It does not matter where the sources of these fundings come from. The bottom line is who benefits from such incoming funds.And there is always the two sides of a coin: The head or the tail. It is the fund raisers who will deliver to whom they so desire. To them monetary value is not their paramount concern but their political value does. This is the bottom line of it all. There is no such things as raising funds for charity. Not for those who harbour hidden political agenda. As columnist Shamsul Akmar in his latest entry in New Sunday Times says:
“ At the other end, Western support for demagogues and dictators filled pages after pages of history books. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is probably a very good example of Washington’s hypocrisy in promoting democracy that, until the very end, he was propped up militarily and financially by US taxpayers.” (New Sunday Times “The price of political funding” by Shamsul Akmar, New sunday times, 24 july 2011).
If such funds do exist in Malaysia as some allegedly suggest, the country then will be confronted with the danger of becoming a prey to the fund raisers from abroad. And one such recipient of the overseas fund raiser has admitted publicly to fund his/her recent activity Whether such activity that is. Whether the activity has brought positive or negtive result is not the point, but its consequence does, even though the organizer and some political analysts say it would benefit the country in the long run while others say otherwise.It again will depend on which side of the divide you are. To explain what transpires if such political funds do exist, I will reproduce Shamsul Akmar’s full version of his column for the interest of the general public.
Malaysia, too, is not bereft of such attention from Washington and its Western allies. In contemporary history, their interests in dictating the nation’s leadership and direction became apparent during the 1997/98 financial and political crises. On the pretext of supporting a popular uprising, then US vice-president Al Gore ignored all diplomatic protocols and explicitly expressed Washington’s backing for the Reformasi movement at a dinner hosted by the Malaysian government.
Before that, all the media and political tools of Washington were in full swing to demonise Malaysia when the government refused to accept loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF); this, in effect, gave Malaysia the independence of not taking IMF’s prescription in dealing with the currency crisis. The unprecedented move by a developing nation had caused some dent to the, otherwise, all powerful IMF, a Washington tool wielded freely to subjugate impoverished nations to bend to its will. Such was the impact of Malaysia’s decision to stand up to the IMF that its domination on developing nations has been punctured and recently, Egypt, too, post-Mubarak, spurned IMF’s loan offer on supposedly “very friendly” and “non-burdening” terms.
Post-1999, Washington became less visible, probably going back to the drawing board, though some of its running dogs, who failed miserably in the 1998 attempt in the likes of John R. Malott, continued to bark the same agenda whenever the opportunity arose. The change of guards in the Malaysian leadership since 2003 has also seen the government seeking to foster a closer relationship with Washington, sometimes perceived to be too subservient in its eagerness. The question is, has Washington changed its stand on the current leadership, meaning it will not attempt to interfere in its domestic affairs? Superficially, it has not explicitly “frowned” on the current government. But that does not mean that Washington is not keen to see a “regime change” here.
However, it would be presumptuous to state it as such until the hands are seen. That, however, does not mean that external funds and supports are not being extended to influence, if not dictate, the political affairs of the nation. How does one decide if the funding to Malaysian non-governmental organisations from US-based organisations is benevolent or malevolent? That is probably the question that should be explored in the case of Bersih 2.0, whose leader, Datuk S. Ambiga, was reported by a news portal as admitting that Bersih received funds from two US-based organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — but denied that the monies were for the rally but for other projects. But, what other projects does Bersih have that are of any significance other than organising a rally, the bigger the better?
The link between the NDI and OSI with Bersih could send jitters to those who had been closely observing these organisations, leading one to the National Endowment for Democracy that is identified as a neo-con outfit. For the uninitiated, the neo-cons are loosely identified as advocates of the use of American economic and military power to suppress belligerent nations (to be read as countries that refused to bend to Washington’s policies) and to export American-style liberal democracy. The neo-cons have been attributed to be the architects of the invasion of Iraq and, at the same time, are pro-Zionists and avowed to defend the interests of Tel Aviv. For some, such concern may be brushed aside as coming from conspiracy theorists or those suffering from Jewish paranoia. For others, does it really matter if there were foreign hands involved? What is important is that the political enemy must be brought down to its knees.
That brings to mind an edict from an influential Pas leader some time ago that it was all right even to work with the iblis (Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub, take your pick) in the fight against Barisan Nasional. The doors should be opened, widely.”
- Bersih 2.0 From Nile Bowie’s Point of View (afyassin.wordpress.com)
- Report of Globalist Sedition Taking to Malaysian Streets (afyassin.wordpress.com)
- Eliminate that “Cold War” Mindset, urges AB Shamsul (dinmerican.wordpress.com)
- Defterios, Bersih 2.0, Din Merican and the CNN Interview With Malaysian PM Najib (afyassin.wordpress.com)
- A Government of National Reconciliation For Malaysia? (afyassin.wordpress.com)
- Malaysia’s Political Awakening: A Call for USLeadership (dinmerican.wordpress.com)
- America’s Cold Civil War (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- BBC reports on BERSIH2.0 (dinmerican.wordpress.com)
- Bersih 2.0: Conflicting Analysis of Pro and Contra & I Beg to Differ (afyassin.wordpress.com)
- The Malaysian Insider Perspective on BERSIH2.0 (dinmerican.wordpress.com)