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

Political speechwriting is a craft where a scribe of modest talents attempts to marshal a leader’s flow of thoughts, ideas and arguments, weaving them into a narrative arc of words and sentences that ultimately convey purpose, meaning and emotions to a discerning audience.

Ben Rhoades, President Barack Obama’s closest speechwriter who served as his Special Assistant and Deputy National Security Adviser said this:

“If you are a speechwriter, you have to know what the person you’re writing for thinks. A lot of foreign policy advisers are thinking: how can I get my proposal into this guy’s speech? I was just thinking: what does he want to say?”

Ben was spot on. Dato Sri Najib Razak always knew what he wanted to say. My role was simply to figure out the best way he should say it.

I am proud to have once served Najib as his principal English speechwriter and Special Assistant to the Deputy Prime Minister from 2004 to 2006. We laboured over many speeches together, over the many years since I was first introduced to him in the late 1990s. This was one of them. In the present day context of the ongoing Russian war against the Ukraine, and the very real threat of military conflict over Taiwan, it is worth recalling Najib Razak’s reminder some 18 years ago.

Global Peace Forum
Putra World Trade Centre
Kuala Lumpur
17 December 2005

[Remarks by YAB Dato Sri Najib Tun Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia]

YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Honorary President, Perdana Leadership Foundation

YABhg. Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohamad Ali

Excellencies
Distinguished Guests
Ladies and Gentlemen

1. Allow me to begin by thanking YABhg. Tun Dr Mahathir and the Perdana Leadership Foundation for inviting me to close this forum. I am not only extremely delighted to be here, but also deeply honoured that I am able to join such a distinguished gathering of individuals, to champion and give voice to humanity’s greatest and most elusive goal: the simple desire for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen

2. The 1899 Conference for Peace was the first major international gathering in history dedicated solely to peace as a desirable end in itself. As if to test our seriousness of intent, we have instead borne witness to one of the most violent periods in human history. The two World Wars, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Cambodian War and countless other conflicts where governments have waged war against their own people. Where tribe has fought against tribe. One race against another. People of one religion against believers of another. More than one hundred years on, we are gathered here in Kuala Lumpur to once again seek that peace that continues to elude the vast majority of humanity.
3. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United Nations, and in particular its Security Council, was entrusted with the prevention of war and the building of peace. We placed great hopes in multi-lateralism. We believed the overwhelming weight of world opinion would dissuade those intent on violence and aggression. We believed that no matter how inequitable the Security Council may have been in its construct, it could at least guarantee that the world’s most powerful nations would come together, and act as a check and balance against the possibility of war. Judging by the track record of the last 50 years, our only conclusion must be that the multilateral approach has been only partially successful. We can minimise conflict between small countries. We can check the aggressive actions of some larger nations. But we are powerless when it comes to countries that are either very powerful, or have powerful friends.
4. As the 20th Century drew to a close, we found that the world was still a dangerous place. Palestine. Kashmir. Afghanistan. Congo. Rwanda. Somalia. Kuwait. Kosovo. Iraq. These nations are etched into our collective human consciousness: evidence of our failure to prevent the continuing waves of violence and human suffering. Despite the earnest efforts of the global community, the 20th Century ended no better than how it started: as a vast stain of red on the chronicle of human history.
5. Given this bleak picture, how then shall we all go about translating the deep and basic desire for peaceful resolution of our differences? Is there a road map for peace? We must believe there is still hope. There are many practical ways in which peace loving peoples and governments around the world can act to promote a culture of peace. But it is my firm belief that we must also attack the very theoretical foundations of those who promote war as a means to achieve peace. We must protect the moral high ground for peace which they seek to claim for war.
6. The world will never have lasting peace so long as men reserve for war, the finest human qualities. Peace, no less than war, requires idealism and self-sacrifice and a righteous and unwavering faith.

Ladies and Gentlemen

7. As a starting point, we must de-legitimize the use of force by one country against another. Let me make it clear that I am not advocating that we give up the right to arms. Governments have the responsibility of building a robust defence capability. Every country has the right to self-defence, to protect life, liberty and property within its own borders. But in the absence of a world government or a willingness to surrender rights to a regional grouping, national sovereignty must remain sacrosanct and be the basis of interstate conduct. No country, no matter how high it perceives its moral standing, no matter how legitimate it feels its cause, no matter how certain it is of its military capabilities, can inflict war on another country as the means to protect its self interest, or that of the world.
8. This forum has rightly called for an organised, global movement to encourage ordinary citizens to vote for peace and reject war. As government leaders across the world, we should sit up, listen carefully and take heed. In history, we know that the decision to go to war is taken by either a single powerful individual or a group of powerful individuals acting in concert. Throughout the ages, war has been waged by dynastic monarchies, ruthless dictators, military juntas, and even freely elected Prime Ministers and Presidents.
9. However, in all these instances, there has been no vote, no referendum, no avenue to ask the most obvious constituent the most obvious question: citizens, do you want us to go to war? Ordinary people everywhere have not been given the right to decide whether to put at risk the lives of their finest young men and women, and to take the lives of other fine young men and women in far away places.
10. It is far too naïve to expect dictators to consult with citizens on going to war, but can we not expect this of democracies? If people in the free world have the time to vote for their national idols according to the quality of their singing, if they can decide whether or not to impose the death penalty on their citizen criminals, why can they not be given the moral choice to decide whether to inflict certain death on innocent people abroad? Perhaps it is high time to allow intelligent voters, in democratic countries, to exercise their veto each time their government decides to go to war outside their own borders. We certainly have the technology and the ability to do this efficiently today. “Veto War” should become the rallying cry that humanity brings to every village, every community, every city, every government around the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen

11. Our next priority must be to adopt a more holistic, balanced approach in our common pursuit of freedom. Freedom today has become too narrowly defined – unfortunately we have developed a truncated view of this noble quality. At the end of the Second World War, President Roosevelt spoke eloquently about the four essential freedoms that would secure peace. Let me quote him because his words ring true even more so today: “The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want – which means securing for every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear which means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world”.
12. Roosevelt was right. Freedom is not just about democracy. It is also about religious tolerance and mutual respect. It is about eradicating poverty and ensuring prosperity. It is about collectively forsaking war and the “tools of war” as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy. Not just in the dark recesses of the Third World, but also among the enlightened First World.
13. The Malaysian experience has taught us the wisdom that each country must be given the unequivocal right to pursue these freedoms in the order and at the speed that is appropriate to their individual history and particular circumstance. The desire for peace is far more resilient and universal than we think. History shows we need not use the force of war to give it full expression. Let me repeat this: We need not use the force of war to give freedom its full expression.
14. There was a time when we understood this. The Marshal Plan for Europe after World War Two built the foundations of prosperity that would serve as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. Allied Forces played a vital and welcome role in the reconstruction of Europe. The Peace Corps brought Americans outside of their comfort zones, to see how the other half of humanity lived – their contributions in education, in poverty reduction, in introducing new skills – resonate even today as a testament of the goodwill once shown by the good people of the United States of America. This was the soft power approach that the world welcomed, and one to which we must return.
15. If it is true that democratic states generally do not make war on each other, we must ask why we seem to have less hesitation waging war on undemocratic ones. To those who point to the progress achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan, let me remind you also of the progress we have achieved in the former Soviet Union, in a reunified Germany, in the post-Velvet Revolution Czech Republic, in post-Apartheid South Africa, in recent Indonesia. It was Margaret Thatcher who drew our attention to the fact that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. It was not war but the human spirit that acted as handmaiden to the birth of democracy in these countries.
16. Malaysia’s own experience in UN peacekeeping and in humanitarian relief work by our armed forces and NGOs, have shown us that the values of freedom need not be furthered through the barrel of the gun. The humble shovel, the stethoscope, the water purifier, human compassion are no less powerful instruments for freedom and for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen

17. Our third endeavour is not directed at governments, but among ordinary peoples. To the proverbial man and woman on the street, we must convince ourselves to recognise that the most direct, real, undiscriminating threat to peace today – the scourge of terrorism – cannot be addressed by force alone. The purveyors of international terror run no governments, control no territory, command no armies. We are fighting an unseen enemy; a vengeful phantom menace that is shapeless and amorphous. Their foot soldiers are the dominated minds of ordinary people.
18. But let us be warned. If we choose to bomb terror into submission, we will fail. If we choose to insult them into seeing the errors of their ways, we will fail. If we choose to respond to their hatred with more of our own, we will fail. If we choose to be blind to the legitimate grievances behind their illegitimate actions, we will most certainly fail. I am reminded of the saying, “if the only thing in your hand is a hammer, everything will look like a nail”.
19. “True, lasting peace cannot be secured through the strength of arms alone. Among free peoples, the open exchange of ideas ultimately is our greatest security”. These were the words of an American President (Reagan). I would add that it is not only among free peoples that we have to exchange ideas. It is also among the un-free, the dispossessed, the poor, the illiterate, all around the world, with whom we must enter into honest dialogue, make concessions and even agree to disagree.
20. We must seek to rebuild humanity’s respect for one another. There is a verse in the Holy Quran which enjoins men and women to know each other, for that is the purpose God created us of different creed and colour.
21. History allows us to state with certainty that our future must be based on the culture of peace and dialogue between civilisations. Let us be persevering. Let us prepare our children to express dissent without violence, to be different but united by the values and universal principles of justice, of tolerance, of freedom, of equity, of solidarity. Let us not only learn foreign languages, but also appreciate the foreign-ness of the thinking behind the people who speak them.
22. We have paid the heavy price of war and violence. How soon the culture of peace will replace the culture of war depends on us: On our convictions about the need for these changes. On our determination to achieve this goal. On our willingness to surrender the logic of force and embrace the force of reason. Only then can we hope for a culture of peace, dialogue and non-violence. Let us abolish war before it abolishes us. Let us all work together to make this happen. And let us not take another hundred years.

Thank you.

No one could have imagined Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad would voluntarily resign as Prime Minister on 24 February 2020, stepping down as the most powerful person in the country after winning the 14th General Elections less than 2 years earlier. But he did.

The rationalist’s explanation is that Dr Mahathir resigned on principle the moment he understood he no longer commanded the confidence of the majority of Members of Parliament, and therefore could not continue as Prime Minister. He did not wait for the YDP Agong to summon him to Istana Negara. He did briefly attempt to form a cross party unity government (the kind we now have under Kerajaan Malaysia MADANI), but he did not succeed because the Malay-based parties and a significant number of Malay Members of Parliament, declined to serve (or continue serving) in the same government as the DAP.

But for the humanist, what actually moved Dr Mahathir to surrender that which he cherished above all else – political leadership of the nation he built and shaped largely in his image – remains a mystery of the heart and not of the mind. When he placed his signature on his letter of resignation, some of us believe it would not have been possible absent a higher consciousness and divine intervention.

The matter of a royal pardon for Dato Sri Najib Razak can be viewed in a similar vein. For the rationalist it is all about cold facts and circumstances. For the humanist it is a matter of the heart and about sentiment. Specifically the hearts and sentiments of the Malays and the Malay Rulers. It is no longer about the judicial or legal process which properly – or some would argue improperly – concluded on 23 Aug 2022.

A royal pardon is the personal gift of a Malay Ruler. All manner of wrongdoers have been pardoned in the past: criminals, murderers and rapists among them. As Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir himself was part of the process of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim family’s appeal for a royal pardon from His Majesty SPB YDP Agong Sultan Muhammad X in 2018 – a pardon most vital for Dato Seri Anwar’s return to active political life without which he would not be Prime Minister today. A full and royal pardon whether for pauper or Prince is divine intervention conducted through mortal and ultimately flawed, men.

Underpinning any pardon is the notion of “ihsan”. Being merciful in the face of wrongdoing is a noble trait but it is rarely attained in the hearts of ordinary men let alone ruthless politicians. In the Surah Al Fatihah, Allah is exalted not once but twice as “The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful”.

Surah Al Imran 134 speaks of givers and forgivers to be among “the doers of good”.

‘Who spend [in the cause of Allah] during ease and hardship and who restrain anger and who pardon the people – and Allah loves the doers of good;’
https://myislam.org/surah-imran/ayat-134/

Wallahu’alam. Allah knows best.

Ps. Aside from Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, there have been two other high profile royal pardons of politicians in the past: Datuk Harun Idris the ex Mentri Besar of Selangor in 1982 (jailed for corruption) and Datuk Mokhtar Hashim a former Minister of Culture, Youth & Sports in 1991 (jailed for murder). What do Harun Idris, Mokhtar Hashim and Anwar Ibrahim have in common? All three were pardoned by different YDP Agongs decades apart but during the tenure of the same man serving as Prime Minister: Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Perhaps after all said and done, it is the Good Doctor himself who is imbibed with ihsan within him.

As we Asians/Southeast Asians/Malaysians bask vicariously in Michelle Yeoh’s glittering success and ultimate recognition by Hollywood’s Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, take a moment to discover the journey of her fellow Asian co-star and Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actor, Vietnamese American Ke Huy Quan. While Michelle’s journey to the Oscar red carpet may have been paved in gold, Ke’s was that of a wandering vagrant; a nameless, faceless, invisible immigrant eking out a living toiling the backstreets of Hollywood.

Ke’s family were originally Vietnamese boat people, fleeing refugees by boat off the war torn coast of then South Vietnam in the early 70s. His father and four year old him, sailed northeast towards Hong Kong, while his mother and siblings sailed southwest towards Malaysia; it was typical for families to deliberately divide to maximise their chances of eventually reaching and reuniting in America, which they did against all odds. Ke has defied all odds again more than four decades later.

My wife, a Southeast Asian (ASEAN) Games gold medalist in her youth (in silat olahraga, the Malay form of martial arts), once told me: on the great big stage when they hold up your hands in victory against your opponent, embrace humility even as you fix your teary eyes on the 🇲🇾 flag, because only you know how ridiculously impossible the journey actually was. Everyone else thinks it was destiny.

Passion, bravery and grit are what separates the dreamer from the day dreamer. In this Michelle and Ke are exactly the same.

As Malaysians we instinctively lay claim to our nation’s daughters and sons who gain global success despite them having long left our shores. Malaysia was simply too small for their craft and talents. We celebrate and embrace with neither a hint of resentment nor embarrassment; eschewing “sowhatism”, “ifonlyism”
& “whatifism”.

Privilege (family, exposure, education) gives you a valuable head start no matter what your nationality, creed or colour. But no amount of privilege can win you an Oscar. So heartiest congratulations and thank you Tan Sri Michelle Yeoh for being the first ever Asian in 95 years of the Oscars to be nominated and win Best Actress.

And yes my daughters are that little bit more inspired today to be all they can ever be.

Welcome to WordPress! This is your first post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey.