Malaysia’s former PM vows to challenge expulsion from ruling political party

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks during a press conference at his party headquarters in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, Friday, May 29, 2020. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 29 May 2020
Follow

Malaysia’s former PM vows to challenge expulsion from ruling political party

  • Experts predict ‘all-out war’ between ex-PM and current Malaysian premier in wake of parliamentary seating row

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on Friday vowed to challenge his shock dismissal from the political party he co-founded in 2016.

And the ex-PM also questioned the legal position of current Malaysian premier, Muhyiddin Yassin, as the party chair.

In a statement on Thursday, the ruling United Indigenous Party of Malaysia (Bersatu) said Mahathir’s membership had been “revoked with immediate effect.”

The next day Mahathir shared a message on social media from the party’s offices saying, “I am at the Bersatu headquarters. They say they want to expel me. I am waiting at the office.”

During a press conference at the same building on Friday, Mahathir said: “I am still the chairman (of Bersatu), please remember that, because when they tried to remove me (from the party) it was not valid.”

Other Members of Parliament also facing the sack are Mahathir’s son Mukhriz Mahathir, former youth and sports minister, Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman, ex-education minister, Maszlee Malik, and Amiruddin Hamzah.

Mahathir has questioned the validity of the termination letter, sent to him by Bersatu’s executive secretary Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya, which said he had been dismissed as Bersatu chairman for breaching the party’s constitution during a parliamentary sitting on May 18. Muhammad claimed that Mahathir had sat with the opposition bloc instead of the Perikatan Nasional (PN) bloc led by Bersatu president Muhyiddin.

However, Mahathir said: “Where you sit (in the parliament) is not the cause for sacking.” He added that his actions had not violated the party’s constitution.

The cracks within Bersatu began in late February when the party was split into two camps – Mahathir and Muhyiddin – following an intense week of political mud-slinging which saw the resignation of Mahathir as PM and the appointment of Muhyiddin as the new Malaysian leader.

Mahathir slammed the May 18 parliamentary session as a sham, saying the only person allowed to speak was the Malaysian king. “We have been denied the right to speak in the parliament,” said Mahathir, adding that the seating arrangements went against the country’s democracy.

The government held the one-day parliamentary sitting instead of the usual months-long session as a precaution against the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the country has started to open up its economy again and allowed most businesses to operate.

Malaysia’s current system of governance follows that of Britain, and according to Prof. James Chin, director of the Asia Institute at Australia’s Tasmania University, Muhyiddin had no choice but to sack Mahathir.

“You cannot have one party where one faction is in the government and another faction is in the opposition,” said Chin, adding that the dismissal would spark an “all-out war” between the two politicians.

“Obviously, Muhyiddin thinks there is no chance between him and Mahathir. Now that he has sacked Mahathir, it frees Mahathir from playing nice,” he said.

Dr. Oh Ei Sun, a senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, said: “Mahathir is going on the offensive. He would not sit there and take things as they come.”

Oh told Arab News that 94-year-old Mahathir was using his charismatic aura and undisputed respect of his party members to try to win the party’s will against Muhyiddin.

“Now we are seeing a double-headed leadership contesting against each other,” he added.

He noted that if Mahathir failed to gain party support, he might appeal to the Societies of Registry (ROS), or the courts. “If all avenues are exhausted, Mahathir may even set up a new political party or take over the leadership of an existing party,” said Oh.

Director of Bower Group Asia, Adip Zalkapli, said: “He won’t let the Malaysian prime minister rest.”

Muhyiddin already has his own party’s internal politics to deal with, as well as balancing power against the PN coalition members, specifically the United Malays National Organization. He is also facing a motion of no confidence from the opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan.

 


Zuckerberg says Meta no longer designs apps to maximize screentime

Updated 51 min 35 sec ago
Follow

Zuckerberg says Meta no longer designs apps to maximize screentime

  • Meta Platforms CEO faces questioned at a landmark trial over youth social media addiction
  • It was the billionaire Facebook founder’s first time testifying in court on Instagram’s effect on the mental health of young users

LOS ANGELES: Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg pushed back in court on Wednesday against a lawyer’s suggestion that ​he had misled Congress about the design of its social media platforms, as a landmark trial over youth social media addiction continues.
Zuckerberg was questioned on his statements to Congress in 2024, at a hearing where he said the company did not give its teams the goal of maximizing time spent on its apps.
Mark Lanier, a lawyer for a woman who accuses Meta of harming her mental health when she was a child, showed jurors emails from 2014 and 2015 in which Zuckerberg laid out aims to increase time spent on the app by double-digit percentage points. Zuckerberg said that while Meta previously had goals related to ‌the amount of ‌time users spent on the app, it has since changed its ​approach.
“If ‌you ⁠are trying ​to ⁠say my testimony was not accurate, I strongly disagree with that,” Zuckerberg said.
The appearance was the billionaire Facebook founder’s first time testifying in court on Instagram’s effect on the mental health of young users.
While Zuckerberg has previously testified on the subject before Congress, the stakes are higher at the jury trial in Los Angeles, California. Meta may have to pay damages if it loses the case, and the verdict could erode Big Tech’s longstanding legal defense against claims of user harm.
The lawsuit and others like it are part of a ⁠global backlash against social media platforms over children’s mental health.
Australia has prohibited access ‌to social media platforms for users under age 16, and ‌other countries including Spain are considering similar curbs. In the US, ​Florida has prohibited companies from allowing users under age ‌14. Tech industry trade groups are challenging the law in court.
The case involves a California woman ‌who started using Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube as a child. She alleges the companies sought to profit by hooking kids on their services despite knowing social media could harm their mental health. She alleges the apps fueled her depression and suicidal thoughts and is seeking to hold the companies liable.
Meta and Google have denied the allegations, and ‌pointed to their work to add features that keep users safe. Meta has often pointed to a National Academies of Sciences finding that research does not ⁠show social media changes ⁠kids’ mental health.
The lawsuit serves as a test case for similar claims in a larger group of cases against Meta, Alphabet’s Google, Snap and TikTok. Families, school districts and states have filed thousands of lawsuits in the US accusing the companies of fueling a youth mental health crisis. Over the years, investigative reporting has unearthed internal Meta documents showing the company was aware of potential harm.
Meta researchers found that teens who report that Instagram regularly made them feel bad about their bodies saw significantly more “eating disorder adjacent content” than those who did not, Reuters reported in October.
Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, testified last week that he was unaware of a recent Meta study showing no link between parental supervision and teens’ attentiveness to their own social media use. Teens with difficult life circumstances more often said they used Instagram habitually ​or unintentionally, according to the document shown at ​trial.
Meta’s lawyer told jurors at the trial that the woman’s health records show her issues stem from a troubled childhood, and that social media was a creative outlet for her.