AlFatihah untuk ADUN Kerdau

Salam...Marilah kita sama2 membaca dan sedekahkan Al-Fatihah kepada ADUN Kerdau Allahyarham Datuk Zaharuddin Abu Kassim yang telah meninggal dunia pada jam 6 petang tadi di Kuantan. Semoga ALLAHswt mengampungkan segala dosanya dan meletakkan rohnya bersama-sama roh para solihin dan semoga keluarganya bersabar dan redha pemergiannya...Al-Fatihah

Rachel Motte on Malott..& Malott's Response...what do u think?

Anwar Ibrahim’s Pet Defender: Ambassador Mallott’s Credibility Gap

9 Feb By Rachel Motte

 

If you believe the picture John Malott paints of Malaysia, you might think that it is a country in decline rife with racist and religious tensions on the cusp of boiling over and home to an economy on the brink of failure. Of course the real picture of Malaysia is quite different and after examining the motives behind Malott’s criticisms, it becomes clear why he espouses a biased view of a country that serves as model of a peaceful, inclusive and tolerant democracy dominated by Muslims.

In a recent Wall Street Journal piece rife with factual errors, John Malott accused the Malaysian government of fomenting racial and religious tensions within their own boarders, pitting one religion against another. In reality, this is far from the truth. In fact, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has strived to lessen any racial or religious tension among his people by creating two programs 1Malaysia and the Inter-faith Relations Working Committee.

Malaysia is a true melting-pot of races and religions, home to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and more. It’s population consists of Malays, Chinese, Indians, and indigenous peoples including the Bumiputera, a mix of both races and religions that is hard to find in other predominately Muslim nations. Malaysia even officially celebrates the holidays of these many religions honoring them as state holidays, something we don’t do outside of Christianity in the United States.

As the head of Malaysia in what is internationally a time of unrest in some Muslim nations, Prime Minister Najib has sought to “preserve and enhance” the unity and diversity in his country. He has called for a “global movement of moderates,” an embracing of moderation throughout the Muslim world, to reclaim their faith from the extremists that seek to tarnish its image as a peaceful religion. Malott mentioned the 1Malaysia project, glossing over then dismissing it, but refused to acknowledge the religious harmony instilled in the message of Najib’s government.

Ignored by Malott, Malaysia has been called “one of the best examples” of Democracy in the Muslim world, by none other than a Jewish leader, General Shimon Erem (Ret.), the patriarch of the Los Angeles Israeli community. Erem is a longtime pro-Israel supporter and member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and other prominent Jewish groups.

Malaysia is also at the forefront of women’s rights in the Muslim world. Prime Minister Najib wanted to contribute to the efforts in Afghanistan and sent female Muslim doctors, something not available in much of the Muslim world, to provide Muslim women in that conservative society with a more comfortable medical experience. Speaking to an audience in New York late last year, Najib said that because Malaysia is a moderate Muslim nation it has a unique ability to lend it’s support to a variety of global initiatives, that other countries may not.

One of John Malott’s criticisms of the Malaysian economy was nearly just as inaccurate as those on the religious and racial aspects of the country. Malott argued that Malaysia has “underperformed for the past decade” and needed to grow by 8% per year during the next 10 years in order to meet their goal of becoming a fully developed nation by 2020. The true growth rate needed is only 6%, a difference that may seem minor but it is not.

Counter to Malott’s claim, Malaysia’s economy has been a burgeoning one. Its GDP has had positive growth for each of the years between 2000 and 2008, only dipping into negative territory in 2009, a year that saw the entire world’s economy in decline. Malaysia enjoyed a GDP growth rate of 8.9% at one point in the last decade. That’s hardly “underperforming.” By comparison, the best year of GDP growth in the United States over that same period never exceeded 4.9%. By that measure, Malott’s assessment of Malaysia economy is entirely unfair and inaccurate.

Now the question must be asked, why Malott chose to advance a negative and inaccurate picture of the country where he once served as Ambassador. The answer is a simple one that can be seen in his own hand. John Malott is a pet of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. A long defender of Ibrahim, Malott has taken to the press before in defense of a man who has been charged twice with sodomy, a serious crime in Malaysia, and who was convicted of corruption.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that has been connected to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Hamas. An intelligence dossier working it’s way through the press in recent weeks, found direct evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has been funding these terrorist efforts and has even propped up political figures in foreign countries where they see an opportunity to exert their control and influence the policy and actions of those governments. One report showed that the Muslim Brotherhood was supporting politicians “as far away as Malaysia.” That support and funding may be going to their friend and associate, Anwar Ibrahim.

As a founding member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front organization of the Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States, Anwar Ibrahim’s ties to the radical views and goals of the Brotherhood which includes specifically endorsing jihad as a means of achieving a worldwide Islamic regime. With the violent past of the Muslim Brotherhood and their support of radical Islamist organizations, this connection to Anwar Ibrahim, cannot and must not be ignored.

John Malott’s rampant defense of a man with direct ties to terrorist organizations, and a man whose anti-Semitic comments and conspiracy theories are too long to discuss, calls into question his motives. Why would Malott support such an individual? Why would he defend Anwar Ibrahim time and time again against rightful criticism of his actions, connections and beliefs? Rational thinking men and women are able to discern the difference between good and bad individuals, people you should support, versus those you should distance yourself from.

John Malott’s unfair and inaccurate criticism of Malaysia and Prime Minister Najib, now becomes clear. Instead of giving the country and its leader a fair assessment, acknowledging the progress it has made both culturally and economically, its example of a moderate Muslim democracy contributing to both global initiatives and aide, Malott is stuck in a tunnel view, blinded by his support of an anti-Semite with clear and undeniable ties to an organization that supports terrorism.

With this complete picture of Malaysia, and the motives of John Malott in mind, you can now dismiss what Malott says, whatever it may be, as the biased ramblings of someone who sounds like a shill for Anwar Ibrahim. Why else would he be so vehemently defending such a retched man? It can’t be that a former U.S. Ambassador is so poorly informed that he actually believes his own spin, can it?

Following is Malott's recent reply...

Ambassador John R. Malott Responds: This is why I can sue the NST, Utusan Malaysia  for Libel – and some other people, too

Washington DC

I don’t really know who Rachel Motte is, or why she suddenly has become an expert on Malaysia in the past year. But I do know that she wrote an article about me recently, saying that I am “a pet” of Anwar Ibrahim, who – according to her – has “direct connections to terrorist organizations” and a long history of being an anti-Semite.

I also know that – to her credit – when I contacted Rachel on February 12 and told her that I believed that her article was inaccurate and potentially libelous, she immediately took it down for review. It no longer is on her website, and I thank her for that.

But I also know that Utusan Malaysia has reported her article verbatim – and even went to the trouble of translating it into Malay. And thanks to Dato Din Merican, now I know that the NST has chosen to print it as well.

Motte’s Article: Why Libelous

Here are the problems with the article, and why I believe that I would be well within my rights to sue the NST, Utusan Malaysia, and others for libel. As someone who has been in public life for over 40 years, I know very well that anything I do, say, or write is open to examination. So that is why I am always very careful to have documentation for everything I say. We can disagree on the analysis, but not on the facts.

Motte’s Article: Anwar’s “Pet”? I am Nobody’s Pet

When I took a look at Rachel’s article, I had two major areas of concern. First, Rachel characterized my relationship with Anwar as being his “pet.” This is offensive to me, as I served my nation for over 30 years as an Ambassador, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Consul General under seven Presidents. It would be like me calling Dato Johan Jaffar the lapdog of UMNO. I am Nobody’s pet. Second, there were many statements that to my mind are libelous: (a) that I am defending “a man with direct ties to terrorist organizations, and a man whose anti-Semitic comments and conspiracy theories are too long to discuss;”

(b) that “rational thinking men and women are able to discern the difference between good and bad individuals, people you should support, versus those you should distance yourself from,” implying that I am not a rational thinking person; and

(c) that I am “blinded by [my] support of an anti-Semite with clear and undeniable ties to an organization that supports terrorism.”

As a former Ambassador to Malaysia, I had access to intelligence reports, and I can say categorically that Anwar does not have ties to any terrorist organizations. Furthermore, Anwar continues to be a friend of former Vice President  Al Gore, former Secretary of Defense William “Bill” Cohen, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

None of these gentlemen would continue their relationship with Anwar if he had ties to terrorists. Furthermore, Anwar would not be admitted to the US if he had such a connection (and he was here last week). Furthermore, Paul Wolfowitz (who is Jewish) would not be Anwar’s friend if Anwar were anti-Semitic.

In a libel case, the burden of proof will be on NST and the others to prove that Anwar has terrorist ties and that he has a long history of anti-Semitic comments. By publishing Rachel’s article, after she removed it from her website, the NST has asserted something that it cannot prove. It has claimed that I am defending a terrorist and an anti-Semite.

These former senior USG officials would support and defend me, based on their knowledge and access to official USG records. The only “evidence” that Rachel and the NST will have will be blog postings that have circulated over the past few years, as part of a campaign to smear Anwar and discredit his reputation and standing in the United States.

For example, the efforts of Jack Abramoff and others to smear Anwar – a multi-million campaign funded by the Malaysian Government — were well-documented in US Senate hearings conducted by Senator John McCain. We also know, according to The Washington Post newspaper, that APCO was engaged in a similar effort last year, paid for by the Malaysian Government, according to APCO’s official filings.

Rachel says that Anwar’s connections to terrorist organizations are because he was a founder of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which is based in Virginia. Like many other Islamic/Muslim groups, the IIIT was raided by the FBI after 9/11 and was investigated thoroughly. The US Government never filed any charges against IIIT. The US Government has never listed it as a terrorist organization, and the US Government has never closed it down. Yet the charges of an IIIT connection to the Muslim Brotherhood continue to circulate, without evidence, on various right-wing blogs. What do these bloggers know that the US Government does not? Does the NST take the word of unknown bloggers over the US Government? What evidence can the NST present in court in a libel case?

Anwar’s so-called long record of anti-Semitism!

Rachel’s other claim was what she called Anwar’s long record of anti-Semitism. She said that I am supporting an anti-Semite. The reality is, there is no long list of anti-Semitic comments by Anwar Ibrahim. Indeed, throughout his political career, Anwar often has been accused of being close to Jews. For example, Ian Buruma recounts two stories in his New Yorker article on Anwar. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_buruma)

The first is that when Anwar was kicked out of the Cabinet in 1998, Mahathir – who had accused George Soros and the Jews of causing the 1997 Asian financial crisis – briefed the Cabinet on Anwar’s Jewish connections, pointing out that his friends were people like  Robert (Bob) Rubin, Bill Cohen, James (Jim) Wolfensohn, Paul Wolfowitz, and so on. All American Jews. The second Buruma story is Mahathir’s famous comment that Anwar would make a “good Prime Minister of Israel.”

Rachel wrote an article, “The Reversal of Anwar Ibrahim,” claiming that Anwar had become an anti-Semite, in the New Ledger blog on April 29, 2010. But two months later Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin undercut her thesis and his own Government’s efforts to portray Anwar as anti-Semitic when he said on July 1, “We know for a fact his ties with pro-Zionist groups.”

(http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=510092)

According to The Washington Post, the Malaysian Embassy and APCO worked hard last year to publicize Anwar’s comments on “Zionist aggression,” after the May 31 Israeli action against the relief ship Mavi Marmara. But for reasons that are very understandable, the Malaysian Government did not want to call attention to Najib’s own remarks, which were even stronger, accusing the Israelis of terrorism. Najib called the Israeli actions a “blatant act of aggression and terrorism” committed by the “Zionist regime.” He also referred to “Zionist atrocities.” His remarks are on the official website of the Prime Minister’s office, at http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/home/-/journal_content/56/10136/691222?refererPlid=10139

Najib also said that, “The Israeli commandos shot the activists point blank and even from the back, and this is an act of a coward which cannot be forgiven. These blatant acts occurred because the world gangsters, Israel, feel they are protected by a world power.”  The latter reference, of course, is to the United States. (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_536698.html)

Anwar’s comments last year caused a lot of problems, but to say that he has a long history of anti-Semitism, and that I therefore am linked to an anti-Semite, is wrong.  I know that the NST has been running op-eds attacking me everyday. But they need to be careful about crossing the line into libel.–John R. Malott