Seri Dato Anwar Ibrahim

“Social Justice and Political Change: The Malaysian Experience”

Llewellyn Hall, The Australian National University

15 November 2010

Anwar began with a typical Malay greeting and thanks to Professor Kent Anderson’s
(Asian Studies, ANU) introduction. He also gave thanks to the support of several
ANU scholars (Virginia Hooker, Harold Crouch and others) who, during his
incarceration, continued to send him books and articles. In stating he is a semi-
academic, he asked that he be given no difficult questions as he has gone through
quite enough with beatings and being stripped naked.

He began with offering a definition of democracy that referenced a free market,

competition vs equality, and said that perhaps the role of governments (as the
invisible hand) had become too pervasive. Anwar asked is there an objective standard
of social justice? He offered several definitions of the concept, quoting from various
philosophical and religious scholars. He stated that there is a linkage between the
economic situation of a country, and that wealth distribution must also be balanced
with poverty reduction. He lamented the shortfalls of the New Economic Plan to
provide “equality”, particularly with housing and healthcare. He said that the
cronyism attached to wealth increases among particular parts of Malaysian society
harked back to the Mahathir era (reminiscent of the grandiosity of KLCC etc), and
this “rent-seeking culture” can only be solved by putting an end to greed.

Anwar pointed to key areas of need, the first of which was governance, and called for
the eradication of poverty and a reduction in corruption. He stated that the
fundamental basis for the NEP was no longer applicable; that it only served to foster a
“sectarian demagogy”. He stated, “peace in our time must be more important than
material progress”. In keeping with his persona as a politician, he stated that the
supremacy of the people was more important the Malay racial supremacy. He said
that the government had failed to recognize the will of the people, particularly given
the 51% of the popular vote that his party had attracted. Moreover, he talked about the
“inclusiveness” of Islam as a strength, and he cited Indonesia as an example of a

1
vibrant democracy that is not inconsistent with the idea of Islam. How did it turn itself
around?

Anwar mentioned his time to read during solitary confinement and quoted “shut the
murderer behind the door, but do not bear the knife themselves” (check quote). He
made mention of the need for a free media, as he is disallowed to speak at all
Malaysian universities (jokingly citing the higher standards of Malaysian universities
relative to Australian!). In closing, he responded to accusations of being a kind of
media hog in Australia, and explained that, as leader of the Opposition, he had not air
time in Malaysia and so he had to make use of what he had in Australia.
Kent Anderson closed the speech in saying that at times it was witty and humorous,
but certainly insightful, and that the university looked forward to welcoming him back
in future.

Question time:

1. Discrimination: Anwar was asked his opinion on homosexuality in light of his

orientation as a Muslim. He answered that he was a “man of faith”, a “family
man”, and that he supported peoples’ personal choice. However, he was firm
in stating that homosexuality was not to be encouraged but it was a personal
affair and for society to decide its acceptability.

2. Climate change: Anwar was asked whether authoritarian regimes allowed

greater policy effects with respect to climate change. He responded that
governments that lacked legitimacy did not reflect the will of the people and
would not necessarily guarantee that environmental degradation would be
halted. There is a need for the people to think for themselves and demand
change where necessary.

3. Islamic finance: Anwar stated that Islamic finance did not necessary guarantee
greater social justice and is not necessarily a viable alternative.

4. Internal Security Act: Anwar was asked whether the ISA was an obstacle to
democracy. He stated that the circumstances that gave rise to the ISA were no

2
 longer applicable, and that it has been used to “protect the crime”, that is, in
cases of brutality towards those apprehended. There was no need for such a
“draconian law” and it merely served to create a culture of fear. He said that
the solution was to use other aspects of the current legal system, and that his
party, if in office, would remove the ISA yet maintain a tough stance on
criminality. In referencing the changes in Indonesia, he once asked then-
President Habibie why he dismantled similar laws in his country. The response
Habibie gave was merely that they were unconscionable, and that being a man
of God and the people, he got rid of them.

5. Future role: He was asked whether he saw himself as either a Martin Luther
King figure, who set the stage, or an Barack Obama figure who was taking the
moment.

6. Multiculturalism: He praised Malaysia’s multiculturalism and said that the

country must be inclusive of all racial groups, and reflect the idea of One
Malaysia.

7. Islamic law