Sidek Baba: Anwar is a problematic man

By Firdaus AzilThursday, April 11, 2013

Prof Datuk Dr Sidek Baba stressed that he is an academician and he has no political reason to reveal who Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is. (Graphic by Dayang Norazhar/The Mole)

KUALA LUMPUR: After 30 years of being a staunch supporter and a think-tank for Parti Keadilan Rakyat's de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Prof Datuk Dr Sidek Baba decided that he should abandon Anwar's struggle. Describing Anwar as a man who has serious problems with morals and integrity, Sidek said people, particularly leaders from Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim) and Pas, should evaluate whether Anwar is indeed a fighter for Islam as he has been portraying himself. Speaking with a group of reporters, Sidek also shared some details of his private session with former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, where they spoke on a few sensitive issues about Anwar. During the interview, he shared things he had discussed in the meeting, why he left Anwar, and why Anwar should not be trusted. Following are excerpts of the interview: Q: Earlier you said that you were meeting Tun just to be "enlightened" and to get rid of uncertainties. Could you share with us what kind of uncertainties? A: Obviously people were asking, why so late (in revealing this issue)? Why do you want to make your appearance now? Was it because we're getting nearer to the General Election? Obviously not. I asked Tun when it was that he realised this (Anwar's problem). He told me that he knew about this long ago, but he did not simply trust the information he had been given. Tun told me that he wouldnt just simply accept it without proper investigation because it was probably just a plan to overthrow Anwar. Tun told me that he was

serious about stepping down (as the Prime Minister) and making Anwar his successor. But Tun told me that after everything was clear, he decided that Anwar could not be the Prime Minister because of this morality and credibility issue. Tun was worried that Anwar as a Prime Minister might be an easy target for people inside or outside the country should they know his dark secrets. I asked the statesman about one of the chapters in his famous book 'A Doctor In The House'. There was a chapter where Tun revealed his secret meeting with four women who had had relationships with Anwar. Tun told those women that they should tell the truth and not be afraid. If we read that book we will know what it was all about. My question is, the statement from the chapter was so damaging, but why didn't Anwar take legal action against Tun or even dare to say anything about it? I am a man with integrity. Even if someone accuses me of stealing a chicken, I will definitely file a suit against that person. A leader should have integrity. That's why Tun said he wouldn't let a leader with integrity problems be his successor. When we talked about the economic crisis we had (1997-98), Tun told me that Anwar had tried to bring in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but Tun did not let it happen. You see, Tun has very good observations because he is a rational man. He determines something based on facts, not emotion. Some might think a few decisions he made were not popular. For example, he told me about the Baling Incident. Tun said it was impossible that people in the area were suffering due to starvation. In Malaysia, it has always been our culture to help people in need. But due to that incident, students held demonstrations. Tun said he was sad because most of the students were Malays. They preferred to join demonstrations and abandoned their studies. I knew this because (Datuk) Ibrahim Ali (Member of Parliament for Pasir Mas) was Anwar's good friend, Tun's friend and even my friend. I asked Ibrahim about this (the student demonstrations) and he said he had been one of the hardcore demonstrators. The point is, Tun's views remained unchallenged. I've asked people to debate and challenge his views and decisions. Take the Baling crisis, for example. It has to be debated so we can figure out where the proof is. But people are quick to conclude that it was just a conspiracy. They even said I was part of a conspiracy, they accused me of being bought. But where is the proof?

Taking the second sodomy case, for example, Anwar said the judge was tyrannical, that the case was done in a kangaroo court. But why he was freed? Why is there no more talk about it all being just a conspiracy? I like to point out that we should never insult someone's intellect. My friends have been open on this because they are academicians. Academia teaches us how to judge the pros and cons to find a conclusion. Like I said earlier, I'm an academician and I've been doing all these investigations by getting accurate facts. And as a Muslim, I perform Istikharah. Q: When you decided to abandon Anwar and revealed those reasons why you left him, what did your friends in Abim have to say about this, and what about your students? A: Obviously I have received mixed reactions. But I have the patience to deal with conflicts of views. If he thinks I was wrong, or his opinion is against mine, he can come and see me. (Probably) they did not know that Anwar has been painting his image positively until these people just can't accept the fact the he is not. Even Tun at first had positive thoughts about Anwar. For me to reveal my findings was not easy. If people want to ask me about the truth, then I'll be more than glad to welcome the person. But somehow some people decided to attack me in social media. They were quick in making the perception that I was wrong without even hearing my opinions first. Is that the current trend of our society? Bloggers for example should have the initiative to ask. There might be something that I just can't reveal but I've done enough for people to know. Be fair to me. Speaking of students' perceptions. A few higher education institutes like Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) invited me earlier and even Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara) has invited me to give talks all over the country. I will try to meet as many people as possible to touch on this issue. One thing that people should know is that I don't have any intention to humiliate Anwar, but since I'm a Muslim, I have been taught that we have to do everything we can to prevent misconduct. Some people said I have been unfair to Anwar since he appointed my as deputy rector during his tenure as Deputy Prime Minister. But the issue is the truth against lies. I can't just zip my mouth if I know that something is wrong. Because I am answerable to Allah. For the record, never once did I accuse him of being involved in sodomy or free sex. All I said is, I've done my research, I've figured out that he is a man with no credibility. So I can't force myself to be with him. It is my right do so and please be fair to me.

Q: We all know that Anwar loves to debate with someone who is against him. What will your decision be if he asks you to debate with him? A: Obviously Anwar has the ability to debate. He has been a debater one since his time as a student leader. That was his specialty. But if you ask me, debate for what? Truth or just for the sake of twisting words? Let's talk about (Prime Minister Datuk Seri) Najib (Tun Razak) for example. He likes to give talks, but his talks have content. When it comes to Anwar, all he did was give rhetorical speeches, but zero on implementation. I also used to debate, but to debate with someone like Anwar, it just won't happen. Q: There was a controversy in Johor recently when Anwar's choice of candidate, one of the Abim leaders, was not well-received by PKR grassroots members. But it was said that there is a plan to parachute more Abim leaders as PKR candidates for the upcoming GE. Any comment? A: I'm trying to be as non-partisan as possible, but based on my observations, I would agree that there will be more Abim leaders in the political arena. This somehow is different from during Anwar's tenure as the deputy Prime Minister. During that time Abim was a non-partisan non-governmental organisation (NGO). Abim is a missionary body that educates people about Islam. If someday Abim starts to have political inclinations, what will happen to it in the longer term? I am an Abim member and I always have that pride to be one. Because in Abim I had the chance to be what I am today. Some people may agree to disagree, its up to them. We can have different opinions but they must be underpinned by ethics. I am different because I do research. I conclude based on facts. When we talk about Anwar, there will be strong protests by his hardcore supporters. If I can take the effort to find these 28 people, why couldn't they do the same? Yes, some information couldn't be accepted, but we have the intellectual capcity needed to judge. Like I said, I was educated by Abim to not make assumptions, but to investigate to find the truth. Because that was what Abim was all about. I still remember the days whe (Datuk Dr) Siddiq Fadzil was the president of Abim and I was the secretary-general. We looked at things Anwar did during his days in the government, and if we found out that he did something that wass unacceptable, we criticised him in a proper way. When we're talking about Umno, is it true that Umno rejects Islam? Recently I was involved in a meeting about establishing a University of al-Quran in Malaysia. Is that rejecting Islam? The university will give the chance for students to expand their education in human sciences, humanity, technology, pharmacy...is that not good for Islam? We can see Islamic-based banking

institutions, we have Takaful, we have Islamic bonds. Should this be considered rejecting Islam? Are the teachings of Islam limited only to ritual? Let's look a simpler thing. We have highways, and even complemented with rest and recreation (R&R) areas. And not to be forgotten, places where Muslims can perform their prayers. Is that non-Islamic? Is giving assistance to the poor people against Islam's principles? Why can't we look at a broader perspective? Note: The Mole will be publishing a series of articles and interviews with Dr Sidek Baba. This is the first.

Sidek Baba: Anwar, a man with tarnished reputation and credibility

By Firdaus AzilFriday, April 12, 2013

Prof Dr Sidek Baba tells why it is wrong to bring regime change and why Malaysians should take Arab Spring as a good example to not do so (Photo by Hussein Shaharuddin/The Mole)

KUALA LUMPUR: Being a former close associate of Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, academic Prof Datuk Dr Sidek Baba had once

condemned the decision of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to sack his number two. Based on the column Cuit by Utusan Malaysias Datuk Zaini Hassan, Sidek had described Dr Mahathirs decision as tyrannical and accusations that Anwar is involved in sodomy and is a homosexual were wild and irresponsible. However, things have changed after the academic did some research and concluded that Anwar is a man with tarnished reputation and credibility. In the second part of the interview with Sidek, he shared with a group of media why he thinks Anwar was wrong in initiating a regime change in this country: Q: Academically speaking, what do you think about Barisan Nasional (BN)s performance of ruling the country for over 55 years? A: Every ruling government has its own strength and weaknesses. But the current government has a reasonable capability. Based on BNs track records, the economic growth is very good, the rate of gross domestic product (GDP) is impressive, and inflation rate is under control. There are so many benefits for the future generation. Take PTPTN (National Higher Education Fund Corporation) for example, students nowadays are enjoying loans with appropriate charges; it is like an investment for the future. If we want everything to be free, we will be developing the subsidy mentality among the people. That is not good. How are we going to create the spirit of competitiveness and innovativeness among our society? We should never let ourselves be pampered (with these assistance). Let us compare our government with a few Arab countries such as Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It is easy to initiate regime change, but to manage it is not easy. In Egypt, even though the Muslim movement called Ikhwanul Muslimin initiated it, it just will not be that easy for them to redevelop and spur the economic condition. They cant even produce competent labor force for education sector. One should ask why Egypt is willing to borrow billions from (IMF) International Monetary Fund (to strengthen the countrys cash reserve)? Isn't that against the principle of Ikhwanul Muslim in the first place? But that is the reality. We can always form idealism on how we want the government to be, but in the end you just have to see the reality. Balancing the concept between ideas and realities will bring us to moderate and strategise implementations. To understand the real problems of the society in Malaysia, its not only about merit, but we also need to understand the socio-economy. Malays have been colonised for almost 450 years, but within the past 55 years, we have managed to be one of the influential races.

My question will be to our younger generation overseas. Do they even care to be thankful to the government? Let's say I am a father, I saved and allocated the money for their education. In the end, dont they need to be thankful to me for providing the opportunity for them? To Allah we be grateful, to human we be thankful. If theres no longer the tendency to be thankful, what will happen to the future of our civilisation? Q: As one of Abims stalwarts, what is your advise to those in Abim who still believe in Anwar? A: After a few sessions with Abim leaders, Im sensing that they are starting to accept my explanations. I prefer open approaches because that is my way. (In the meeting sessions) I brought along those who had close ties with Anwar so that these people could explain the reason to Abim leaders on why they abandoned him (Anwar). And I told my friends to not record the session or even write it in blogs because it was not my intention to humiliate anyone. I am very careful about ethics. So these people started to ask questions for almost two or three hours until they were fully satisfied. At that point, I did not make any conclusion. I just let them think wisely. You must understand that these people are not ordinary people, they are thinkers, and they know how to judge rationally. I will conduct more sessions with groups from Abim, students from universities, local and overseas so that they too will have the opportunity to know who Anwar Ibrahim really is. Q: Among the 28 people that you have met, did it include any of Anwar's close family members or relatives? A: (The story) from his wife (Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail), I got the details from people like Mohammad Ezam Md Noor (Anwar's former political secretary), Hamid Rashid who has been Anwar's friend for almost 50 years. But I just can't get into detail about it because I'm afraid it will become slanderous. But if anyone wants to know the detail, and don't have the intention to publish it anywhere, come and see me privately. Q: So will you meet more people in the future? A: Based on responses via daily papers and media, I think most of them were being positive. I hope more people are willing enough to meet me so that I can share my findings about Anwar.

But dont ever conclude that I was bought. I will never be bought because Im not a politician, but I am an academician and I will always hold on to my integrity. This is the second part of The Mole's article/interview with Dr Sidek Baba. The third and final instalment will be published soon.

Sidek Baba: "I cannot continue to believe Anwar"

By Firdaus AzilSaturday, April 13, 2013

Sidek concluded that Anwar is a man of no integrity and it is unfair for him to continue to believe Anwar (Photo by Hussein Shaharuddin/The Mole)

KUALA LUMPUR: In this final part of the interview with Prof Dr Sidek Baba, the academic shared his views on Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Pas and the DAP as he concluded that the components would never succeed in forming a government due to ideological polarity. He said too often, the components in Pakatan give contradicting statements to the extend of confusing the people especially the question on their unity. In his breakdown of the components, Sidek explained his understanding about the three major political parties in Pakatan: Sidek: If we read books about Burhanuddin Helmi, Zulkifli Mohamad, Abu Bakar Bakir, we would know that Pas' ideology is to prioritise the religion, race and the country. The idea is also quite similar with Umnos. Based on this, there is not supposed to be a conflict between Pas and Umno, but people could see the problem of racial divide, different camps and groups. Malay

society is rich with culture. Even the word Tanah Melayu itself has described it completely. (People should remember) how Malays were open on accepting other races during the era of pre-independence. We should compare what the government is doing with what the opposition is doing. I prefer to compare based on principles. For instance, what are DAPs principles. DAP fights for equality; the Malaysian Malaysia concept is based on democratic socialism. From my understanding, it is part of socialism. There was once when (Dr) Syed Husin Ali (former PKR deputy president) had intended to contest in Kota Bharu, but (Datuk) Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat (Pas spiritual leader and Kelantan mentri besar) rejected him because Syed Ali is a socialist. When DAP has that kind of principle, how can it accept the establishment of Islamic state? Hudud for example, how can Pas be tolerant with this (DAPs stand)? Why Pas, in the end, put aside the struggle on Islamic state, put aside Hudud, but instead changed it into welfare state. That differs with Pas original objective. Most of the people still remember Karpal Singh's (DAP national chairman) statement when Pas wanted to implement the concept of Islamic state. Karpal said: Over my dead body first. For PKR, it is a multiracial party, but still Malays are the majority. Where is it heading? If we study Anwars struggle, obviously we can see that he is fighting for liberalism, and pluralism of religion. Take the Allah issue for example, a few state Fatwa councils and religious departments have stated that the word shall not be used in the Malay version of the Bible. But Anwar still insisted that they should allow it the usage of the word in the Malay translated version. This is againsts Pas Ulamak council and Syura council's stand. Even (Datuk) Haron Din (Ulamak council head) has said that we cannot use the word "Allah" in the Malay Bible and this is his stand until he dies. For Islam, we have pedoman (direction). Why Al Quran has stated that your religion is yours, my religion is mine? Actually, there are not so much differences between the religions. The religion of Confucius teaches interaction such as respecting our parents, respecting the elders, respecting justice, and loving our parents. These values are also highlighted in Islam, Buddhism and also other religions. These values are not wrong as long as it doesnt touch our faith. If not, how are we going to interact or to deal with our life daily? How are we going to interact with families, social life, doing business? Thats why Islam does not reject these elements. Islam has clearly said you with your ways, and we will be with ours.

Our meeting point is these interactive values, as long as it is not against the syariah. Q: Have you ever rebuked Tun? A: As far as I remember, and I have said this to Tun, I have never insulted him. People may say he is a Firaun but not me. Ive studied his book Malay Dilemma and he is a statesman, a respected figure. He is not the kind of man who easily believes anything that is said to him. Just like when he was informed about Anwars problem. He did not believe it in the first place. When I was detained under the Internal Security Act, I was told too many things about Anwar, but I still took some effort to do my own research just to verify everything. Only after the second case (of sodomy trial), I started to find these 28 people. I did my research based on facts and information, and from that point, I have made my own conclusion. Is it wrong for me, that I once believed Anwar, but decided to reveal the truth (based on research and findings)? People say Im humiliating him, what does that mean? If I have data, I have facts, then this information is not slanderous. I had never said he was actually involved with sodomy or free sex. That is between him and Allah. I prefer to look at his credibility. When his integrity is being tarnished, is it fair for me to still believe him? I dont want to push myself to keep on believing a person that has no credibility.