence, the unresolved wounds of Ops Lalang, and most recently, his combative role post-retirement. But these debates are precisely why he cannot be ignored. He is embedded in our political DNA.

When Churchill Turned 100

When Winston Churchill turned 100 in 1974, Britain did not hesitate.

The BBC aired documentaries, replayed his speeches, and launched public retrospectives. Editorials debated his legacy. Archives were opened, not sealed.

This was not under a Conservative government – Churchill’s own party – but under Prime Minister Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party and Churchill’s lifelong political rival.

Wilson’s government had also presided over Churchill’s state funeral in 1965, attended by monarchs and presidents. And yet, in both death and commemoration, Britain understood this:

That marking a centenary is not about agreement.

It is about national memory.

It is about respecting history and rising above the politics of the day.

The Office Must Outlive the Man

Honouring a centenary is not a political endorsement. It is an act of democratic maturity.

It signals that we are capable of separating public memory from partisan allegiance. That we honour the role, not just the man. That we can acknowledge our past leaders even when we disagree with them.

To let Mahathir’s 100th pass with minimal institutional remark is to abdicate our responsibility as stewards of history. It denies young Malaysians the opportunity to understand the arc of national leadership in all its complexity and consequence.

The Cost of Silence

This silence is not neutral. It tells us who we are: still a country where history is written only by the present victor. Still a country where political discomfort overrides institutional memory. Still a country where turning 100 does not insulate a man from the anxieties of the moment.

We cannot allow our public memory to be this fragile.

When a man who helped build the very scaffolding of the modern Malaysian state turns 100, our duty is not to erase his controversies. It is to mark the moment with full clarity: his role, his rise, his rupture, and his relentless imprint.

Final Reflections

You don’t have to agree with Mahathir. I often haven’t. But you cannot erase him.

And a country that fails to mark his centenary with the seriousness it deserves is not punishing the man. It is diminishing its own sense of history.

Turning 100 should have been our breakthrough. A chance to rise above partisan instinct and model something nobler.

That we didn’t says more about us than it does about him.

It is not too late to correct course.

Over the past few months, Malaysia has been confronted with two converging constitutional flashpoints:

A Royal Decree for Najib Razak’s house arrest that was issued but ignored by the executive, and an attempt by the Attorney General to shield Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim from a civil sexual harassment suit on the grounds that litigation would impair his ability to govern.

Both issues invoke fundamental provisions of Malaysia’s constitutional architecture. Together, they raise uncomfortable questions about whether constitutional principles—particularly the limits of executive accountability and the exercise of royal prerogative—are being applied consistently, or selectively.

Two Decrees, Two Outcomes

In May 2018, the 15th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Muhammad X, issued a full pardon to Anwar Ibrahim following a Pardons Board meeting convened 443 days earlier. The constitutional vehicle was Article 42, which grants the King the power to pardon or commute sentences upon receiving advice from the Pardons Board.

Despite his well-documented personal scepticism, then–Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad signed the Royal Order without delay, giving full effect to the decree. Anwar was released from prison within hours. At the time, this swift execution of the King’s order was widely regarded as a restoration of justice—and a principled act of statesmanship by a Prime Minister who set aside political rivalry to uphold the Constitution.

Fast-forward to 2024. The 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Abdullah, issued a Titah Addendum directing that former Prime Minister Najib Razak serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest—a reprieve, not a full pardon, but one granted under the same provision of Article 42.

As in 2018, this decision came after a validly convened meeting of the Pardons Board. Yet unlike in Anwar’s case, the Titah was met with silence. The Prime Minister’s Office offered no acknowledgment. The Attorney General did not act to implement it. For weeks, the public was told it was mere rumour. It was only after the Pahang Palace issued a formal confirmation that the Addendum’s existence was officially recognised.

This contrasting treatment—same constitutional basis, same royal institution, same executive authority, but opposite responses—demands scrutiny.

The Legal Framework: Article 42

At the heart of both cases lies Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which governs the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The provision reads, in part:

“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites… upon the advice of the Pardons Board.”

That phrase—“upon the advice”—has long been interpreted by courts and constitutional scholars to mean that the King must be advised, but is not bound by the Board’s recommendation. It is not merely a procedural consultation; the discretion ultimately remains with the monarch.

In 2018, this principle was respected. Sultan Muhammad X rejected the 2017 Board’s recommendation to uphold Anwar’s sentence and instead exercised his discretion to pardon. Mahathir, despite personal hesitation, acted in accordance with the decree.

In 2024, Sultan Abdullah chose to exercise similar discretion in Najib’s case—granting a reprieve, not a pardon. But this time, the Prime Minister did not act. No explanation was offered. The Attorney General did not even disclose the existence of the Addendum to the court in subsequent proceedings, leading to a contempt motion being filed against him.

Political Selectivity in Execution

In a widely shared X thread, I asked a direct question:

If your political nemesis could set aside his reservations and implement the King’s order for you in 2018, why could you not do the same for Najib in 2024?

This is not a moral comparison between individuals. It is a constitutional comparison between outcomes.

Both the Anwar and Najib decrees were:

Issued under Article 42, made following a Pardons Board meeting, signed by a reigning YDP Agong, delivered to a sitting Prime Minister for implementation.

Yet only one was acted upon. The other was ignored, and actively withheld from judicial proceedings—despite its clear constitutional standing.

Immunity and the Double Bind

This pattern is made more troubling by a recent move by the Attorney General to apply for a Federal Court ruling on whether Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim should be entitled to immunity from civil litigation while in office.

The claim is that defending a sexual harassment suit—filed by Anwar’s former speechwriter—would impair the Prime Minister’s ability to perform his duties.

The optics are now deeply problematic:

A Royal Decree benefitting someone else is ignored. A civil suit implicating the Prime Minister is deferred. Constitutional discretion is withheld from political rivals but claimed for personal protection.

This is not merely legally inconsistent. It is corrosive to public trust in constitutional governance.

Rule of Law or Rule of Preference?

The rule of law depends on consistency—across time, across cases, and across personalities. When identical constitutional instruments are treated differently depending on who they favour, the appearance is one of selective enforcement. That is damaging not just to the reputation of the executive, but to the institutional credibility of the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Cabinet, and the wider government.

Malaysia cannot afford a system where:

Clemency is implemented for one leader but denied for another, Royal orders are honoured when politically expedient and disregarded when they are not, a sitting Prime Minister is shielded from civil accountability while others are denied relief from incarceration already approved by the monarch.

A Final Note

Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy is not ornamental. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting within his constitutional powers, represents a stabilising force between institutions. Article 42 is not a ceremonial device; it is a substantive legal mechanism that, when used, must be respected—no matter who benefits.

If one Royal Decree can be ignored, and one civil suit evaded, what remains of the rule of law?

The true test of a constitutional democracy is not how power is used when it suits us—but how power is respected when it does not.

Postscript:

On 3 June 2025, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) issued a public statement in response to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s assertion that the Royal Pardon granted to Anwar Ibrahim in May 2018 was unconstitutional. The AGC sought to correct the record, asserting that a properly constituted Pardons Board meeting did take place on 16 May 2018, and that the Prime Minister at the time, Dr Mahathir, was in attendance.

However, while the statement may appear to settle the issue at face value, a closer examination reveals several critical ambiguities with constitutional and procedural implications—particularly relating to quorum, composition, and the role of the Attorney General.

1. AGC Affirms the Existence of a Pardons Board Meeting

The AGC’s statement confirms that a Federal Territories Pardons Board meeting was convened at Istana Negara at 11:00 AM on 16 May 2018, chaired by His Majesty Sultan Muhammad V, then the 15th Yang di-Pertuan Agong. It asserts:

“Mesyuarat Lembaga Pengampunan tersebut telah dipengerusikan oleh Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong XV Sultan Muhammad V dan turut dihadiri antaranya oleh YAB Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad sendiri selaku Perdana Menteri pada masa itu.”

This line, while affirming Mahathir’s presence, stops short of confirming the attendance of any other members, nor does it specify in what official capacity he attended—an issue that has legal ramifications.

2. Article 42(10) and the Requirement of Quorum

Under Article 42(10) of the Federal Constitution, a Pardons Board meeting must include at least three members, not including the Yang di-Pertuan Agong:

“The presence of three members shall be necessary to constitute a quorum.”

The members required under Article 42(4)(aa) are:

The Attorney General (ex officio), The Minister responsible for the Federal Territories, and Up to three members appointed by the YDPA.

The AGC’s statement does not disclose whether any of the appointed members or the Attorney General were present in person. The lack of such information raises legitimate doubts about whether constitutional quorum was satisfied.

3. Ambiguity Surrounding the Attorney General’s Attendance

The AGC further states:

“Bagi tujuan mesyuarat tersebut, Peguam Negara juga telah memberikan pendapat bertulis mengenai perkara itu selaras dengan Fasal (9), Perkara 42 Perlembagaan Persekutuan untuk pertimbangan Lembaga Pengampunan.”

This suggests that the Attorney General may not have attended the meeting physically, instead submitting a written opinion as permitted under Article 42(9).

While written advice satisfies the AG’s advisory duty, it does not count towards quorum unless the AG was physically present as a Board member. This distinction is crucial: an advisory function does not substitute for membership presence for the purpose of quorum.

4. Was Dr Mahathir Acting as the FT Minister?

Another unresolved question is whether Dr Mahathir held the portfolio of Minister for the Federal Territories at the time of the meeting.

He was sworn in as Prime Minister on 10 May 2018, but no other ministers were appointed or gazetted until 21 May 2018. Therefore, on 16 May, he was the only formally appointed member of the executive.

If Mahathir was not officially gazetted as holding the FT Ministry, his presence may not have satisfied the constitutional requirement under Article 42(4)(aa). The AGC statement does not clarify whether he held or acted in that role.

5. Legal Consequences of the Uncertainty

The constitutional legality of the 2018 pardon hinges on whether:

At least three Board members (excluding the YDPA) were physically present; The AG’s written advice alone sufficed, or whether physical presence was necessary; Mahathir’s attendance was in a qualifying constitutional capacity; Any appointed members of the Board were present at all.

If the quorum was not met, a potential argument arises that the YDPA relied on the advice from the earlier Pardons Board meeting of 27 February 2017, where Anwar’s application was previously considered. In such a case, the 2018 meeting would be treated not as a deliberative meeting, but as a ceremonial or administrative moment to formalise the YDPA’s change of heart—a discretionary act clearly within the monarch’s powers under Article 42(1).

However, the AGC’s refusal to clarify the full attendance list weakens the robustness of its constitutional defence and leaves the legal narrative inconclusive.

6. Broader Institutional and Political Ramifications

While this controversy may appear historic, it has immediate relevance to current debates—particularly surrounding the 2024 Titah Addendum involving Najib Razak. Critics will now argue that:

Both pardons involved discretion exercised by the YDPA, following Board advice; The Anwar pardon was implemented immediately, despite procedural doubts; The Najib clemency decree has been left unimplemented, allegedly on the basis of procedural ambiguity.

This creates a perception of inconsistent treatment of royal clemency decisions depending on political alignment.

Until these ambiguities are resolved, the procedural regularity—though not necessarily the legal validity—of Anwar Ibrahim’s 2018 pardon remains open to constitutional scrutiny.

You have enemies? Good … That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. [Winston Churchill]

Early yesterday morning, Tun Daim Zainuddin, 86, passed away after a long illness. There will be much ink spilled about the man in the coming days.

Most if not all of the English business media and blogs will be unflattering. Daim will be eulogised as a fabulously wealthy former Finance Minister and long time Treasurer of UMNO. Having long been vilified, many – including those currently occupying the commanding heights of business and government – would rather he be remembered a villain. For those who recall their history, echoes of Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tan Sri Tan Koon Swan linger heavily in the air.

Few will be willing to mention let alone acknowledge what Tun Daim was at his very core: a shrewd, careful and fearless businessman whose first love was making money. He made money for himself, for the political party he once belonged and for his country – perhaps in that order too. Like any good businessman everywhere, he was sought out by the powers that be and was ultimately roped into government not once but twice. Which inevitably attracts more attention and jealousy. Just ask Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. But that’s life.

I first met Daim when I was still in university in the early nineties. He had just left government by then after his first stint as Finance Minister. I was running a student magazine and sought an interview with this elusive, diminutive wizard of a man. The interview went well, he was surprisingly candid. When I asked about his time in government, his reply has stuck with me until this very day: “Omar, you cannot be a good businessman and a good politician at the same time. A good businessman has no business being popular. A politician is a failed politician if he is unpopular. You must choose what and who you want to be.”

I would see Daim regularly over the years. His office at Wisma YPR would call every now and then to say Tun would like a chat. He had a habit of going through the mountain of papers on his messy desk while in conversation, putting his pencil down only when he wished to make an important point. We talked mostly about world events, the global economy, market cycles for all kinds of commodities, the mood of the business community and to me most interestingly, his adventures doing business abroad, particularly in Africa and Eastern Europe. Outwardly, he was a shy man of few words, but in private he was a man of the world and enjoyed a good debate (and a well-told joke!). Our chats would often last past the hour. He has never once offered me a drink or kuih. That’s Daim for you. Business-like, inquisitive and matter of fact. But he would also end by thanking me for coming by and that I should not hesitate to reach out.

And reach out I did one particular time shortly after I started working at a global MNC. I had been nominated by the UNDP Malaysia office to represent the country as a delegate to the 50th Youth Commemorative Assembly of the United Nations in New York. The UN would pay for my accommodation but I would need to get to New York on my own dime. I promptly shared this good news with my departmental boss who was good enough to allow me to take days off but said the company would not cover my airfare. So I rang Mei at Daim’s office and explained my predicament. The return call was swift: Tun will pay for your return flight to New York on economy (but of course). The company ended up paying for my ticket when they learned that Tun Daim would have been my benefactor!

Through the decades, our paths crossed intermittently but always at critical junctures. He was instrumental in my decision to join McKinsey. On another occasion I declined his offer to serve in a senior political role, reminding him of his own words to choose between politics and business. It was a fortuitous decision as Daim stepped down for the second and final time in Cabinet less than two years later. He continued to do serious business here and abroad. I was content to run my own strategy consulting and private equity firms. We travelled together on occasion in his private jet (sans cabin crew!)

In a world now where successful Malays are to be regarded as cronies or crooks, Tun Daim was to be its chief architect and poster boy. His razor sharp instincts and business acumen that led him to become a valued and trusted confidante of presidents and prime ministers, would need to be obscured and preferably erased. His fault was to be Malay and fabulously wealthy – a feat considered genetically impossible. He was Finance Minister for nine of his eighty six years and some will want those years to define the totality of his existence. I pray and hope not.

In the thirty odd years I have known this quiet enigma of a man, he has touched the lives and careers of so many promising young Malaysians. This enduring commitment to the future of Malaysia will be one of Tun Daim’s most important legacies.

May Allah have mercy on his servant Allahyarham Daim bin Zainuddin for He alone is all knowing and the ultimate arbiter of all things.

Generative AI & Large Language Models are radically transforming the lens through which we view our world.

Narratives are being reshaped and sharpened in ways previously unthinkable. This example had a single input: my LinkedIn profile.

The output is incredibly flattering.

“Speak well of the dead or not at all.”

So let me speak well of the late Tun Taib Mahmud whom I met only once 25 years ago. Taib (Datuk Patinggi then) together with his late wife Datuk Patinggi Laila were Guests of Honour at my wedding and he was that day – as is customary – seated next to the groom inside the PJ Hilton Ballroom.

Over the course of the dinner, we engaged in polite conversation about nothing of any great importance. Towards the end of the evening however, he leaned over and spoke softly, “Your father once saved my life, and by Allah’s will, I will never forget”. I did not have the chance to ask more. He flew in from and back to Kuching the same night.

A few days later, I asked my father what Taib meant. He explained:

It was 1972/73 in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), where two years back my father was sent on his first overseas posting as a foreign service officer. Taib had just been appointed by Tun Razak as the first (federal) Minister of Primary Industries and was on an official visit to South Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords was just signed between North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the US to formally end the Vietnam War, and Malaysia wanted to quickly re-establish trade with South Vietnam. But while American forces withdrew, heavy fighting continued in the South. Upscale hotels, clubs and US presence in Saigon were frequent targets of VC/VM pro North Vietnamese insurgents.

During that visit, my father arranged for Taib to visit a local bank to view some rare coins; Taib was an avid collector. They were sitting on a sofa inside the bank lobby when a bomb exploded just outside; the whole building shook violently and a massive crystal chandelier came crashing down just above them. My father pushed Taib off the sofa just in time as it was ripped apart by the mangled glass and metal. They cheated death that day. A bank staff – a young teller – died succumbing to his injuries.

Over the years, Taib would reconnect during his official and private travels to countries where my father was posted. Italy 1976, Poland 1982, Indonesia 1987, Brazil 1992. Each time he would ask my father to come work for him in Kuching but not being Sarawakian, my father always felt he would be a fish out of water and so would politely decline. And so it went each time even until my father finally retired in 1998 when Taib asked again. My father said he had already accepted a role in Cyberjaya post retirement. And yet when invited for my wedding in 2000, Taib graciously accepted.

That night, as Taib was ushered to his motorcade, he said to my father: “Mustapha, I know you are not business minded, and you are too used to living in a big city like KL. But at least let me say thank you for that day in Saigon.”

And with those words they quietly hugged and smiled at each other. The last time they met was at Datuk Patinggi Laila’s funeral in 2009.

My father never told me what was the thank you from Taib. He is 80 now, lives a quiet life alone in a one bedroom apartment nearby. He cooks his own meals, takes walks twice a day and is in bed by nine. And with his modest monthly pension as a government servant, he is always cheerful knowing that in his long and eventful life, he encountered and served more than a few good men along the way. Taib Mahmud was one of those few good men.

Narrated by`Aisha:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Do not abuse the dead, for they have reached the result of what they have done.”

May Allah forgive Allahyarham Tun Taib Mahmud for his sins and trespasses and grant him a place among the righteous.

(more…)

How is it that one of the most intelligent and gifted people on God’s earth protected by one of the most sophisticated and modern armies on earth, could play victim so successfully for so long?

At the end of the World War II, the Marshall Plan in 1948 was a American led economic rehabilitation effort to rebuild Western Europe, but without a significant part of the Jewish population and their mercantile class remaining in European society.

The Jews could have returned to their homes and rebuilt their businesses, but that was not in the interest of the non-Jewish European elites. (Why give back when you don’t have to?). The mass emigration of the Jewish populace out of Europe began with the rise of Nazism and was completed by the Allied Powers.

Germany, a defeated Axis power, has been paying reparations for 70 years for this collective benefit of resettlement of Jews out of Europe, even until today. Total to date: €80bn. Announced for 2024: €1.4bn. Imagine milking a cow dry.

Switzerland, a neutral power, has been paying reparations for Jewish monies seized in their banks (estimated at $6bn during WWII). Imagine choking a golden goose.

The United States, had an even bigger plan for the Jewish people (many X bigger than the $13bn Marshall Plan), underwriting the creation of a new country in a land outside of Europe or America – a land that was not theirs to give. Israel’s continued existence supports the American Military-Industrial complex as acknowledged by the sitting 🇺🇸 President. Israel is America’s single largest aid recipient, total aid 1946-2022: $244bn. Imagine a wily mistress and her rich benefactor.

[“It’s about time we stop apologising for our support for Israel,” Biden told lawmakers in June 1986. “It is the best $3bn investment we make. If there weren’t an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.”]

In the end, Israel is a tragic but ultimately racist project that has served the purpose and interests of the political and business elites of Europe and America. The apartheid state that has emerged since 1948 is one they are equally responsible for. This is why is it impossible for the collective Western elites to abandon it.

But today, it is ordinary people in those same countries who are waking up to the fact that they have been fed an insidious, self-serving lie by successive leaders who rule in their name.

Finally, the elegant masks have fallen and the true faces of deceit and deception are being revealed. The time of reckoning has come.

Today we bear witness to the passing of a towering Malaysian: Tan Sri G Gnanalingam.

In an era when ports were owned by the state (and thus lagged in efficiency and enterprise), he was the first to successfully propose and secure from the government a concession to build and operate a new modern multicargo port in Port Klang to serve a rapidly growing and industrialising Malaysia. Today Westports is a leading port operator handling 80% of all container traffic at Port Klang making the latter the 12th busiest port in the world. His business achievements and successes are self evident.

He was also someone of much curiosity and quiet intellect. He served successive Prime Ministers formally on various committees and his counsel was often sought and welcomed informally. He was a Malaysian first and foremost and he loved his country dearly.

Uncle G, you will be missed. I will forever remember you as the man who bought me my first 10 speed bicycle 🚲 in 1989 after you found out about my SPM high school
exam results. The bike I used to cycle from my house in Damansara Utama to work at 7-Eleven in Taman Tun Dr Ismail.

I will always recall that time I dropped by your office at Plaza Damansara, to tell you about my university offer, and how happy you were for me. As we sat down on the sofa for tea, you gestured excitedly. “Omar I want to show you my next project. I saw the PM and he just approved my idea to build this.”

You flipped open a presentation document, A3 sized, full of impressive numbers and architectural renderings: it was your vision for Westports. I was in awe.

“Omar, if you dream big enough, and work hard enough, nothing is impossible in this blessed country of ours. Always remember that.” I have never forgotten those words, Uncle G.

Thank you and farewell. May your legacy live on in the able hands of those with whom you have entrusted.

Penulisan ucapan politik adalah suatu kraf di mana seorang penulis yang berbakat sederhana cuba mengatur aliran pemikiran, idea, dan hujah seorang pemimpin; merajutnya menjadi perkataan dan ayat yang pada akhirnya menyampaikan tujuan, makna, dan emosi kepada hadirin yang peka. 

Ben Rhoades, penulis ucapan terdekat Presiden Barack Obama yang pernah bertugas sebagai Pembantu Khas kepada Presiden dan Timbalan Penasihat Agensi Keselamatan Kebangsaan (NSA) pernah berkata seperti ini:

“Jika anda seorang penulis ucapan, anda harus tahu apa yang dipikirkan oleh orang yang anda tulis untuknya. Ramai penasihat dasar luar negara sedang berfikir: bagaimana saya boleh memasukkan cadangan saya ke dalam ucapan lelaki ini? Saya hanya sedang berfikir: apa yang diingininya untuk dikatakan?”

Kata-kata Ben benar-benar tepat. Dato’ Sri Najib Razak sentiasa tahu apa yang beliau ingin katakan. Peranan saya hanyalah untuk mencari cara terbaik bagaimana beliau harus menyatakannya. 

Saya bangga pernah berkhidmat kepada Najib sebagai penulis utama ucapan Bahasa Inggeris dan Pembantu Khas kepada Timbalan Perdana Menteri dari 2004 hingga 2006. Kami bersama-sama bersusah payah menyediakan banyak ucapan, sepanjang tahun-tahun sejak saya diperkenalkan kepadanya pada penghujung 1990-an. Di bawah ini adalah salah satunya. Dalam konteks masa kini mengenai peperangan Rusia berterusan di Ukraine dan ancaman nyata konflik ketenteraan di Taiwan, adalah berharga untuk mengingatkan kembali peringatan Najib Razak tentang nilai keamanan 18 tahun yang lalu.

Forum Keamanan Global Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra Kuala Lumpur 17 Disember 2005

[Ucapan oleh YAB Dato Sri Najib Tun Razak, Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia]

YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad

Presiden Kehormat, Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana

YABhg. Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohamad Ali

Kesohor Kehormat 

Para Tetamu Yang Mulia 

Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan para hadirin sekalian

1. Saya ingin memulakan dengan mengucapkan terima kasih kepada YABhg. Tun Dr Mahathir dan Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana kerana menjemput saya untuk menyimpulkan forum ini. Saya tidak hanya sangat gembira berada di sini, tetapi juga berasa sangat berhormat kerana dapat menyertai perhimpunan individu yang cemerlang ini, untuk mempertahankan dan memberikan suara kepada cita-cita manusia yang paling agung dan sukar dicapai: keinginan untuk keamanan. 

Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan sekalian

2. Persidangan untuk Perdamaian 1899 adalah himpunan antarabangsa utama pertama dalam sejarah yang didedikasikan sepenuhnya kepada perdamaian sebagai matlamat yang diingini. Seolah-olah untuk menguji keseriusan niat kita, kita justru menjadi saksi kepada salah satu tempoh yang paling ganas dalam sejarah manusia. Dua Perang Dunia, Perang Vietnam, Perang Korea, Perang Kamboja, dan banyak konflik lain di mana kerajaan berperang melawan rakyatnya sendiri. Di mana suku berperang melawan suku. Satu bangsa melawan bangsa lain. Orang dengan agama tertentu melawan penganut agama lain. Lebih dari seratus tahun kemudian, kita berkumpul di sini di Kuala Lumpur untuk sekali lagi mencari perdamaian yang masih sukar dicapai oleh majoriti besar umat manusia.

3. Selepas Perang Dunia Kedua, Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, terutamanya Majlis Keselamatan, dipercayakan dengan tugas mencegah perang dan membina perdamaian. Kami menaruh harapan besar pada multilateralisme. Kami percaya bahawa pendapat dunia yang kuat akan membujuk mereka yang berniat untuk keganasan dan agresi. Kami percaya bahawa walaupun Majlis Keselamatan mungkin tidak adil dalam struktur pembentukannya, ia sekurang-kurangnya dapat menjamin bahawa negara-negara yang paling kuat di dunia akan berkumpul dan bertindak sebagai pengekalan dan imbang terhadap kemungkinan perang. Mengikut rekod prestasi selama 50 tahun terakhir, kesimpulan kami hanya boleh menjadi bahawa pendekatan multilateral ini hanya berjaya sebahagian sahaja. Kami boleh meminimumkan konflik antara negara kecil. Kami boleh mengawal tindakan agresif beberapa negara besar. Tetapi kami tidak berdaya apabila berhadapan dengan negara-negara yang sangat kuat atau mempunyai sahabat yang amat berpengaruh.

4. Apabila abad ke-20 hampir berakhir, kita dapati bahawa dunia masih merupakan tempat yang berbahaya. Palestin. Kashmir. Afghanistan. Congo. Rwanda. Somalia. Kuwait. Kosovo. Iraq. Negara-negara ini terpahat dalam kesedaran kolektif umat manusia kita: bukti kegagalan kita dalam mencegah gelombang keganasan dan penderitaan manusia yang berterusan. Walaupun usaha ikhlas masyarakat global, abad ke-20 berakhir tanpa lebih baik daripada permulaannya: sebagai noda merah yang luas dalam sejarah manusia.

5. Dalam gambaran suram ini, bagaimana kita harus menterjemahkan keinginan mendalam dan asas untuk penyelesaian yang damai terhadap perbezaan kita? Adakah terdapat peta jalan untuk perdamaian? Kita harus percaya bahawa masih ada harapan. Terdapat banyak cara praktikal di mana rakyat dan kerajaan di seluruh dunia yang mencintai perdamaian dapat bertindak untuk mempromosikan budaya perdamaian. Tetapi saya teguh berkeyakinan bahawa kita juga harus menyerang asas teori mereka yang mempromosikan perang sebagai cara untuk mencapai perdamaian. Kita harus melindungi landasan moral yang tinggi untuk perdamaian yang mereka cuba klaim bagi perang.

6. Dunia tidak akan pernah memiliki perdamaian yang berkekalan selama manusia masih mengagungkan sifat-sifat manusia yang terbaik untuk perang. Perdamaian, sama seperti perang, memerlukan idealisme, pengorbanan diri, dan kepercayaan yang lurus dan teguh.

Para hadirin yang dihormati,

7. Sebagai titik permulaan, kita harus membatalkan penggunaan kekuatan oleh satu negara terhadap negara lain. Biarlah saya jelaskan bahawa saya tidak mengesyorkan kita untuk menyerah hak bersenjata. Kerajaan mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk membina kemampuan pertahanan yang kukuh. Setiap negara mempunyai hak untuk membela diri, untuk melindungi kehidupan, kebebasan, dan harta benda di dalam sempadan sendiri. Tetapi dalam ketiadaan sebuah kerajaan dunia atau keinginan untuk menyerahkan hak kepada kumpulan serantau, kedaulatan negara harus dianggap suci dan menjadi asas tindakan antarabangsa. Tiada negara, tidak kira betapa tinggi pemikirannya tentang kedudukan moralnya, tidak kira betapa sah pun perjuangannya, tidak kira betapa yakinnya kemampuan militernya, boleh memulakan perang ke atas negara lain sebagai cara untuk melindungi kepentingan dirinya sendiri atau dunia.

8. Forum ini dengan tepatnya telah menyeru kepada gerakan global yang teratur untuk menggalakkan rakyat biasa untuk memilih perdamaian dan menolak perang. Sebagai pemimpin kerajaan di seluruh dunia, kita harus duduk tegak, mendengar dengan teliti, dan mengambil perhatian. Dalam sejarah, kita tahu bahawa keputusan untuk pergi berperang diambil oleh individu yang berkuasa atau kumpulan individu yang berkuasa yang bertindak bersama. Sepanjang zaman, perang telah dilancarkan oleh kerajaan monarki dinasti, diktator kejam, junta tentera, dan juga Perdana Menteri dan Presiden yang terpilih secara bebas.

9. Walau bagaimanapun, dalam semua keadaan ini, tidak ada undian, tidak ada referendum, tidak ada cara untuk bertanya kepada komponen yang paling jelas soalan yang paling jelas: warga, adakah anda mahu kami pergi berperang? Rakyat biasa di mana-mana tempat tidak diberikan hak untuk memutuskan sama ada untuk mengorbankan nyawa anak muda terbaik mereka dan mengambil nyawa orang lain di tempat yang jauh.

10. Adalah terlalu naif untuk mengharapkan diktator untuk berunding dengan warga mengenai pergi berperang, tetapi tidakkah kita boleh mengharapkan ini daripada negara demokrasi? Jika orang di dunia bebas mempunyai masa untuk memilih idola nasional mereka berdasarkan kualiti nyanyian mereka, jika mereka boleh memutuskan sama ada atau tidak mahu mengenakan hukuman mati ke atas penjenayah warganegara mereka, mengapa mereka tidak boleh diberikan pilihan moral untuk memutuskan sama ada untuk menyebabkan kematian pasti ke atas orang-orang tak berdosa di luar negara mereka? Mungkin sudah tiba masanya untuk membenarkan pengundi yang bijak, di negara-negara demokrasi, menggunakan hak veto mereka setiap kali kerajaan mereka memutuskan untuk pergi berperang di luar sempadan mereka sendiri. Kita tentu mempunyai teknologi dan keupayaan untuk melakukannya dengan cekap pada hari ini. “Veto Perang” harus menjadi seruan yang manusia bawa ke setiap kampung, setiap komuniti, setiap bandar, setiap kerajaan di seluruh dunia.

Para hadirin yang saya hormati,

11. Keutamaan seterusnya yang perlu kita ambil ialah menerima pendekatan yang lebih menyeluruh dan seimbang dalam usaha bersama kita untuk mencapai kebebasan. Kebebasan pada hari ini telah menjadi terlalu sempit dalam takrifannya – malangnya, kita telah mengembangkan pandangan yang terpotong mengenai kualiti mulia ini. Pada akhir Perang Dunia Kedua, Presiden Roosevelt berbicara dengan indah mengenai empat kebebasan penting yang akan menjamin keamanan. Biar saya mengutip kata-katanya kerana kata-katanya tetap relevan pada hari ini: “Yang pertama adalah kebebasan bersuara dan berekspresi – di mana-mana di dunia. Yang kedua adalah kebebasan setiap individu untuk beribadah kepada Tuhan dengan cara sendiri – di mana-mana di dunia. Yang ketiga adalah kebebasan daripada kekurangan – yang bermakna menjamin kehidupan yang sihat dalam keadaan damai bagi setiap negara – di mana-mana di dunia. Yang keempat adalah kebebasan daripada rasa takut, yang bermakna pengurangan senjata di seluruh dunia sehingga tidak ada negara yang berada dalam kedudukan untuk melakukan tindakan agresif fizikal terhadap mana-mana jiran – di mana-mana di dunia.”

12. Roosevelt adalah betul. Kebebasan bukan hanya tentang demokrasi. Ia juga tentang toleransi beragama dan saling menghormati. Ia melibatkan membanteras kemiskinan dan memastikan kemakmuran. Ia melibatkan kita secara kolektif meninggalkan peperangan dan “alat-alat peperangan” sebagai instrumen yang sah dalam dasar luar negara. Bukan hanya di dalam bayang-bayang negara-negara Dunia Ketiga, tetapi juga di kalangan Dunia Pertama yang berpengetahuan luas.

13. Pengalaman Malaysia telah mengajar kita hikmah bahawa setiap negara harus diberikan hak yang tidak dapat dipertikaikan untuk mengejar kebebasan ini mengikut urutan dan kelajuan yang sesuai dengan sejarah dan keadaan khusus mereka. Keinginan untuk perdamaian jauh lebih tangguh dan universal daripada yang kita sangka. Sejarah menunjukkan kita tidak perlu menggunakan kekuatan perang untuk memberi ekspresi sepenuhnya kepada keinginan tersebut. Biar saya ulangi ini: Kita tidak perlu menggunakan kekuatan perang untuk memberi ekspresi sepenuhnya kepada kebebasan.

14. Pada suatu masa dulu, kita memahami hal ini. Rancangan Marshal untuk Eropah selepas Perang Dunia Kedua membina asas kemakmuran yang akan menjadi benteng menentang kezaliman dan penindasan. Kuasa-Kuasa Bersekutu memainkan peranan penting dan disambut baik dalam pemulihan Eropah. Peace Corps membawa warga Amerika keluar dari zon selesa mereka, melihat bagaimana separuh lain dari umat manusia hidup – sumbangan mereka dalam pendidikan, pengurangan kemiskinan, pengenalan kemahiran baru – masih memberi kesan hingga hari ini sebagai bukti kebaikan yang pernah ditunjukkan oleh rakyat Amerika Syarikat. Inilah pendekatan kuasa lembut yang dunia sambut baik, dan satu yang harus kita kembalikan.

15. Jika benar bahawa negara-negara demokratik secara umumnya tidak berperang antara satu sama lain, kita harus bertanya mengapa kita kelihatan kurang berat sebelah untuk berperang dengan negara-negara yang tidak demokratik. Kepada mereka yang menunjukkan kemajuan yang dicapai di Iraq dan Afghanistan, biar saya mengingatkan anda juga tentang kemajuan yang kita capai di bekas Kesatuan Soviet, di Jerman yang bersatu semula, di Republik Czech pasca-Revolusi Beludru, di Afrika Selatan pasca-Apartheid, di Indonesia baru-baru ini. Margaret Thatcher yang menarik perhatian kita kepada hakikat bahawa Ronald Reagan memenangi Perang Dingin tanpa menembak sebutir peluru pun. Bukan perang tetapi semangat manusia yang bertindak sebagai pembantu kelahiran demokrasi di negara-negara ini.

16. Pengalaman Malaysia sendiri dalam misi penjagaan perdamaian PBB dan dalam kerja bantuan kemanusiaan oleh angkatan tentera dan NGO kita, telah menunjukkan kepada kita bahawa nilai-nilai kebebasan tidak perlu diperjuangkan melalui laras senapang. Sekop yang sederhana, stetoskop, penapis air, belas kasihan manusia adalah alat-alat yang tidak kurang kuatnya untuk kebebasan dan untuk perdamaian.

Para hadirin yang saya hormati,

17. Usaha ketiga kita tidak ditujukan kepada kerajaan, tetapi di kalangan rakyat biasa. Kepada mereka di lapangan, kita harus meyakinkan diri kita untuk mengakui bahawa ancaman yang paling langsung, sebenar, dan tidak mengenal diskriminasi terhadap perdamaian pada hari ini – wabak keganasan – tidak dapat diselesaikan dengan kekuatan semata-mata. Pencetus terorisme antarabangsa tidak mengendalikan kerajaan, tidak menguasai wilayah, tidak memerintah tentera. Kita berperang dengan musuh yang tidak kelihatan; ancaman bayangan yang penuh dendam yang tidak berbentuk dan tidak berbentuk. Bala tentera mereka adalah minda yang dikuasai oleh orang biasa.

18. Tetapi marilah kita diingatkan. Jika kita memilih untuk membom teror untuk menyerah, kita akan gagal. Jika kita memilih untuk menghina mereka agar melihat kesalahan jalan mereka, kita akan gagal. Jika kita memilih untuk merespons kebencian mereka dengan kebencian kita sendiri, kita akan gagal. Jika kita memilih untuk menjadi buta terhadap keluhan yang sah di balik tindakan mereka yang tidak sah, kita pasti akan gagal. Saya teringat pepatah, “jika satu-satunya yang ada dalam tangan ialah palu, segala sesuatu akan terlihat seperti paku”.

19. “Benar, perdamaian yang abadi tidak dapat dijamin melalui kekuatan senjata semata-mata. Di antara rakyat merdeka, pertukaran terbuka ide-ide pada akhirnya adalah keamanan terbesar kita”. Itulah kata-kata seorang Presiden Amerika (Reagan). Saya ingin menambahkan bahwa bukan hanya di antara rakyat merdeka kita harus saling bertukar ide. Tetapi juga di antara mereka yang tidak bebas, yang terlantar, yang miskin, yang buta huruf, di seluruh dunia, dengan siapa kita harus terlibat dalam dialog jujur, memberikan konsesi, dan bahkan setuju untuk tidak setuju.

20. Kita harus berusaha membangun rasa saling menghormati antara sesama manusia. Ada sebuah ayat dalam Al-Quran yang mengajak laki-laki dan perempuan untuk saling mengenal, karena itulah tujuan Tuhan menciptakan kita dengan kepercayaan dan warna kulit yang berbeda.

21. Sejarah memungkinkan kita untuk menyatakan dengan pasti bahwa masa depan kita harus didasarkan pada budaya perdamaian dan dialog antara peradaban. Mari kita tekun. Mari kita siapkan anak-anak kita untuk menyatakan ketidaksetujuan tanpa kekerasan, untuk menjadi berbeda tetapi bersatu oleh nilai-nilai dan prinsip-prinsip universal keadilan, toleransi, kebebasan, kesetaraan, solidaritas. Mari kita tidak hanya belajar bahasa asing, tetapi juga menghargai asingnya pemikiran di balik orang-orang yang menuturnya.

22. Kita telah membayar harga yang berat akibat perang dan kekerasan. Seberapa cepat budaya perdamaian akan menggantikan budaya perang tergantung pada kita: Pada keyakinan kita tentang perlunya perubahan ini. Pada tekad kita untuk mencapai tujuan ini. Pada kesiapan kita untuk menyerahkan logika kekuatan dan merangkul kekuatan akal budi. Hanya dengan demikian kita dapat berharap akan tercipta budaya perdamaian, dialog, dan tanpa kekerasan. Mari kita hapuskan perang sebelum perang menghapuskan kita. Mari kita semua bekerja sama untuk mewujudkannya. Semoga kita tidak membutuhkan seratus tahun lagi.

Terima kasih.

Nota kaki: keseluruhan blog ini diterjemahkan dari Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia/ Indonesia secara automatik menggunakan ChatGPT. Edit penulis cuma kurang 1% daripada hasil terjemahan asal.