WORTHY READING

Asia

Asia view -The Economist

You're fired. No, I'm not

MUHAMMAD YUNUS, who won the Nobel peace prize in 2007 for founding Grameen Bank, insists that he is still its managing director. The public image of Grameen, a pioneering microcredit agency with 8m borrowers, is practically inseparable from Mr Yunus, the man. But on March 2nd Bangladesh’s central bank announced that it had sacked him.

On March 3rd he was back in court, fighting to have himself reinstated. The most recent attempt to force Mr Yunus from the bank he founded more than 30 years ago is the culmination of three-month campaign of sustained media and legal harassment by the Awami League (AL) government. The siege began soon after a documentary was broadcast on Norwegian television broadcast last November. (Norwegians, naturally, take a special interest in the peace prizes’s honorees.) The programme claimed that 15 years ago millions of dollars had “disappeared” from Grameen Bank.

Never mind that the Norwegian government’s official inquiry found the documentary’s allegations to be baseless. This provided Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister, with the perfect pretext for making good on a carefully nurtured vendetta.

Fourteen years ago, in Sheikh Hasina’s first term of office the situation could not have been more different. In February 1997, as co-chair of the Microcredit Summit Council of Heads of State and Government, she declared that “We in Bangladesh are proud of the outstanding work done by Professor Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank he founded.”

He has demonstrated to the world that the poor have the capacity to productively use even a small credit and change their fate [sic]. The success of the Grameen Bank has created optimism about the viability of banks engaged in extending microcredit to the poor.

So one might have expected her to be pleased when, nine years later, Muhammed Yunus won the Nobel peace prize for those very achievements. But as it happens Sheikh Hasina had long before come to think that she herself was due the prize: not for microcredit-anything but for signing the Chittagong Hill Tracts treaty, also in 1997, which brought an end to almost two decades of fighting. Egged on by sycophants, she sent senior civil servants around the world to lobby for her nomination, unsuccessfully.

Instead, suddenly, Mr Yunus had become by far the most famous Bangladeshi in the world, usurping even the prime minister’s late father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who led the country to Independence in 1971. According to those who know her personally, this was a bitter pill for Sheikh Hasina to swallow.

Her resentment turned into open hostility when Mr Yunus announced, five months after he received his Nobel, that he was going to set up a political party. This came at the beginning of a two-year period of rule by a caretaker government installed by the army. The generals’ hope had been to free the country’s politics from the axis of sparring civilian women, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, round which it had been spinning unhappily. Mr Yunus stepped in with a call for a “complete emasculation of the established political parties” in order “to cleanse the polity of massive corruption”.

Whatever Mr Yunus’s actual intentions, Sheikh Hasina saw his intervention as personal affront against her and the AL. “She thought that he was involved with the army in trying to remove her from politics. That the army’s plan to remove her was also his plan,” said a former senior bureaucrat who knows the prime minister well.Read more.

Muhyiddin Asked Poor Sabahans To Stop Whining

Hantu Laut

Did he say it?

I hope the DPM was misquoted.

What is DPM Muhyiddin trying to do asking poor Sabahans to stop whining and regard themselves as luckier than the poor of India and China.Story here.

Cost of living is the basic measure of the level of poverty line.The poor in China, maybe, less poor than the poor in Malaysia.They may have enough food to eat.The poor in India, maybe, poorer than the poor in China.CIA Factbook put China's below poverty line at 2.8% and India at 25%.China seems better than Malaysia which has below poverty line of 5.5%.

The cost of living in Sabah is high compared to Peninsula Malaysia.Everything costs more here, from toothpicks to cars we have to pay more.Naturally, the quantum used to measure poverty level is higher in Sabah.

None or very few people died of starvation in China and India.Most abject poverty and malnourishment are in sub-Saharan African countries where either poverty or famine were the cause of malnourishment and eventual death.Even in Myanmar where the per capita income is one of the lowest in the world no one died of starvation.Food are cheap and affordable to the poor.If anyone died of starvation in Sabah it would be out of laziness or stupidity.We are also at the mercy of over-exploitation of our resources which have no spin-off effects to the economy.

Muhyiddin also made a rather embarrassing admission, that the BN leaders in Sabah are not doing their job and are responsible for the abject poverty in the state.By his own admission BN have neglected the welfare of Sabahans.

When Sabah leaders made demands for more development expenditure or took to task Federal leaders for their apathy and arrogance these leaders are viewed as anti Federal and would be sidelined.

After 48 years, Sabah should have better infrastructures than what we have now. We should by now have super highways linking all the major towns.

Instead of flying in the comfort of a jet plane and helicopter Muhyiddin should take a ride from Kota Kinabalu to Tawau and see for himself how neglected this state is.Our roads are in shambles due to lack of funds for maintenance.Federal leaders only come here more frequently (like now) when general elections is round the corner.

It is shameful that instead of coming here to find ways and means to resolve the situation of poor Sabahans the Deputy Prime Minister found it appropriate to past the buck for what clearly is the fault of the UMNO/BN government in Sabah. Muhyiddin is the second most powerful man in the country now and has been in the cabinet for donkey years.

As a long serving cabinet minister and now DPM it is a shame that Muhyiddin had no concept of the size of Sabah and its poor infrastructures.He said he had been ignorant until now that the Kinabatangan constituency is much bigger than Pahang, and was shocked to know that Tongod itself was bigger than Selangor.

Sabah is almost two-thirds the size of Peninsula Malaysia, the state did not get equitable distribution of development expenditure in spite of the fact that Sabah is a big contributor to federal revenue particularly oil.

I certainly will not pick him as our next prime minister.

Who Is Anwar Ibrahim ?

Clinton Moderate Islamist

Posted by Rachel Ehrenfeld

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s conduct during her recent visit to Malaysia was anything but diplomatic. In a press conference hosted by Foreign Minister Anifa Aman, Clinton took the unusual step of siding with opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar is on trial for corruption and sodomy charges, which he claims are politically motivated. Perhaps.

But Clinton’s announcement that she had raised Ibrahim’s prosecution with the Malaysian government, and that the State Department “raise[s] it on a consistent basis,” should be viewed not merely as the U.S. concern for the rule of law. Clinton’s statement should be regarded as a major victory for Anwar Ibrahim. More broadly it is a triumph of the International Muslim Brotherhood, whose ideology Anwar advances.

Who is Anwar Ibrahim?

Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, is currently the opposition leader, and considered by many Westerners to be a leading moderate Muslim intellectual. Yet, even a cursory examination of Ibrahim’s background reveals that he is an Islamist, dedicated to promote global Islamic rule based on Shari’a Law.

Ibrahim came to prominence in the early 70’s’ after he founded and led Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), known in English as Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement.

In February 1999, HARAKAH, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party’s (PAS) publication in English printed a speech given by Anwar at a 1979 ABIM meeting. “It is our conviction that if all parties concerned are sincere and serious about understanding Islam, its concepts and principles, they will accept Islam as the only practicable and viable alternative to the present order,” he said.

To achieve this goal, Anwar proposed that “Schools, especially institutions of higher learning must be encouraged to cultivate the spirit of Islamic universalism to break down the present communal barriers.”

On December 11, 2005, in an interview to the London based Asharq Al-Awsat, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, former leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, stated: “the Muslim Brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same religious worldview – the spread of Islam, until it rules the world.” [emphasis added]

Despite such statements many in the U.S. and the West regard the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic creed and the many Islamist organizations it spawned, such as al Qaeda and Hamas an social movements. “Islamism is … but a social movement like any other – communism, nationalism, liberalism, fascism, socialism.”

Anwar himself has provided evidence of the influence that Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi, the ideological fathers of Muslim Brotherhood have had on his understanding of the Quran.

Qutab and Maududi also inspired the creation of radical Islamic groups such as al-Qaeda and Hamas, and Islamic charities that use the guise of humanitarian relief to transfer funds to Hamas, al Qaeda, the Chechen mujahedeen, and others. The U.S. recently shut down the activities of the now defunct Oregon branch of the al Haramain Islamic Foundation, and Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), one of the largest Islamic charities in the US. Holy Land Foundation was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in December 2001.

In 1999 while in prison on previous charges of corruption and sodomy, Ibrahim wrote to Abdul Hamid Abu Sulaiman, former Rector of International Islamic University of Malaysia, and a fellow director of the Virginia based Muslim Brotherhood’s International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). The IIIT was identified by the FBI as an unindicted coconspirator in the terror financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

In his letter to Sulaiman, Anwar wrote: “I’m trying to keep myself busy–with prayers and du’a, tadarrus and reading…My old copy of Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Quran is most valuable because of my earlier short notes and references from Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi’s tafsirs (interpretations).”

When Sulaiman became the Rector of Islamic University of Kuala Lumpur, which houses IIIT’s sister organization, International Institute for Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), he “vigorously started the work of Islamization of Education. Arabic and Fiqh. Islamic Law and Jurisprudence were introduced as compulsory and university requirement courses. The University from the very beginning, took steps to gradually Islamize subject matters of the social science, discipline, and the effort is still on.”

In a 2005 ABIM conference in Malaysia, Dr Ahmad Totonji, the Former Secretary –General, of the Saudi based World Assembly Of Muslim Youth (WAMY) – documented as funding al Qaeda and Hamas - and the VP of IIIT’s Administration praised Anwar’s activity to advance Islamic rule. Totonjii was also co-founder and officer of another Saudi funded, now-defunct Islamic charity, Safa Trust (first known as the U.S. branch of the Saudi SAAR foundation, incorporated as a 501(3)c on July 29, 1983 in Herndon, VA. In December 2000, it was and renamed Safa Trust). Both were suspected of funding of al Qaeda. Read more.

What Happens When The U.S Froze Foreign Assets ?

The U.S. seized $30 billion from Qaddafi. Do we get to spend that money?

By Brian PalmerPosted Tuesday, March 1, 2011, at 5:36 PM ET

President Obama ordered the Treasury to block $30 billion worth of Libyan assets on Friday, the "largest amount of foreign assets ever seized in an American sanctions action." What will happen to all that money?

Nothing much. While some news stories refer to the president's move as a seizure, it's more accurate to call it a freezing or blocking, since the government hasn't actually taken control of any assets. Rather, the executive order prohibits U.S. institutions from transferring money out of any account owned by Qaddafi, his family and associates, or the Libyan government. Qaddafi will maintain title to his assets, and the accounts will continue to accrue interest until the order is repealed. As for stocks or other investments that are capable of declining in value, banks have a choice. They can simply leave his holdings as they are, even if the investments turn sour. Alternatively, they can apply to the Office of Foreign Assets Control—the agency responsible for enforcing trade sanctions—for a specific license to manage or liquidate the accounts.

The Treasury is normally inclined to grant such licenses, because allowing the investments to shrivel is inconsistent with the purpose of the policy. Asset blocks aren't just meant to punish international criminals; they also protect money for successor governments. The Treasury is trying to prevent Qaddafi from absconding with Libya's wealth. Many past presidents have used asset blocks to prevent this sort of plundering. Shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Iraqi officials began stealing money from bank accounts owned by Kuwaiti nationals. The Treasury Department blocked those accounts to preserve Kuwaiti capital. It did the same thing with Bosnian accounts after the Serbian invasion.

Qaddafi can probably kiss his money goodbye. The president, the Treasury secretary, and Congress each have the authority to repeal the block (the latter by a joint resolution), but they are extremely unlikely to do so during Qaddafi's lifetime. The Libyan leader probably has no recourse in the court system, either, because the law that permits the president to freeze foreign assets doesn't provide for judicial review and the United States doesn't recognize the authority of any international court to mediate such a dispute.

Once Qaddafi is dead or out of power and the United States has recognized a successor government, the president will lift the block on assets owned by the Libyan government itself. The future of Qaddafi's personal assets is less clear. Except in wartime, the president doesn't have the authority (PDF) to seize blocked money unilaterally and give it to someone else. He might persuade the courts to do so, however, if he can prove the assets were obtained through corruption or money laundering. In that case, a judge might transfer title to the government, which could redirect it to Libya's new leadership. Read more.