Mahathir to hand over Malaysia PM’s post in 2 years

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. (AFP)
Updated 03 September 2018
Follow

Mahathir to hand over Malaysia PM’s post in 2 years

  • This will allow the handover of the prime minister’s post from incumbent PM Dr. Mahathir Muhammad to former political prisoner Anwar Ibrahim
  • This is unique in Malaysian coalition politics because Mahathir is from a different political party than Anwar Ibrahim, analysts say

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhamad said that he will honor the understanding among Pakatan Harapan (PH) partners that he will hold the role as an interim prime minister for two years before stepping down.

This will allow the handover of the prime minister’s post to former political prisoner Anwar Ibrahim.

Malaysia’s Bernama news portal reported that the 93-year-old leader told an audience of Malaysians in Brunei that he will honor the PH secession agreement following concern about a repeat of history on the choice of successor.

“I am confident that he (Anwar Ibrahim) is now more mature and much experienced,” Mahathir said. Analyst Prof. James Chin is not surprised by Mahathir’s remark. He told Arab News that most people around the world expect Ibrahim to take over the reins. 

“If it goes ahead, it will be good as it shows you can have peaceful transition,” added Prof. James.

Malaysia demonstrated a peaceful transition during the 14th general elections in May where the new PH government was formed without bloodshed or violent riots. 

Dr. Greg Lopez, political analyst at Australia’s Murdoch University, said that this is unique in Malaysian coalition politics because Mahathir is from a different political party than Anwar Ibrahim. 

“In a region filled with chaotic and violent politics such as in Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia, Malaysia would demonstrate a very peaceful transition,” he said.

The PH coalition consists of the Malaysian United Indigenous Party (Bersatu), Democratic Action Party (DAP), National Trust Party (Amanah) and People’s Justice Party (PKR). Mahathir is the president of Bersatu while Anwar is the newly elected PKR president.

Despite being called a chameleon politician by many, Mahathir denied accusations that he is an “Ultra Malay,” saying that it was no different from other labels hurled against him describing his authoritarian leadership.

“Mahathir’s has set Malaysia on the path to democratization and despite all suspicion from international media, he sticks to it.”

In a region stirred by the resurgence or the continuity of authoritarian practices, the once called dictator is now setting an unexpected example,” said Dr. Sophie Lemiere, a fellow at NUS- Stanford University.

“For me the country comes first, so that there no wide gap between the races. Even if a country is not multiracial, if there is wide disparities among the people, it will invite disaster,” he said, adding that his and PH’s mission is to prevent inequality gap and address racial issues. 

Mahathir said that after stepping down, he hopes “to see Malaysia as a pride of all people as in the past and return Malaysia to its glory when the country was called an Asian Tiger and wanted the government to be more democratic and not kleptocratic.”

He also wished to see the upholding of the rule of law to protect the people and Malaysia as a developed nation as envisaged under Vision 2020, though the target date may need to extend further. Vision 2020 was introduced in 1991 by Mahathir Muhamad during his first premiership. 

However, Anwar may have some unresolved baggage regarding his alleged sodomy charges and his Islamic credentials. 

Prof James said that there is a section of the Malaysian public who feels Anwar is not eligible due to the sodomy allegations. “If Anwar does become prime minister, it’s a remarkable comeback considering he was imprisoned just a year ago,” he said.

“If not for Najib Razak and his wife’s personal failures (1MDB corruption allegations), I do not see much difference between Najib Razak, Mahathir Muhamad and Anwar Ibrahim. All subscribe to the same model of politics — Malay and Islamic supremacy and patronage politics,” said Dr. Lopez. 


Trump officials say Israel’s plans helped lead the US into Iran war

Updated 4 sec ago
Follow

Trump officials say Israel’s plans helped lead the US into Iran war

WASHINGTON: The Trump administration and its allies in Congress presented a shifting new justification Monday for the US attack on Iran, with House Speaker Mike Johnson suggesting that the White House believed Israel was determined to act on its own, leaving the president with a “very difficult decision.”
The Republican was speaking late Monday after a classified briefing at the Capitol, the first for congressional leaders since the start of the war, a joint US-Israel military campaign that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and has quickly spiraled into a widening Middle East conflict. Hundreds have died, including at least six US military service personnel.
Johnson said the attack on Iran was a “defensive operation” because Israel was ready to act against Iran, “with or without American support.” He said President Donald Trump and his team determined that Iran would immediately retaliate against US personnel and assets.
“The commander in chief has said this is going to be an operation that is short in duration,” Johnson said. “We certainly hope that’s true.”
The remarkable shift in the Trump administration’s stated rationale comes as the hostilities deepen and widen across the region. The president himself estimated the war could drag on for weeks. The administration plans to seek supplemental funds from Congress to support the military effort, lawmakers said, in stark contrast to the president’s America First campaign not to entangle the US in actions abroad.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the “hardest hits are yet to come” as the US is determined to continue attacking Iran for as long as it takes with an “even more punishing” next phase in the war.
Rubio described what was essentially a potentially ripple effect that he said posed an “imminent threat” to the US
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he said. “And we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
Rubio said that while the US would like to see the Iranian people rise up and be rid of the regime, “that’s not the objective,” he said. “The objective of this mission is to make sure they don’t have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region.”
Trump’s shifting rationale sparks detractors
Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration officials delivered the classified briefing as Congress weighs a war powers resolution that would restrain Trump’s ability to keep waging war without approval from the House and Senate.
Trump himself, speaking at the White House, laid out four objectives for the war, saying US forces are out to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, wipe out its naval capacity, stop the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensure “that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
“This was our last, best chance to strike — what we’re doing right now — and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime,” Trump said.
Trump met repeatedly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they sought to curb Iran’s nuclear program, including last month at the White House.
Hegseth earlier Monday vowed this is not an “endless war,” even as he warned more US casualties are likely in the weeks ahead.
But Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said: “There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel.”
Warner said he has now heard four or five stated reasons for the attack. He demanded that Trump “come before Congress, and for that matter, the American people,” to make his case for war — and the exit plan.
Several Democrats delivered blistering speeches against the war. “Are we now such an enfeebled nation that Israel decides when we go to war?” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, voice rising.
War powers as a check on presidential power
The moment is a defining one for Congress, which alone has the authority under the US Constitution to declare war, and for the Republican president, who has consistently seized power during his second term with his own executive reach.
Trump took the nation to war at a particularly vulnerable time, as the Department of Homeland Security is operating without routine funds because of a standoff with Democrats over their demands to restrain his immigration enforcement operations. The potential wartime costs in terms of lives lost and dollars spent are dividing the parties, and potentially Americans themselves.
Unlike the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, which included long debates in Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or the more recent US military strikes on Venezuela that proved to be limited, the joint US-Israel military attack on Iran, called Operation Epic Fury, is well underway, with no foreseeable end in sight.
“It’s worrisome,” Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told The Associated Press.
Smith said of Trump: “He is not trying to making his case to the Congress or the American people. He unilaterally decided to do this.”
In fact, Congress has declared war just five times in the nation’s history, most recently in 1941, to enter World War II a day after the Pearl Harbor attack. Over time, presidents of both major political parties have accumulated vast authority to engage in what are often more limited US military strikes.
Johnson said tying Trump’s hands right now would be “frightening” as he works to defeat the war powers resolution.
Even if Congress is able to pass the measure this week, the House and the Senate would be unlikely to tally the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.
Next steps for Iranian people uncertain
As the Trump administration encourages the Iranian people to rise up and choose new leaders, there did not appear to be widespread US support for any effort at democracy- or nation-building.
“We would love to see this regime be replaced,” Rubio said. “If there’s something we can do to help them down the road, we’d obviously be open to it. But that’s not the objective.”
A top Trump ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he never bought into the you-break-it-you-own-it concept in wartime.
“If there’s a threat to America, deal with it,” he said over the weekend. “That doesn’t mean you own everything that follows.”