abdulrashid's blog

 Monday, 6 June 2005 9:45 AMThe Jakarta Post, IndonesiaOng dazzles with idiosyncratic styleChisato Hara, The Jakarta Post, Kuala LumpurIn a quiet, unassuming hall just off the main atrium of Kuala Lumpur  Plaza is a small glass-front boutique all in white: Ong's Collection.  Within, three women are visible, sitting around a small round table  and working steadily on pieces of clothing.A security buzzer admits visitors, who are led past a row of dresses  to a small lounge-office, where they are invited to sit on a  

The Sunday Times, LondonReviewJune 05, 2005The peasant's revoltSimon Jenkins went to Holland to see the death throes of old Europe and found himself witnessing a rebellion that is both thrilling and laced with menaceIn Brussels the "mannequin pis" winked. In Holland the boy took his finger from the dyke. In Paris Marianne bared not her breast but her buttock. The cock crowed, the lion roared, the bear growled. Bliss it was last week to be alive and in Amsterdam, the city which since the 17th century has embodied civic autonomy and global commerce. It has just perpetrated a revolution and can hardly believe it.Two hundred kilometres to the south in Brussels, the humiliated courtiers of the European Union sat gloomy in their gilded salons, wondering how to hold off the upstart mob. Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, presiding over the EU's Council of Ministers, tearfully suggested that Europe's voters be asked to vote again "until they get it right". Lord Kerr, Britain's envoy at this court, described the referendums as a "macabre ritual". Jose Manuel Barroso, commission president, warned of a "risk of contagion" spreading across Europe. Only in Brussels is the word democracy synonymous with disease.On the radio I listened to Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten and Jack Straw splutter that a period of "sober reflection" was in order, as if a brief visit to the confessional would purge Holy Mother Church of the sin of pride: surely this Martin Luther moment must pass. But by the weekend, anti-constitution sentiment was wildfire. Those silent referendums, the opinion polls, were taking up the cry from Warsaw to Lisbon. Even pro-European Luxembourg doubled its "no" vote in a month. It is hard to overstate the trauma of this past week.What does it mean? In France the vote was being interpreted in as many ways as there are French philosophers. The best answer was the simplest, that of a veteran of the Foreign Legion, a farmer in the Lot, on whose views on Europe I can always rely to produce unprintable expletives. He loathes Paris, Brussels and Muslim immigrants in that order. He is the personification of "non". But France's defection has always been on the cards.I remember a French embassy official during Britain's last referendum on the EU in 1975 (when only the Shetlands voted no). He warned me that "France will be European as long as Europe is French". When that ceased to apply, "France will dispense with Europe. It will destroy it". Last week he was proved right. France embodies the nation as saboteur.The Netherlands result seemed to require a different reading. At an informal seminar in a Concertgebouw cafe on Thursday, I heard a group of Dutch writers gasp at what their countrymen had done. A loyal European state that once viewed the EU as a bulwark of prosperity and security in a hostile world had voted a massive "nee".This outcome once seemed inconceivable. Every political party, every newspaper, every trade union, the entire Dutch establishment, had campaigned for yes. Over Amsterdam's central square, the Dam, towers a royal palace filled with the emblems of world trade. Yet Holland had gone for what was in truth a chauvinist rebellion. Nor were there any fancy excuses. The pundits agreed that the people were voting not just against an unpopular prime minister but against the euro, immigration, the loss of the Dutch veto and Europe in general. This was new.The Dutch government had tried to scare them into a yes. It used television footage of Auschwitz and Srebrenica to imply that a no vote meant war. It said that electricity would fail and lights would go out. The economics minister, Laurens-Jan Brinkhorst, took leave of his democratic senses and declared the referendum stupid because the Dutch people "are being allowed to vote on an issue they know nothing about". The prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, pleaded with the electorate not to "humiliate me when I go to Brussels", an invitation no red-blooded democrat could refuse.Three years ago the Dutch gave their leaders a warning by flirting with the gay anti-establishment politician Pim Fortuyn, since dead. Now they let rip. As the columnist Leon de Winter remarked: "The Dutch people looked at what was on offer and immediately smelt a rat." The referendum was "Pim Fortuyn part two".Though the French and Dutch votes have been given wildly differing analyses they have much in common. Both display the new politics of Europe. This no longer trusts those in power to protect the public's demand for commercial, social and ethnic sovereignty. It is the politics of protectionism in every sense of the word. The Dutch may be less chauvinist than the French, and less committed to a "social" Europe, but they too see the EU as no longer a defence but a threat.British Eurosceptics may welcome the no vote for their own reasons, but they should not be fooled. With the kitchen of global competition hotting up, the no vote is mostly a vote to leave it for the comfort of protectionism.The Dutch may profess themselves liberal in outlook, but each day the motorways from the north bring swarms of economic migrants from Poland and beyond, ready to work for low wages. Ninety per cent of the rented housing in Amsterdam is now subject to some form of covert anti-immigrant control. Predictions suggest that Amsterdam and Rotterdam will have majority immigrant populations by 2010. The government is already expelling "illegals" by the thousand.Tell the Dutch that their social policy within a decade may depend on the votes of 70m Turkish Muslims and they will blow a raspberry. Even Maastricht, the city that "beats at the heart of Europe", voted no last week. An informal poll of 24,000 Dutch high school pupils registered 70% in the no camp.Returning to London I heard a Eurocrat and a Finnish MEP claiming on the radio that, despite all this, ratification should proceed anyway, a view shared by many stunned European leaders. They might have been on the moon. The argument was that a majority of EU governments were for the constitution and a minority should not be allowed to"get in their way". No American senator would dare speak that way of states' rights, even within the US. The conversation showed the mindset of thousands whose careers must now depend on the Brussels gravy train moving forwards.Europe is not a majoritarian state but a treaty-based collection of free countries. As the phone lines burned this weekend and France and Germany rushed into a defensive clinch, the terms of European statecraft were being rewritten. In Madrid and Rome, in Athens and Prague, in Dublin and London, elites stared at the ruin of half a century of shared assumption, that Europe would progress to the Treaty of Rome's "ever closer union".The phrase had guided their careers. It had sent their children to Fontainebleau and Harvard, to apprenticeship at the World Bank and sinecures in a Brussels "cabinet". Ever closer union had distanced them from their home countries and, fatally, from their electorates. I shall not forget the expostulation of that master Eurocrat, Pascal Lamy, in Brussels 15 years ago, "But Mr Jenkins, you cannot take national governments seriously. They are the past!" Thus might a pampered prelate dismiss Luther's Reformation as a minor burp.The referendum is the answer to Lamy. It is democracy's nuclear weapon, used only where conventional politics are thought to yield insufficient legitimacy. That is why governments turn to referendums only when they think they can control their raw explosive power. The French and Dutch votes show what happens when that calculation goes wrong. They are to the EU what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to wartime Japan.The countries of Europe must now seek a new political narrative and a new and limited destination. As the Dutch foreign minister admitted last week, the EU was always a journey rather than a goal. Europe set off after the second world war like Ulysses on an odyssey. It diverted itself to Brussels and found a city full of horrors, Cyclops, the Sirens and Scylla and Charybdis all in one. It plotted schemes and interventions more potent than the dreams of empires past. It measured swimming pools, counted chemicals and fixed the length of ladders. It taxed its subjects to distraction. Ulysses may have gone along with this, but his crew have mutinied.The new narrative must run with, not against, the grain of Europe's national groups. It must lie in the cantons of Switzerland, the mairies of France, the "free communes" of Sweden, the Rathausen of Bavaria and the parish halls of England. There must be a new treaty to guide European trade, but it must respect subsidiarity, not just the lip service paid in the doomed constitution. It must grow from the bottom up and cannot be fashioned in a French chateau amid claret and caviar.The wisest comment on last week's events came from the Swiss finance minister, Hans-Rudolf Merz: "European integration that goes beyond economy and security always stumbles at borders." Europe has borders for good reasons. They are written in blood and cannot be discarded to suit the convenience of a codfish lobbyist or a cosmetics directive.One destination is obviously the "variable geometry" presumably plotted this weekend by the Germans and French in Berlin. It has already entered the post-referendum lexicon with its two speeds, twin- tracks, concentric rings, core-and-periphery and an end to one-size- fits-all. The message is slowly striking home, that a wider union cannot mean a deeper one. Brussels was an empire too big. Enlargement was an empire too far. As both Napoleon and Hitler discovered, when European imperialists march to the east they eventually lose in the west. The elastic is overstretched.It is now inconceivable that the French will ever tolerate 70m Turks as common citizens of Europe. It is inconceivable that the British will tolerate France's rampant protectionism. It is inconceivable that anyone will tolerate Britain's budget rebate. New and variable relationships must be forged.The old stereotypes are defunct, of Germany and France in the "fast lane" with smaller states cringing under Germany's skirts and Britain as the ever sceptical laggard. When I asked my Dutch friends if they feared a new Franco-German "core" they laughed. France and Germany are now the problem, not the solution. The euro is a brake not an accelerator. The Czechs, Poles, Scandinavians are in the fast lane. As for Turkey, Angela Merkel, the possible next German chancellor, is already talking the realpolitik of "privileged partnership".A bold futurologist might even take his cue from Donald Rumsfeld. He might see in "old and new Europe" the next continental dynamic. This sees another iron curtain rising across Europe. To its west are the old socialised economies of the original Common Market, stuck inside protectionist walls and crippled by emigration, low birthrates and welfare burdens. These economies will be trapped by voters of the fearful right and the fearful left. Their borders will close and their politics become ever more introverted.To their east will be the "new tigers" of the former Soviet bloc, untrammelled by social models, with open labour markets, natural resources and easy access to the Middle East and Asia. It was the Czech Republic that on Thursday heralded the French vote as "a victory for freedom". The Poles could well vote against the constitution in September. Nor is that all. Since most eastern states will remain oligarchic in character, they will be less inhibited by electoral resistance to economic reform. They may be nasty but they could be rich.Last week's referendums offer one final message that might avert such a nightmare prospect. It was not only a European constitution that hit the buffers. It was also the constitutions of France and the Netherlands. The no votes were a withdrawal of trust equally from the denizens of Brussels and of Paris and the Hague.The present leaders of France, Germany, Italy and Holland are more discredited than any of their predecessors. In France the division of power between President Chirac and his cabinet is near chaotic. In Holland the "rolling" Christian Democrat coalition under Jan Peter Balkenende is the most unpopular in modern Dutch history. Yet proportional representation gives it indefinite life. PR constitutions have blighted democratic participation in Scandinavia and Italy. Everywhere constitutions are in crisis - even to some in Britain.Many European states struggled to amend their constitutions in the 1980s and 1990s. Denmark, France, Italy, Spain and Sweden all radically decentralised their governments. Some did so to stem the tide of separatism, notably in Spain and Italy. All were responding to a widespread sentiment that modern government had become too distant, that real political power should pass back to local communities and provinces.When France passed the decentralist "loi Deferre" in 1982, departmental prefets in line of descent from Napoleon reportedly broke down and wept. Germany has had a decentralised constitution ever since the war, when the allies imposed Länder devolution to impede a revival of the Führerprinzip. This devolution was so effective as now to stymie economic reform, the allies' poison pill within the German post-war miracle.Until now these decentralist measures have been popular. French politics, so moribund nationally, remains vital locally. Vital too are such renascent cities as Milan, Toulouse, Barcelona and Munich, revived by a civic autonomy unthinkable in Britain. An ironic result has been that constitutionally reformed nations have been more tolerant of power passing to Brussels than has unreformed Britain.If a Swede or a Sicilian can run his own school, his healthcare and his community planning, he is less inclined to worry when his national parliament loses out to Brussels. In return Brussels has assiduously courted localism. Go to the Scottish Highlands and ask who pays for its excellent roads.Yet the referendums suggest that even this "Euro-regionalism" is not enough to placate the people of Europe for their loss of local power. The flight into the politics of identity is now a panic rush. It leaves not just Brussels but national capitals vulnerable to the new politics.Last week the Dutch voted to stay Dutch, not just in social laws but in the ethnic composition of their country. The French feel the same, as do the Ukrainians and other east Europeans as they emerge from the yoke of Russian homogeneity.I found in Holland and France an openness in opposition to non- European immigrants that in Britain would be thought racist. The Dutch "no" campaigner and MP, Geert Wilders, makes the British National party seem like reticent liberals. If the sentiments are not racist they are ethnically exclusive.The new politics is reflected throughout Europe. It is seen in the demands of Basques, Catalans and Galicians to self-government within a Spain that is nowadays more a loose confederation than a nation. Public schools in Barcelona teach in Catalan, not Spanish. Special constitutional status in Italy is awarded to the Sicilians and Val d'Aostans and in France to the Bretons and Corsicans. Germany may struggle to re-establish Berlin as a strong centre, but it must do so against the mighty länder. Even in super-centralist Britain, nobody would seriously propose reversing Scots or Welsh devolution. The Welsh television channel may be the most expensive in the world, but nobody would dare close it down.Across Europe this "enclave democracy" is gradually superseding the federal nations fashioned in the 19th and 20th centuries. Politicians such as Le Pen, Wilders and Austria's Jörg Haider are not passing phenomena. They have emerged as a result of lax constitutions which assumed that popular apathy meant popular consent.The most alarming response to this comes from an improbable quarter. In 1998 the Norwegian parliament, the Storting, decided to celebrate the millennium in an appropriately solemn fashion. It commissioned five wise persons to investigate Norway's democracy and chart its course over the next century. The curt answer was that "the democratic infrastructure is in collapse".Democracy might prove to have been a passing blip on the radar screen of history. Proportional representation and "rolling coalitions" were breeding public cynicism that elections never changed governments. Local democracy, once strong in Scandinavia, was waning. People were becoming comfortable and apathetic, roused to anger only "just-in- time", on specific issues such as the location of a road or the closure of a hospital.Unless the Norwegian constitution was reformed, said the study, Norway would become a form of oligarchy. A stage army of self- selected party politicians in Oslo would share power with an elite of unelected technocrats, lawyers, bankers and journalists. They would adjust policy by regular focus groups and opinion polls. The urban poor would be a helot class, too small to matter politically. The only threat to this oligarchy would come from outbursts of protest, controlled by ever tighter security.What is plausible in this prediction is that it echoes trends discernable across most of Europe. Deprived of power over their local communities, people cede control over their lives to national and international elites. They no longer participate in conventional politics and "care" only when the rhythm of their lives is upset by some extraneous phenomenon. When they are upset, the explosion is the more seismic, as when they are visited by a new European currency or the arrival of a wave of immigrants. Such politics is reactive, introspective and chauvinist. It is the true meaning of "no".If history offers any lesson from the past week it is that Europe courts disaster if it allows the politics of union to override the politics of division. Regions, enclaves, provinces and statelets are part of the European kaleidoscope. The peoples of eastern Europe, notably in what were Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, have just risked their wealth and even their lives to recover their historical identities. They want self-government to mean just that, as do the enclaves of the west. Only if they are convinced such so-called subsidiarity is genuine will the myriad peoples that make up Europe consent to the national or supranational disciplines needed to keep Europe competitive.This past week has seen democracy explode its most dangerous weapon, a referendum. The release of energy was awesome. Power asked a question of freedom and was given a punch in the face. Such moments are rare and they are beautiful. They are also menacing and full of meaning.Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

See emerging investigation below. What surprises me about this is why must Mahathir have to pay to meet with Bush? Why must Malaysian politicians have to pay for lobbyists to meet with their US counterparts?Either their US govt counterparts agree to meet because they sense an imminent win-win or common courtesy or they don't. No?If the US counterparts don't sense a win-win, why don't we focus our attention on other channels of reaching US minds that matter and on other countries that do?So does say the Secretary of State in the US who wants to meet our PM in Malaysia, have to lobby to do so?

The New International, Pakistan16 April 2005By the wayA most difficult questionHafizur RahmanMy wife, God bless her, used to ask the most difficult  questions, and wanted immediate answers. One of her really awkward ones  (probably provoked by the current wave of religiosity) was this. There  has been a phenomenal increase during the last 25 years or so in the  number or so in the number of people who say their prayers regularly.  There is no doubt that mosques were never so crowded as they are now. In