— Ali Kadir
The Malaysian Insider
May 08, 2012
MAY 8 — No matter who finally rules Putrajaya, one principle must remain sacred: that foreigners should not interfere with the internal affairs of this country.
This rule would apply to the United States, Australia, Singapore, China and even Saudi Arabia.
It is a most natural part of international relations that countries want to have leverage over each other, mostly through trade, financial aid, access to markets, visas, etc. Some try and interfere in more subtle ways like cutting down scholarships and quotas.
According to Jamil Khir (the same chap who used zakat money for his legal expenses), a Saudi Arabian diplomat in KL said that his government was considering cutting haj visas because of disturbance caused by Bersih 3.0. That is the prerogative of the kingdom and it would be perfectly understandable because Saudi Arabia opposes any expression of freedom of assembly or for that matter any other democratic right.
These are the people who shudder at the thought of the Arab Spring. So we should expect the Saudi government to react in this threatening manner.
But nevertheless it is disappointing. Did we ban Saudi citizens from entering Malaysia on the basis that some of their citizens played a major role in 9/11?
In any case, instead of standing up to any bullying by Riyadh, we can expect the government and its media to use the threat of haj restrictions to whip up anti-Bersih 3.0 sentiment. After all, the government capitulated a few months ago and allowed the Saudis to boss us around in the small matter involving the blogger on the run to New Zealand.
I repeat once again: anyone who occupies Putrajaya can never be a lackey for a foreign power.
#1 by limkamput on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 12:02 am
Precisely and exactly. Funny, if Islam is universal and Haj is one of the requirements, why then Mecca is solely controlled by one country.
#2 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 3:01 am
/// No matter who finally rules Putrajaya, one principle must remain sacred: that foreigners should not interfere with the internal affairs of this country./// – Ali Kadir
People cite “principle” selectively depending on whether in doing so, their Cause is served or impeded. For eg this principle of no foreign interference is also used as a basis for our Foreign Minister Minister Anifah Aman to reject an offer by United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank William La Rue, to investigate the Bersih 3.0 fracas/authorities’ action.
#3 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 5:03 am
Somewhere skrus r loose n we r ruled by farked up despotic UmnoB/BN kaki
#4 by lkt-56 on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 8:14 am
This is not an issue concerning foreign interference. The question one should ask is why limit the numbers of pilgrims from Malaysia? Have the Saudi authorities positively that Malaysia pilgrims are the people who would take part in street demonstrations? Whatever causes this ruling by the Saudi authorities we know for sure that our authority would now be able to say: see what you have done?
#5 by lkt-56 on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 8:17 am
Correction: … Has the Saudi authorities positively identified that Malaysia pilgrims are people who would take part in street demonstrations?
#6 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 9:44 am
/// People cite “principle” selectively depending on whether in doing so, their Cause is served or impeded. ///
“Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels,” said Dr. [Samuel] Johnson.
I think it is appropriate to rephrase that to “Principle, dato, is the first resort of scoundrels.”
Once at a social gathering, Gladstone said to Disraeli: “I predict, Sir, that you will die either by hanging or of some vile disease”.
Disraeli replied, “That all depends, sir, upon whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.”
#7 by Cinapek on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 10:50 am
The Saudi Arabian diplomat who made this remark must have had his brains fried in the desert sun. As for Jamil Khir, if he is thinking of capitalising on this remark, then he is worse because he is not even using his brain.
As one commentator correctly pointed out, did we ban Saudi travellers when it has been revealed that most of the 911 bombers were Saudis? Or did we limit Saudi travellers since Osama bin Laden had his roots in Saudi Arabia?
And what about all those people from Egypt, Tunisia and Libya whose protest led to the collapse of their repressive regimes? Did Saudi limit their visas too? If not why the double standards? What about Indonesia? There are also frequent protest there against the Govt for a whole host of reasons. Why is Saudi not limiting their visas?
Jamil should have told the diplomat off as it is an insult to our sovereignty to be treated as a second class nation. Why? Is it because Malaysia tends to fawn on them and so they treat us with contempt and dictates to us? Is it because we fall over backwards in proposing to create a mini Saudi in Jalan Bukit Bintang to curry favour with them?
If the US or any Western country were to make a similar remark, the likes of UMNO Youth and Perkasa will be foaming at their mouths and hold demonstration in front of the US Embassy comdemning them of “interference”. Shouldn’t they apply the same standards and do the same now against Saudi Arabia instead of crawling on all fours begging for visas? And who is Saudi Arabia to deny the genuine pilgrims the right to visit Islam’s holiest shrines?
#8 by lkt-56 on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 - 3:34 pm
Saudi Arabia imposing quotas on Malaysians wishing to perform the Haj is not a new issue. Cinapek, maybe we got to read between the lines.