House speaker Puan warns Indonesian govt against whitewashing history
Women's Empowerment and Child Protection Minister I Gusti Ayu Bintang Darmawati (left) handing over a document on the government's response to the deliberation of the mother and child welfare bill to House of Representatives Speaker Puan Maharani (right) during a House plenary session at the Senayan legislative complex in Jakarta in a file photo fromn June 4, 2024. - Antara
JAKARTA: Speaker of the House of Representatives Puan Maharani has warned Culture Minister Fadli Zon, who currently leads the job of rewriting Indonesia's national history, against what she called promoting a distorted version of the country's past.
Puan, the granddaughter of the country's founding president Sukarno, said that in rewriting the country's history, the Fadli-led initiative must present a comprehensive look into the past instead of promoting what the government regards as fitting with its political agenda.
"What matters the most is never to engage in an obfuscation or erasing some parts of history and failing to straighten up that history," Puan said as quoted by Antara.
Earlier on Monday, House Commission X overseeing education and culture held a hearing with activists and historians to get their take on the government's plan to rewrite the history books, an endeavour that Minister Fadli expected to wrap up before the celebration of the country's 80th Independence Day anniversary in August this year.
The activists and historians have rejected the controversial plan, warning that it could whitewash the country's darkest chapters and serve only the interests of President Prabowo Subianto.
A former Army general, Prabowo has faced long-standing allegations of human rights abuses taking place in the late 1990s, claims that he has consistently denied.
The Culture Ministry pressed ahead with the work to rewrite the country's history despite claims from lawmakers that they were not consulted about the plan. Commission X chairperson Hetifah Sjaifudin said lawmakers had not yet been briefed by the ministry about the plan.
"To be very honest, we haven't had the opportunity to have a direct meeting on what issues will be revised or how the process will take place," Hetifah told reporters on Monday. - The Jakarta Post/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rakyat Post
an hour ago
- Rakyat Post
Senators In Malaysia: Understanding The Role Of Dewan Negara In Parliament
Subscribe to our FREE When most people think about politics in Malaysia, they usually picture Members of Parliament (MPs) debating in the Dewan Rakyat or the Prime Minister addressing the nation. However, there is another important group of lawmakers who quietly help shape the country's laws and policies: the senators in the Dewan Negara, Malaysia's upper house of Parliament. Malaysia has a two-chamber parliamentary system, made up of the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) and the Dewan Negara (Senate). While the Dewan Rakyat is made up of MPs who are elected by the public during general elections, the Dewan Negara consists of senators who are either appointed or selected through a different process. The role of these senators is not as widely known, but they play a key part in how laws are made and reviewed in the country. How are senators appointed? Image: There are a total of 70 senators in Malaysia. Of these, 26 are chosen by the state legislative assemblies – two from each of the 13 states. The remaining 44 are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the advice of the Prime Minister. Four of these represent the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, and Labuan, while the others are selected from various fields such as education, business, public service, or civil society. This combination is meant to ensure that different sectors and regions of the country are represented in the lawmaking process. What is required to be a senator? And how long can you be one? To become a senator, a person must be a Malaysian citizen and at least 30 years old. They must be of good character, not bankrupt, and not convicted of serious criminal offences. Most importantly, they should have something valuable to contribute – whether it's experience in public service, professional knowledge, or community leadership. Senators serve a term of three years and may be reappointed once, allowing for a maximum of six years in total. Unlike Members of Parliament, who have to face elections and campaign for public support, senators are not elected by the general public. This gives them a degree of independence from political pressures, allowing them to focus more on reviewing and debating legislation thoroughly. The role and responsibilities of a senator Image: So, what exactly do senators do? Their main job is to review laws passed by the Dewan Rakyat. When a new bill is approved by the lower house, it doesn't go straight to becoming law. It must first pass through the Dewan Negara, where senators examine it in detail. They can debate the bill, suggest changes, and ask for clarifications. While they cannot block a law permanently, they can delay its passage and raise important concerns. This gives time for reflection and can help prevent poorly written or rushed laws from going through unchecked. Senators can also raise issues that matter to their states or communities, especially topics that might not get enough attention in the Dewan Rakyat. Because many appointed senators come from professional or civil society backgrounds, they often bring specialized knowledge or speak up for underrepresented groups. That said, the Dewan Negara does have its limitations. It cannot introduce money bills like the national budget, and if it rejects a bill, the Dewan Rakyat can still pass it again after a short waiting period. In other words, the Senate acts as a second opinion – not a final verdict – on proposed laws. Providing balance and clarity behind the scenes Dewan Negara chamber. Image: Wee Hong Even though senators don't have the spotlight like MPs often do, their work behind the scenes helps ensure that Malaysia's laws are balanced, carefully considered, and represent the interests of a wide range of people. They provide a layer of expertise and review that supports the democratic process, making sure that legislation goes through more than just a single round of debate. In short, a Malaysian senator is a key part of the country's lawmaking system. Whether appointed or selected by state assemblies, senators serve as guardians of thoughtful legislation. They bring diverse voices to the table and play a quiet but important role in making sure the laws that affect all Malaysians are fair, sensible, and inclusive. A few notable senators of Malaysia Dato' Abdul Rahman Yassin was the first Dewan Negara President from 1959 to 1968. His son, Tun Dr. Ismail Abdul Rahman, became the second Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia under former Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein. Datuk Mutang Tagal, who recently passed away in May 2024, was the 20th president of the Dewan Negara and the first Orang Ulu (ethnic people in northeastern Sarawak) to serve as a senate president. Mutang Tagal's appointment as senator was a milestone for indigenous representation at the national level. Image: Instagram | @datukmutangtagal Datuk Dr Ras Adiba Radzi is a former senator who represents persons with disabilities. Appointed in May 2020, she uses a wheelchair and champions the rights of disabled Malaysians, advocating for inclusive policy and better accessibility nationwide. Sources: Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
The Star
15 hours ago
- The Star
Forlorn Gaza – the world's shame
ON June 4, exactly a month ahead of the country's independence day, the United States vetoed – for the fifth time – a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza'. The draft resolution vetoed by the solitary US vote received 14 in favour. It also called for the 'immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza, calling for safe and unhindered access for UN and humanitarian partners across the enclave'. In what appeared to be a move coordinated with the veto, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the US was sanctioning four judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for 'targeting'with arrest warrants Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Earlier, the US had sanctioned the ICJ prosecutor for the same 'crime'. These US actions came as the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, described Gaza as 'worse than hell on earth'. In an interview with the BBC at the ICRC headquarters in Geneva, she said 'humanity is failing' as it watched the horrors of the Gaza war. Israel's policy, backed by its US-led Western allies and the acquiescence of the regional Arab governments, has always been aimed at the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and its governing coalition leaders have been unequivocal in explicitly stating their military objectives. The systematic destruction of any and all infrastructure that supports human life is near complete, with water, power, homes, schools, universities, and even hospitals bombed to rubble. Of the number of functioning hospitals in Gaza, only two remain. The UN has called for the protection of these last two hospitals, particularly providing emergency services to the Strip, which is being bombed and hit by missiles daily, causing dozens of casualties, young and old. The UN also says the percentage of malnourished children is rising by the day. This malnourishment is due to the Israeli food blockade on Gaza. Israel has brushed aside all aid organisations' protestations to introduce its own 'food distribution' points, where dozens of starving Palestinians, including women, have been killed by Israeli tank-mounted machine gun fire. The Conservative member of the UK Parliament, Kit Malthouse, defied his party's pro-Israel policy to offer the most apt description of what is happening. Speaking in the Commons, he said Gaza has become 'an abattoir where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at'. 'If the situation were reversed, we would now be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force,' Malthouse said, exposing Western hypocrisy and his own government's inaction. Adding another twist to the food crisis in Gaza is the Israeli Prime Minister's confirmation – after Israeli defence sources had earlier told local journalists that accusations made by the Opposition politician Avigdor Lieberman were correct – about the arming of a group that many believe comprises criminals. Lieberman, according to the BBC, told the state broadcaster that the Prime Minister had unilaterally approved the arming of the Abu Shabab clan and transferred weapons to it. 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with the Islamic State group.' Sources in the know say the group is led by Yasser Abu Shabab, who was an IS commander, and is an Israeli intelligence asset. His band of about 300 men, according to the Israeli Occupation Forces, has been armed to 'protect food trucks' trickling into Gaza. But sources on the ground say the group is doing the opposite, commandeering the trucks and looting the vital food supplies for the malnourished, starving Palestinians. It is this one-sided ethnic-cleansing, being facilitated by the US and its envoy Steve Witkoff, that may be impacting public opinion in Europe at least. Public opinion is shifting, which is also reflected in the robust questioning of the Israeli Hasbara spin doctors in the media. These advocates for the Israeli cause are outraged even by some basic questions a few journalists are beginning to ask because they have had a free pass to spin their lies since October 2023. European government leaders are beginning to express unease – only in words and not deeds, though – in calling the Gaza situation intolerable and unacceptable but stopping well short of any concrete measures such as an arms embargo. This rhetoric too is driven by the changing public mood reflected in a recent YouGov poll across Europe. The poll showed Israel as being viewed most unfavourably since they started polling on this issue in 2016. And Israel's actions in Gaza are seen as disproportionate and unjustified. Even then, US President Donald Trump is likely to be convinced his Gaza Riviera plan is on course and in the end the Palestinians will be displaced. With few friends in the Arab world, whose leaders generously opened up their cheque books for the US president and applied little, if any, pressure to secure an end to the genocide, the Palestinians seem to be on their own. The (resource-starved) government of the ummah's most potent military power may have co-sponsored the vetoed UN resolution, but its powerful elite queued up at the embassy gate for hours to be able to have the honour of celebrating US Independence Day inexplicably on June 4, a month earlier than July 4. The ethnic cleansing in Gaza and, don't forget, the West Bank will continue. The collective conscience of the people around the globe will not be able to stop it on its own. This is the world we inhabit. — Dawn/Asia News Network Abbas Nasir is a former editor of Dawn.
Focus Malaysia
15 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
Rethinking SEATO: A new maritime pact for ASEAN?
AS geopolitical tensions escalate in the Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asian nations find themselves increasingly vulnerable to the turbulence sweeping the region. China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, the rising strategic competition between the United States (US) and China, and the proliferation of non-traditional maritime threats such as piracy and illegal fishing have converged to create a volatile security environment. Against this backdrop, a provocative question has resurfaced: Should the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) revive the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) as a mechanism to bolster regional maritime security? SEATO, founded in 1954 and dissolved in 1977, was originally designed as a Cold War-era collective defence pact aimed at containing communism. Its legacy is, at best, mixed. With only two Southeast Asian members i.e., Thailand and the Philippines and heavily dominated by external powers like the US, United Kingdom, and France, SEATO was often criticised for its lack of cohesion and legitimacy within the region. Its failure to evolve into a true collective security mechanism contributed to its irrelevance and eventual dissolution. Yet in 2025, the strategic landscape has changed dramatically. Today, the Indo-Pacific is the epicentre of global power politics, and ASEAN's role has never been more crucial. The organisation stands at a crossroads: continue with its consensus-based, non-aligned approach, or adapt to a more assertive and structured security framework in response to rising threats. The idea of reviving SEATO or at least, reimagining it should be explored seriously, but with critical adjustments grounded in current realities. Maritime security: ASEAN's Achilles heel Southeast Asia's maritime domain is a focal point for multiple overlapping claims, economic interests, and military ambitions. The South China Sea alone sees one-third of global shipping pass through its waters. Yet, maritime security remains ASEAN's Achilles heel. Despite initiatives like the ASEAN Maritime Forum and joint patrols in the Sulu and Celebes Seas, the region lacks a comprehensive, cohesive maritime defence structure. In the face of China's continued island-building, coercion of fishermen, and incursions into Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), ASEAN's diplomatic toolbox seems increasingly inadequate. Reviving SEATO or creating a SEATO 2.0 could offer a more robust framework to pool resources, share intelligence, and establish clear deterrents. Unlike its Cold War predecessor, a modern version would need to be rooted in ASEAN leadership, rather than being externally driven. This could transform it from a symbol of neo-colonial entanglement into a proactive regional safeguard. A reimagined SEATO: ASEAN-led and inclusive Any modern iteration of SEATO must be fundamentally different in design and intent. First and foremost, it should be ASEAN-led, preserving the centrality of the organisation. External partners such as the US, Japan, Australia, and India could serve as dialogue or strategic partners, but not dominant actors. This would maintain ASEAN's long-held position of neutrality while enabling it to take a more assertive role in shaping regional security. The objectives of a new SEATO would also need to evolve. Rather than being a purely anti-China alliance, it should focus on enhancing maritime domain awareness, building naval interoperability, strengthening coast guard cooperation, and securing sea lines of communication. These goals are inherently defensive and could gain broader support among ASEAN's diverse members, many of whom are wary of becoming pawns in great power rivalries. This reimagined SEATO could also be integrated into the broader Indo-Pacific security architecture. Coordination with initiatives like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA), and the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) would create a multi-layered and resilient defence posture. Challenges and caveats However, reviving or rebranding SEATO is far from a silver bullet. ASEAN's core principles are non-interference, consensus-based decision-making, and respect for sovereignty, often inhibit swift or unified responses to crises. Member states have varying security priorities and relationships with major powers. For instance, Cambodia and Laos maintain close ties with China, while the Philippines and Vietnam are more confrontational. This divergence makes the formation of a formal security pact challenging. Moreover, introducing a SEATO-like structure risks undermining ASEAN unity if not managed carefully. It could exacerbate intra-regional tensions and provoke backlash from China, which may interpret it as an encirclement strategy. Balancing deterrence and diplomacy will be crucial. The path forward: Pragmatic regionalism Rather than a wholesale revival of SEATO, ASEAN should consider a flexible, modular approach. A 'SEATO-lite' framework beginning with joint maritime exercises, intelligence sharing, and capacity-building—could evolve organically based on the needs and consensus of member states. This incremental strategy would avoid the political costs of formalising a defence pact while still enhancing maritime cooperation. Additionally, ASEAN should push for institutional reforms that allow for 'ASEAN Minus X' models where willing members move forward on specific security initiatives without requiring unanimity. This would preserve the group's cohesion while allowing progress on urgent maritime issues. Conclusion The notion of reviving SEATO as a means to strengthen maritime security in Southeast Asia is both provocative and timely. While the historical baggage of the original SEATO looms large, the current strategic environment demands fresh thinking. A reinvented, ASEAN-led security framework whether called SEATO or something new could be a pivotal step in safeguarding the region's maritime future. ASEAN must not allow itself to be paralysed by its past or by external pressures. The Indo-Pacific is evolving rapidly, and so too must Southeast Asia's security architecture. Whether through a revived SEATO or an entirely new model, one thing is clear: the time for passive neutrality is over. ‒ June 9, 2025 R Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit
