Former Malaysian leader Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dies aged 85
Former Malaysian prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has died aged 85, medics said.
The Institut Jantung Negara, the hospital in Kuala Lumpur where he was being treated, said he had been suffering from heart disease.
Mr Abdullah, Malaysia's fifth leader, served from 2003 to 2009. He was pressured to resign to take responsibility for the governing coalition's dismal results in national elections.
After leaving politics, he kept a low profile.
In 2022, his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, disclosed that Mr Abdullah had dementia that was progressively worsening.
He said Mr Abdullah had trouble speaking and could not recognise his family.
Mr Abdullah entered the critical care unit at the National Heart Institute on April 25 last year after being diagnosed with spontaneous pneumothorax, a collapsed lung that occurs without any apparent cause.
Affectionately known as 'Pak Lah', Mr Abdullah was admitted to Kuala Lumpur's State Institute of Heart on Sunday after experiencing breathing difficulties where he was closely monitored by a cardiac specialist team, but he passed away on Monday morning.
He was a moderate who extended the country's political freedoms, but was criticised for lacklustre leadership.
Mr Abdullah took office in October 2003, riding a wave of popularity as he replaced Mahathir Mohamad, a domineering, sharp-tongued leader known for his semi-authoritarian rule during 22 years in office.
A seasoned politician who held many cabinet positions, Mr Abdullah was handpicked by Mr Mahathir, who believed a soft-spoken, unambitious leader would maintain his policies.
Initially, Mr Abdullah won support with promises of institutional reforms and his brand of moderate Islam. He was known fondly as 'Pak Lah', or 'Uncle Lah'. He pledged greater political freedoms with more space for critics, and vowed to end corruption after a government minister was hauled to court on related allegations.
Oh Ei Sun from Singapore's Institute of International Affairs said: 'During his rule, the country transitioned from a very authoritarian rule under Mahathir to a more multifaceted regime. It provided some breathing space for many Malaysians after more than two decades of very suffocating rule.'
Months after taking office, Mr Abdullah led his National Front governing coalition to a landslide victory in a 2004 general election seen as a stamp of approval of his leadership. That helped him to partially step out of Mr Mahathir's shadow – but the euphoria did not last.
In the following years, Mr Abdullah faced criticism inside and outside his party for generally lacklustre and ineffectual leadership.
He did not follow through on promises to eradicate corruption, reform the judiciary and strengthen institutions such as the police and the civil service.
Critics slammed Mr Abdullah for concurrently taking on the finance minister and internal security minister posts. He was often criticized for dozing off during meetings or at public events, which he blamed on a sleep disorder.
Mr Khairy, his son-in-law, led a team of advisers in the Prime Minister's Office whom critics said influenced Mr Abdullah's decisions and controlled access to him.
Mr Abdullah also fell out with Mr Mahathir after he axed some of the former leader's projects, including a proposed bridge to Singapore. Mr Mahathir turned into one of his fiercest critics and accused Abdullah of nepotism and inefficiency.
While Mr Abdullah was viewed as a weak leader, he ushered in limited freedom of speech and allowed a more critical media.
Conservatives in his party said this was his undoing, as it bolstered a newly resurgent opposition led by reformist Anwar Ibrahim. Mr Anwar, Malaysia's current leader, became Prime Minister after 2022 elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Take it up with God': preacher sued for anti-Semitism
Wissam Haddad's fiery sermons have racked up thousands of views online but are now being scrutinised in a lawsuit brought by a Jewish group alleging anti-Semitism. The Islamist preacher maintains all his words are backed up by scriptures from the Koran and other Islamic texts. "I like to call Islam a divine ideology and I'm going to give reference from that," he told AAP ahead of his Federal Court hearing on Tuesday. "If people have an issue with the reference that I'm bringing, that I wholeheartedly know and believe is from God, then they should take this up with God, not me." The Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric has been accused of racial discrimination in more than 110 pages of court documents that detail inflammatory remarks in sermons posted on social media. Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot are seeking injunctions requiring the removal of the allegedly racist speeches and prohibiting Mr Haddad from making similar comments in future. The pair, who are not seeking compensation or damages, hope the case will serve as "a warning to deter others seeking to mobilise racism in order to promote their political views". Among the speeches detailed in their statement of claim, Mr Haddad blames the roots of "the enmity that we see today" on "none other than the Jews... because their forefathers had shown the same enmity to the Prophet (Mohammed)." He also claimed divisions among Muslim communities were because of Jewish people. Mr Haddad said most of the speeches identified had been taken down because he "didn't want the headache", while the complaint was being mediated at the Australian Human Rights Commission. But he said he refused to comply with other demands from the council including reading a pre-written apology at a synagogue and attending an anti-racism workshop, and this had prompted the Federal Court lawsuit. The council was contacted to verify Mr Haddad's claims but it declined to comment instead referring to a statement when it launched the lawsuit which seeks "to defend the honour of the community." ECAJ is a prominent group representing the Jewish community that has received more than $55 million in funding from the federal government in the past two years in light of anti-Semitic attacks on synagogues and schools. The council's co-CEO Alex Ryvchin's former home was the target of an arson and graffiti attack in January. Mr Haddad has courted controversy for being friends with former Australian members who joined terrorist group the Islamic State and posted gruesome videos of their atrocities, including beheadings. He defended his relationship with Khaled Sharrouf, an Australian ISIS member who was reportedly killed in a drone strike in Syria, because he was fighting other combatants in a bloody civil war. The preacher, also known as Abu Ousayd, maintains religious and political contexts are needed to situate his sermons, including the war on Gaza. "If you really look into it, our talks were never aimed at any Jews in Australia, rather we were speaking about the Jewish state of Israel," he said. Mr Haddad maintains he wears his emotions on his sleeve and that he has not breached any laws. "This is a test, not for me, this is a test for democracy itself."
Chicago Tribune
2 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Fighting hate and antisemitism requires us to seek to understand others
We fear what we do not know, and we hate what we fear. The recent attacks on Jews in Colorado and Washington D.C., along with the continuing slaughter of civilians in Gaza, indicate that the killers likely knew little about their victims, except that those people are somehow the 'enemy'. It is easy to dehumanize a person if you cannot recognize him or her as being like yourself in some way. In our world the hard thing to do, the courageous thing to do, is to reach out and attempt to understand others, especially those who seem to be our enemies. However, to end the violence that is what we must recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, has once again shaken our collective conscience. As we grapple with the pain of another senseless act of violence, we are reminded of the urgent need for justice and unity in our society. No grievance, real or imagined, can ever justify harming innocent lives. Violence is never the answer. As members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, we categorically condemn any act of violence, regardless of the motivation behind it. Our response is grounded in our guiding principle: 'Love for all, hatred for none.' This is not a mere slogan — it is the foundation of our beliefs, rooted in the teachings of Islam as exemplified by the holy Prophet Muhammad, and revived in our era by the promised messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The Holy Qur'an teaches us: 'Whosoever killed a person … it shall be as if he had killed all mankind' (5:33) Muhammad showed this very example when he forgave the people of Mecca who had persecuted him for years. He entered the city in victory without raising a sword in vengeance. That act of mercy transformed enemies into brothers. Likewise, the promised messiah instructed his followers to adopt nonviolence even when wronged. He said: 'Our weapon is only prayer.' What happened in Boulder is tragic. Whether the attacker claimed to act in the name of religion, revenge, or any other ideology, we say clearly: this act was not righteous, it was not brave, and it was certainly not Islamic. We offer our heartfelt prayers to the victims and their families. We pray for healing for the wounded, solace for the grieving, and wisdom for our leaders as they work to maintain justice and peace. We also pray for the attacker and all who harbor hatred in their hearts — that God may guide them away from darkness toward the light of peace. Let us all stand united against violence, not just in word but in action. The best way to honor the victims of violence is to ensure that hatred does not have the last word. As Ahmadis, we will continue to uphold our motto — not only when it is easy but especially when it is hard. Love for all, hatred for none. That is our answer. That is our Eid-al-Adha, or the festival of sacrifice arrives, we are reminded of the beautiful story behind this celebration — the story of a prophet and his son. Prophet Abraham's example, honored across many faiths, inspires us to adopt humility and selflessly serve others, while at the same time creating unity and spreading love and compassion around the Donald Trump's latest moves with the foreign aid budget appear to cut against his own stated agenda. The president has stated that humanitarian assistance and controlling infectious diseases such as tuberculosis are legitimate purposes for foreign aid, yet he proposes cutting global health spending. Included in the budget proposal is no request for either the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria or the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI). Both the Global Fund and GAVI have saved millions of lives and continue to do so. Cutting support for them will only lead to more need for emergency humanitarian assistance and increase the threat of infectious diseases around the world and thus also to the USA. Global health programs have long enjoyed bipartisan support, so we do not need a Democratic Congress to restore the funds and our commitment to health security. This Congress can do so, if they recognize and reject the long-term costly excesses that have been proposed in the name of 'efficiency'.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee 'No one has died because of USAID cuts.' There are multiple confirmed cases of deaths of children in Africa due to loss of food or medicine or closing of medical clinics following drastic aid cuts. It is hard to know how many people have died since the organizations that would keep track of these statistics were also closed due to cuts. Brooke Nichols, a Boston University mathematician has projected that 300,000 deaths may have occurred globally from the discontinuation of funding for HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, clean water and food aid. Her model estimates 103 deaths per hour. These are people that used to be kept alive by aid from the United States. — John Regan, Lemont While attending my son's T-ball game, I struck up a conversation with the man sitting next to me. During our chat, he mentioned that he had attended Carl Sandburg High School. I casually shared that my father had gone there as well. When he asked my father's last name and I replied 'Sabo,' his eyes lit up. 'Phil?' he asked in disbelief. When I confirmed, he was amazed — he had been my dad's catcher, and my dad had been his left-handed pitcher on the 1963 Carl Sandburg baseball team. As it turns out, for more than 25 years, members of that very team have been meeting for lunch every Wednesday without fail. My dad was one of the few teammates they had lost touch with over the years, and this chance encounter reconnected him with a long-lost group of friends. The man was overjoyed to learn that Phil Sabo was alive and well. Since that day, my father has become a regular at the weekly gatherings of the Carl Sandburg baseball alumni. Now in their late 70s, these men have maintained a remarkable tradition of camaraderie and loyalty. Among them is Al Budding, the former team captain and a distinguished coach who was inducted into the Moraine Valley Community College Baseball Hall of Fame after coaching there from 1987 to 2005. Keep an eye out for this incredible group of teammates — you might spot them around the South suburbs every Wednesday, celebrating a lifelong bond built on baseball, friendship, and shared memories.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
We shall not continue as a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, by far our largest group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
