Malaysiakini

Dataran Merdeka is symbolic. It is our metaphorical Berlin Wall and its significance cannot be exaggerated.

Umno Baru leaders and the police have refused to allow the use of Dataran Merdeka for the ‘Black 505’ rally in Kuala Lumpur on June 15.

Etched in the memories of older Malaysians is the lowering of the Union Jack and the raising of the Malayan flag at midnight, at the Selangor Club padang as Dataran Merdeka was then known. The younger generation would have learnt about its historical role.

When the 154.5km Berlin Wall – a concrete structure built by the East Germans to divide the east from the west – came down, the city of Berlin was reunited, communist rule in eastern Europe fell and the process of re-unification of East and West Germany started.

If the opposition coalition were to hold this rally at Dataran Merdeka, it would score a great moral victory, just as Bersih did. The violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally was perpetrated by the police. A weak regime is one which does not know how to use arguments and discussion as weapons, but resorts to violence.

If the place that is connected with Merdeka and the Tunku were to become the focal point for the ‘Black 505’ rally, attention would be focused on the reasons for the rally, and Umno-Baru would be forever linked with cheating in elections. Umno-Baru is desperate to deny the opposition the publicity.

A common tactic of Umno-Baru is to give the rally organisers the runaround. Even when Umno-Baru lies, it fails to do it with a concerted effort. When the opposition coalition applied to use Padang Merbok as an alternative venue, the Dang Wangi district police chief Zainuddin Ahmad claimed that another event was scheduled to take place there.

Police chief Khalid Abu Bakar claimed that the opposition’s application was incomplete, while Federal Territories Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor claimed that indoor venues and closed spaces, like stadiums, would be more suitable.

He said: “…..But to me, Padang Merbok is an open space… when it comes to open spaces, we will not give (our permission) because we know the law and abide by it.”

If Tengku Adnan claims to be well-versed with the law and would happily abide by it, what explanations can he give for alleged widespread electoral fraud and cheating during GE13?

How does he explain the money politics which is synonymous with his party Umno-Baru? Can he account for the increasing acts of police brutality which suggest that police personnel are breaking the law and getting away with murder?

Don’t expect reform

Some of you may disagree with street protests but only the naïve would think that GE14 could be the solution. The electoral boundaries are being skewed in Umno Baru’s favour by the Election Commission (EC), even as you read this. Umno Baru and the EC will never negotiate or reform.

How much longer have the marginalised Indians to suffer? How many more election promises will their self-appointed leaders be taken in by? This minority government promised that they would implement many reforms before GE13 if elected; but after the election, they say the implementation will take five years.

In GE11, the EC made a last minute claim that the indelible ink would prevent Muslims from performing their prayers.

In GE12, the EC claimed that there was a national security scare and certain parties were planning to sabotage the elections by marking the fingers of people before they could vote. It was claimed that several people had been arrested while trying to smuggle election ink into Malaysia.

In GE13, the EC diluted the ink, saying it could be harmful.

In GE14, the EC will be just as creative.

It is ironic that, in 2010, Najib Abdul Razak had warned delegates at the BN convention, held in Wisma MCA, that the opposition coalition was attempting to take over Putrajaya and that the federal government had to be protected from the greedy and the power crazy.

He said: “BN is a responsible coalition. You can place your hopes and trust in us. The people can trust us to do not only what is right, but what is in their best interests.”

Around the world, repressive regimes have been toppled by non-violent civil resistance movements – Chile, Poland, South Africa, the Philippines. Armed resistance is not the answer, as military training and the supply of weapons is expensive. Nor should we expect foreign countries to intervene; they have to protect their own interests.

Only we can help ourselves. This sham Malaysian democracy can expect more marches and more resistance from the rakyat.

If Najib continues to exploit the rakyat, it is possible that even the police and security personnel will shift their allegiance and loyalty, as happened in Egypt.

In the current economic climate, the rakyat is forced to tighten its belt further. Graduates are finding it more difficult to get jobs, unlike politicians’ children who are given choice appointments or who become directors of companies with a paid-up capital of RM2, which receive multi-million ringgit government contracts.

Young adults cannot afford to live away from home. Skilled workers are refused employment, as foreign workers, both legal and illegal, are cheaper.

Symbols of oppression

As living conditions become more intolerable, NGOs, human rights activists, students, opposition politicians, religious organisations and the rakyat will unite as one movement against oppression.

Najib can arrest a few such as Adam Adli, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua, Safwan Anang or Tamrin Ghafar, but more leaders will emerge.

Thirty-nine years ago, the education minister who gagged our academia and students with the Universities and University Colleges Act was Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Today, Najib will attempt to do the same.

In the Tunisian uprising, Mohammed Bouazizi immolated himself, when the police stopped him from making a living as a street pedlar to feed his family. He became the symbol of the Jasmine revolution.

In the recent protests in Turkey, ‘The Woman in Red’ whose face was sprayed with tear-gas has become a global symbol of police brutality and oppression. The demonstrations, which began as a protest against the redevelopment of a park, have escalated into public fury against the creeping Islamicisation and the increasing authoritarian rule of the government.

In Malaysia, we are not short of symbols of oppression. Two National Union of Bank Employee (Nube) officials, vice-president Abdul Jamil Jalaludeen from Pulau Tikus, Penang and general treasurer Chen Ka Fatt, from Ipoh Garden in Ipoh, were sacked from Maybank because they made a stand against its treatment of workers.

In the late 1970s, as Minister for Trade and Industry, Mahathir clipped the power of unions.

Today, Najib honours Abdul Wahid Omar, who was CEO of Maybank, by making him a minister in the PM’s Department.

Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi may order a crackdown on activists and opposition leaders. In doing so, he will only unleash a more determined rakyat who will retaliate with more marches, boycotts and strikes.

Najib may try to prevent the rakyat and the ‘Black 505′ rally from entering Dataran Merdeka, but he cannot curb our resolve to fight oppression. Perhaps, we should occupy Dataran Merdeka, our metaphorical Berlin Wall.

Najib may surround Dataran Merdeka with razor wire, but he cannot imprison our minds.

Malaysiakini

Thirty-nine years ago, a little-known incident in Baling caused a seismic shift in Malaysian politics, but very few Malaysians are aware of the incident or realise its significance and the impact it created.

If the full details of this incident had been divulged in 1974, the government might have fallen. The Baling incident caused a nightmare for Abdul Razak Hussein, the prime minister at the time.

Today, the nightmare is recurring for Najib Abdul Razak, the leader of the current minority government. Najib feels he has no alternative but to instigate several crackdowns on the rakyat.

The Baling event referred to is not the historic meeting in 1955 of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was the head of the Malayan government and Chin Peng, the leader of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

Nor was it the Memali Incident of 1985, the shameful massacre of a defenceless community by forces loyal to Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s government.

The Baling Incident (BI) which occurred in 1974 was shrouded in secrecy. It was a series of many small expressions of the bottled-up feelings of anger, betrayal, fear and resentment, of the rural poor.

In present-day Malaysia, the rakyat participated in democracy marches and rallies against oppression, injustice and the dictatorial rule of Najib and the BN government. In 1974, it was Abdul Razak, Najib’s father, who faced similar marches against social injustices.

The root cause of the BI was abject poverty and starvation. The rubber smallholders faced ruin when the global price of rubber plummeted. The farmers could not cope with the rising cost of living and rural families had to forage for food in the jungles.

Bizarrely, in 1974 Abdul Razak (right) announced in Parliament that the civil servants’ allowance would be increased by 50 percent, from RM1,000 to RM1,500.

When news broke of the deaths of a few children from eating ubi gadong, a type of poisonous wild yam, to stave off hunger pangs, the social unrest reached a tipping point. At its peak, around 25,000 of the rural poor took to the streets.

Like father, like son; both Abdul Razak and Najib unleashed the might of the FRU and the police on peaceful protesters. Najib is a politician without imagination, but he knew that brutal action had served his father well.

A dark chapter in our history

In 2013 Najib merely employed his father’s tried and tested methods of retaliation. The consequences of 1974 opened a dark chapter in our history.

Then, like now, information was heavily censored. Abdul Razak did not want the rakyat to know that an uprising had occurred in Kedah.

Five years earlier, the country had been overwhelmed by the May 13 clashes. The Chinese were convenient scapegoats.

Abdul Razak was in a quandary. The district of Baling was mainly populated by Malays. The significance of the BI had to be suppressed.

In the BI there was no Chinese element, or communist subversives at work. BI was social unrest – a revolt by Malay smallholders and farmers. Peaceful hunger marches throughout Baling spread outwards from Baling town, Kulim and Sik.

News travelled fast and despite media censorship in 1974, students at Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Kolej Mara, as well as the universities’ teaching fraternity expressed their support for the uprising. They organised a series of meetings and urged the government to address the plight of the poor.

Syed Husin Ali (right), then an associate professor at Universiti Malaya, said: “At first they (the students) demonstrated within their campus. The police fired tear gas but some cannisters landed on the nearby squatter settlement, injuring some children.

“The students joined forces and gathered in the centre of KL. When the police acted against them, they took refuge in the National Mosque. Over 1,000 students were arrested and detained for a few days.

“Some squatters joined some students to ‘run riot’ at the highway, putting up blockades and smashing traffic lights.”

Abdul Razak warned of tough reprisals and over 40 students and lecturers were detained under the ISA. Among them was Anwar Ibrahim, who was detained for two years.

Syed Husin said: “I was detained for six years. I was an associate professor and considered recalcitrant for refusing to admit guilt.

“I was accused of being pro-communist and the brain behind the demos. They wanted me to serve as an example to create fear among those academic staff to prevent them from following my path.

“I think these are the reasons why I was incarcerated up to six years.”

The education minister then was Mahathir. He and Ungku Aziz, the vice-chancellor of UM at the time, produced the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA).

The UUCA has effectively curbed students’ freedom and deprived universities of their autonomy. Students and lecturers are fearful of speaking out on issues which are deemed sensitive to BN. Our universities have never recovered from Mahathir’s despicable legacy.

Abdul Razak, his peers and successors’ children were sent abroad for their education, whilst the rest of the rakyat received a stifling Malaysian schooling.

Baling not an isolated incident

In 2013, history repeated itself and the nightmare which descended on Najib’s father is now his own.

Today, Najib has warned that he would get tough with students Adam Adli Abdul Halim and Safwan Anang as well as other dissenters. The ISA has been repealed, so what has Najib up his sleeve?

Let this column warn both Najib and Mahathir, the joint rulers of Malaysia that their efforts to subjugate the rakyat will not succeed. Baling was not an isolated incident.

Prior to BI, there were unreported acts of unrest against the BN government. In Tasik Utara, Johor Baru, poor urban Malays camped in front the residence of then MB Osman Saat to voice their disgust at being cheated of housing and land.

In 1974 and in 2013, the Malays opposed the government, but Najib has created a red herring and claimed that in GE13, it was a Chinese tsunami.

It is not! It is Malaysians fighting tyranny.

The wounds which Abdul Razak, Mahathir and Najib opened are still festering. Our awareness of their crimes and of their despotic rule are more acute.

Their policies have cast long shadows and there will be more Baling incidents until Najib and the illegitimate BN government step down.

The Economist

Angry at an unjust defeat, Malaysia’s opposition has reasons to be hopeful

IN JAIL, Anwar Ibrahim read a lot of Shakespeare. To understand Malaysian politics, the opposition leader says, you have to know Macbeth, a tragedy of overweening political ambition. For the government, the ambition defacing the country’s politics is that of Mr Anwar himself, to become Malaysia’s prime minister. He had promised to retire if he lost the general election held on May 5th. “But we won,” he says.

That is not how the government sees it. Though the opposition coalition which Mr Anwar leads, Pakatan Rakyat, got 51% of the votes, it won only 40% of the seats in parliament. Years of gerrymandering favour the Barisan Nasional coalition that has ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957. Mr Anwar also alleges outright electoral fraud. He has been leading protest rallies around the country against the “theft” of the election.

In his Sisyphean struggle to reach the peak of Malaysian politics, he has come close before. In the 1990s he was deputy prime minister and prospective leader of the government he was to turn against. For a moment in 1998 it seemed as if a people-power movement might sweep him to office. Instead, he spent six years in jail on charges of sodomy (later overturned). After the previous election, in 2008, he again seemed on the brink, claiming enough members of parliament were ready to defect from the government to give Pakatan a majority. It came to naught.

So, most likely, will his current campaign. Pakatan is to file petitions challenging the result in as many as 31 of the 222 constituencies. But this drawn-out process is not likely to overturn the result, and neither is a lawsuit against the election commission—for allegedly defrauding the nation by marking voters’ fingers with “indelible” ink that soon rubbed off. The rallies’ purpose, admits a leader of Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), one of Pakatan’s three components, is “to keep the torch alight”. That is helped by anger at the arrest of three opposition leaders and a student activist under a sedition law the government had promised to repeal, and by raids on opposition newspapers.

No opposition leader wants the torch to light a conflagration on the streets in the hope of toppling the government in a Malaysian spring. Yet Mr Anwar argues that the rallies must continue nonetheless: “If we don’t force them to change now,” he says of the ruling coalition, “they will never change.”

For all that, it seems likely that the protests will eventually peter out and that Pakatan will have to knuckle down to another stint in opposition. Whether the next election will be fairer is another matter. Two of the biggest injustices are unlikely to go. The media, except online, are slavishly pro-government. Constituency boundaries are to be redrawn this year. But the opposition trusts neither the election commission, which will propose changes, nor the government, which will approve them.

Pakatan suffers friction among its disparate members—the Islamic, ethnic-Malay PAS, Mr Anwar’s multiracial Keadilan and the Democratic Action Party (DAP), whose support comes mainly from the ethnic-Chinese minority, about a quarter of the population. Barisan, a coalition dominated by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), may try to split Pakatan, by tempting the DAP or PAS, or both, into the government.

Mr Anwar says that, since the election, Barisan has already been trying to woo him. It has also emerged that, before an election he expected to win, he signed a secret agreement with his nemesis, the UMNO leader and prime minister, Najib Razak. Under the deal, brokered by Jusuf Kalla, a former vice-president of Indonesia and an old friend of both men, they promised that they would eschew personal mudslinging during the campaign, that the loser would accept the outcome, and that the winner would govern in a spirit of “national reconciliation”. Mr Anwar excised another clause promising a government of national unity. He says that he feared UMNO would not willingly give up power. Mr Anwar says the agreement was invalidated by government cheating at the polls. As it happens, Mr Najib never physically signed the deal, saying he needed to consult his coalition. But he did at least mention “national reconciliation” in his victory speech.

Reconciliation seems distant. And Mr Najib’s problems may be even bigger than the opposition’s. Unusually for a victorious incumbent, he argues for a change in “our attitude, strategy, programmes and approach”. A radical idea has been floated: turning the Barisan coalition, whose Chinese and Indian bits took a hammering at the election, into a proper, multi-ethnic party. And to show that he means to deal with corruption—the biggest reason for Barisan’s waning popularity—Mr Najib has appointed to his cabinet Paul Low, a former head of the Malaysian arm of Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog. Mr Low says his job requires “changing the system”. The system will resist.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

Mr Najib has his job by dint of his leadership of UMNO. He comes up for re-election at a party congress later this year. His predecessor as prime minister and party leader was ousted by colleagues. By contrast, Mr Najib, more popular than his party, may survive. “I think the party will support him because of a lack of an alternative,” is the ringing endorsement from Mahathir Mohamad, who once dominated Malaysian politics. But UMNO hardliners may make reform difficult. Having lost the Chinese vote, for example, they may oppose further erosion of affirmative-action policies favouring ethnic Malays.

The opposition, meanwhile, is confident. Barisan is also losing the votes of growing numbers of city-dwellers and of the young. Pakatan has the momentum. Mr Anwar, however, is 65. With no obvious successor, he seems in a hurry. Lim Guan Eng, the DAP’s leader, is upbeat about the opposition’s hopes: “The future is not theirs; it’s ours.” But it is not necessarily Mr Anwar’s.

Finance Twitter

The Age

Defying threats of arrest, organisers of anti-government rallies across Malaysia have called on 500,000 supporters to march on the country’s Election Commission to protest against election fraud.

The call was made to tens of thousands of people at a packed stadium near Kuala Lumpur early on Sunday where Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim demanded that Election Commission officials who oversaw racially divisive national elections on May 5 resign immediately.

”Now, now, now,” Mr Anwar shouted as the crowd roared.

Mr Anwar, a 65-year-old former deputy prime minister, said he planned to step-up a legal campaign over the results in 29 electoral districts after Monday’s deadline for complaints to be lodged.

The three-party Pakatan Rakyat opposition alliance won a majority of the popular vote at the election but the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition was returned with 60 per cent of seats because of a gerrymandered electoral system that favours Malay Muslims in rural constituencies.

The rally was the ninth that has drawn large crowds since the elections, which the opposition says were unfair and marred by vote rigging, claims the government denies.

Malaysia’s Home Affairs Minister Zahid Hamidi called the latest rally a ”provocation” but there has been no violence at any of the rallies as police have largely stayed away.

Four opposition politicians and activists have been arrested in the past few days on sedition and other charges, prompting opposition figures to vow to carry on with the protests.

”They are trying to frighten us into submission,” said Azmin Ali, deputy president of the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat. ”We must continue to stand up for our rights and dignity.”

No date for the march has been announced.

Meanwhile a secret pre-election pact between Mr Anwar and Prime Minister Najib Razak to respect the outcome of the election has emerged but both sides disagree on the details. Mr Najib has confirmed it was brokered by former Indonesian vice-president Jusuf Kalla.

Mr Anwar has acknowledged he made the pact in April but said it was rendered void by the way Barisan ran the campaign, singling out attacks on the opposition by the government-controlled media.

”How can you talk reconciliation when you demonise your opponent in this manner?” Mr Anwar told the Asian Wall Street Journal, which broke the story of the pact.

Huffington Post

“The ruling BN coalition lost the popular vote, gaining only 47%, and turned in its worst electoral result ever as it was largely abandoned by minority Chinese and rejected by voters of all races in urban areas.”

The outcome of the recent election in Malaysia has been a huge disappointment to democratic economic reformers. Malaysia has been continuously running budget deficits since 1998 with government debt rising to US$164.6 billion in the third quarter of 2012, bringing Malaysia’s debt-to-revenue ratio to a level similar to that of Italy’s.

After 55 years of one-party administration by the ruling coalition, it was considered to be high time that Malaysia had an alternative new vision. However, not only does it look like more of the same, but the greatly reduced majority for the ruling party makes it likely that any reforms will be postponed until October or November. This is when new party leadership elections will take place and Prime Minister Najib Razak will have to answer to the traditionalists in his party for its poor electoral showing.

The ruling BN coalition lost the popular vote, gaining only 47%, and turned in its worst electoral result ever as it was largely abandoned by minority Chinese and rejected by voters of all races in urban areas. The result should be seen as a message from voters tired of corruption and patronage politics and also a rejection of the BN’s austerity plans for balancing the budget with a new consumption tax and lower food and fuel subsidies.

Malaysia has been recognized for its strong “tiger” economy, growing at 5% in 2013 and surprisingly resilient at a time of negative developments internationally. This is despite dismal export performance because of the recession and stagnation in Europe and the slow economic growth in the US. Consumer confidence is expected to continue holding up and the inflation rate is stable in spite of higher food prices and is expected to remain at between 2.3 percent and 2.8 percent until 2016. Unemployment figures are low and expected to remain around 3 percent.

However, the underlying structure of the Malaysian economy is based on its relationship with its international trading partners and the domestic economy needs to be backed by the more lucrative external market. A vulnerable domestic economy must be strengthened if it is to continue to withstand the current global economic downturn and the status quo will no longer serve Malaysia well.

Malaysia had hopes of economic reform with the emergence of a strong political opposition under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim whose issues based campaign pointed to the need for ongoing reform. Institutional shortcomings that constrain the country’s prospects for long term economic expansion include the prevalence of corruption and lack of transparency and a judicial system that is vulnerable to political interference.

These are pressing issues that the government must address if it is to maintain competitiveness and achieve growth potential. The folly of reducing taxes has contributed to the budget deficit, and Malaysia’s rate of 26 percent seems reckless when compared with Thailand’s 37%, where the GDP has also been growing at a healthy rate.

The present government’s appetite for debt has been escalating since 2008, negating the effects of inward foreign investment. This has been justified as government spending on commercial enterprises to stimulate the economy, but too often has been seen as funding large-scale projects that reward political crony capitalists and support their companies. The strain of debt load inevitably becomes significant and falls on the wage-earning people.

Austerity measures such as cutting public services like health care will be deeply unpopular and a lower standard of living will be seen as divisive and unjust in view of the wealth of the lightly taxed super rich bracket. Tackling debt should be a major subject of policy discourse in Malaysia but not on the backs of working families.

Chinese economists who have studied Malaysia have concluded that the country will be unable to move ahead into a higher income level while it remains held back by a lack of tertiary industry, an education system that is falling behind in technological expertise and a restrictive low-wage economic model. Malaysia’s dependence on cheap uneducated foreign workers has depressed local wages and productivity growth.

The closely contested general election brought these issues to the forefront. An awareness across the political divide of the need for Malaysia to continue its economic expansion and attract further in¬vestment should play a key part in future policy-making.

The Inter¬national Monetary Fund (IMF), has forecast 5.1 per cent growth for 2013, although exter¬nal factors, such as slower than expected expansion in the US or China, along with the threat of continued recession in the euro¬zone, could affect the country’s economy. The so-called New Economic Model proposed by the existing government will never produce the promised high-income status for Malaysians in 2020 unless there is a change in the management of Malaysia’s resources based on the wellbeing of future generations.

Malaysia’s rapid economic growth may well be coming to an end, as natural resources are being depleted and the workforce has reached a limit of productivity. A new era of social justice underpinning economic decisions was envisaged by the Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition. Their failure to gain enough seats was particularly galling given that the election laws favour the ruling party and electoral fraud, abuse of power and control of the Elections Commission made it almost inevitable.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim may have lost this election but he has certainly won the fight for change and social justice and he has a much stronger presence now to challenge the status quo, work for electoral reform, to put an end to corruption and to influence the restructuring of the economy for a more sustainable future for Malaysia’s people.

eurasiareview

Malaysia’s much anticipated 13th general election saw a rise in citizen participation. This poses a new challenge for the country’s political elite: how to respond to this change.

MALAYSIA

WHILE MALAYSIA’S 13th general election saw an intense contest between the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) what is of equal significance has been the participation of ordinary citizens in the process. In the run-up to the elections, many have taken the initiative to be involved – in many different ways through different channels.

The numbers who turned out to vote on 5 May 2013 perhaps reflect this shift in political activism. According to the Election Commission, 85 per cent cast their votes for parliamentary seats while 86 per cent for the state legislative assembly seats. This was the highest number of votes cast in any general election in the country’s history. Many researchers have referred to this as the “people’s election”.

A rapidly changing political landscape

While the country is seeing the beginnings of a new political environment the question remains: how should its political elite respond to such trends?

Recent global events from the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall Street movement have given the world unexpected glimpses of the power of citizen participation; where demonstrating masses with the means of the Internet as a tool are able to play a significant part in the overthrow of long-standing regimes or in spreading the cause of a movement to many parts of the world.

While many have pointed to the increase in Internet connectivity as one of the main causes of these examples of citizen activism, opinion remains divided. Some analysts caution against reading too much into the effects of the Internet and social media in particular, citing the phenomenon of “clicktivism” as akin to being mere “armchair activists or politicians”. They argue that social media provides the means for an easy response which does not translate to actual and substantial participation. However, others are more inclined towards the notion that the improvements in information and communication technologies have empowered the average citizen.

They note that the increase in Internet connectivity has reduced the cost of access to information and networking opportunities, paving the way to new heights in citizen participation. Whichever the case, it appeared that few governments caught up in the Arab Spring saw the signs of these changes and even fewer knew how to manage it effectively.

For Malaysia, an increasingly active citizenry has appeared in the country’s political landscape. While the political parties battle it out in the traditional manner of campaign rallies, banners and speeches in mainstream media, the cyberspace was abuzz with Malaysians opining, promoting or assisting others in the run-up to the elections. What is noteworthy is the diverse ways in which citizens have chosen to play their parts in these elections.

Electoral reform campaigns helmed by the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) took on a global character with similar rallies and gatherings being carried out in a number of countries by many interested Malaysians. In the run-up to the elections, various online social initiatives sprung up to provide assistance such as transport arrangements for Malaysians who were planning to return and vote. For example, the Bersih Singapore group coordinated a carpool matching service for Malaysians returning from Singapore to vote. Another example is the “Jom Balik Undi” (Let’s go back to vote’) campaign started on Facebook, an initiative to encourage overseas Malaysians to return and vote.

Courting the active stakeholders

Apart from this, there are citizens who chose to participate in a more direct manner: many have spent their time training and volunteering as polling agents or as citizen election observers under initiatives run by a number of civil society groups such as the Merdeka Centre and Ideas.

The increasingly active political landscape has not escaped the attention of the country’s political establishment. Many of the country’s political parties and politicians have Facebook and twitter accounts, from the Prime Minister himself to prominent members of the opposition parties. While ordinary citizens can connect with politicians and receive updated news, whether this sufficiently engages today’s politically active citizens is unclear. Why does this matter?

Social media analysts have predicted a worldwide trend emerging, leading to a time when almost everyone on earth will be connected through advancement in technology. This will bring about profound effects on many established concepts such as citizenship and governance, significantly reallocating the concentration of power from states and institutions to the people. In such a case, established institutions and hierarchies would have to learn to adapt or risk becoming obsolete.

Malaysia on the cusp of change

Malaysia’s political landscape appears to be on the cusp of change: as the country’s citizens become more technologically empowered to take action there is a need to rethink the ways in which to engage such communities. The means to do so look set to be the beginning of a journey in redefining the relationship between the country’s political elite and its citizens.

At this juncture, two observations can be made. Firstly, the trend shows a level of participation that transcends just following tweets or updates. The underlying motivation appears to be one of active engagement, of a deeper and more committed involvement in issues that matter. Hence, new ways of engaging these citizens need to be considered.

Secondly but more importantly, channelling the commitment and energies of such groups should be seen to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. What is not helpful is to wrongly interpret such involvement as being in any way partisan or anti-establishment. This would just act to alienate genuine interest that would bring the country to higher levels of democratic maturity – in line with what may already be happening globally.

Yeap Su Yin is an Associate Research Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The  Malaysian Insider

Semalam Naib Presiden Pertubuhan Pribumi Malaysia (Perkasa), Zulkifli Noordin, menghasilkan satu rencana yang telah dicetak di dalam Utusan Malaysia.

Beliau dalam rencana yang bertajuk “Mitos undi popular PRU-13” ini telah menggunakan pertandingan badminton untuk menyangkal dakwaan Pakatan Rakyat (PR) tentang ketidakadilan sistem “first-past-the-post” di bawah pemerintahan Barisan Nasional (BN).

Beliau telah menghasilkan tulisan seperti yang berikut dan saya memetik:

1. Set 1 — Najib 21 Anwar 19;

2. Set 2 — Anwar 21 Najib 03;

3. Set 3 — Najib 21 Anwar 19.

“Apabila pengadil mengumumkan Najib menang dengan 2-1, Anwar tiba-tiba bangkit melalak mendakwa dia patut menang kerana mendapat 59 poin atau 57% daripada jumlah keseluruhan point pertandingan (sebanyak 104); sedangkan Najib hanya mendapat 45 point atau 43% daripada keseluruhan point pertandingan!”

Tulisan ini mencerminkan kejahilan Zulkifli tentang ketidakadilan sistem politik Malaysia di mana ianya semakin tenat di bawah pemerintahan BN lebih daripada 50 tahun.

Saya terkejut kerana Zulkifli tergamak menggunakan pertandingan badminton sebagai tolok perbandingan.

Memang itu peraturan pertandingan badminton tetapi adakah Zulkifli tahu bahawa pengadil dalam permainan badminton perlu berlaku adil dan saksama?

Adakah beliau juga tahu bahawa kedua-dua pihak yang bertanding dalam pertandingan badminton sebenarnya bermain dalam gelanggang yang sama rata dan adil (level playing field)?

Sistem pilihan raya Malaysia telah kehilangan kedua-dua aspek yang sangat penting ini untuk memelihara keadilan dan kebebasan perjalanan pilihan raya.

Memang Malaysia menggunakan cara “first-past-the-post” seperti United Kingdom, tetapi masalah di Malaysia ialah perbezaan saiz sesuatu kawasan parlimen berbanding dengan sebuah yang lain adalah terlalu besar.

Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) memberi pelbagai alasan.

Antaranya kawasan parlimen di luar bandar disempadankan dengan lebih kecil untuk memudahkan wakil rakyatnya memberi perkhidmatan yang lebih baik kepada rakyat luar bandar.

Hakikatnya ialah sesama kawasan parlimen luar bandar pun terdapat perbezaan yang amat ketara.

Contohnya ialah kawasan parlimen Hulu Selangor yang mempunyai lebih 80,000 orang pengundi sementara kawasan parlimen Sungai Besar dan Sabak Bernam hanya separuh daripada Hulu Selangor biarpun kesemua kerusi ini terletak di kawasan luar bandar.

Selain itu, PR juga tidak diberi akses yang adil dan saksama oleh media aliran utama, khususnya media cetak, stesyen televisyen dan radio berbahasan Malaysia dan Inggeris.

Ini menjadikan PR menghadapi masalah untuk menyampaikan dasar-dasarnya kepada masyarakat luar bandar yang rata-ratanya bergantung kepada media cetak untuk mendapatkan maklumat tentang pilihan raya.

Tidak perlu disebut pula masalah politik wang, pengundi-pengundi hantu dan masalah-masalah lain yang telah dan akan dibangkitkan oleh calon-calon tertentu dalam petisyen pilihan raya mereka.

Bagaimanakah keadaan yang senget dan berat sebelah ini boleh dibandingkan dengan pertandingan badminton yang mempunyai peraturan yang jauh lebih adil?

Barangkali hanya Zulkifli sahaja yang mempunyai jawapannya yang tersendiri sedangkan kebanyakan rakyat Malaysia masih tidak terima bagaimana BN boleh memerintah Malaysia dengan hanya 47 peratus undi sedangkan 51 peratus pengundi telah memilih PR.

* Lau Weng San adalah ADUN DAP Kampung Tunku.

Malaysiakini

Truth and reconciliation about things Malaysian must start at the beginning, i.e. at creation, and then move towards the present.

Otherwise, such words and phrases are pointless verbiage and meaningless chatter. It does not make it right just because a 56-year-old government says so.

Let us start with the facts:

1. Persekutuan Tanah Malaya was legitimised as a modern legal entity in 1948.  But, we were a British colony then.

2. In 1957, the same colony became the Federation of Malaya under a brand new constitution, which defined all legal premises and understandings of the newer reality. These legalities were part and parcel of the social arrangements.

3. The new nation had nine Malay states and two Straits Settlements; and for the first time an Agong or Head of State or King of the new Federation was established.

4. The constitution defined all truths and reality about this new federation and even went as far as to declare the nine sultans as the head of Islam in each state, and made them all guardians of Malay culture and traditions.

5. The constitution also declared itself as the supreme law of the federation; which is an absolute and unconditional statement, but which is difficult to deny or change without unravelling all other in-built truths.

6. In 1963, the Federation of Malaysia was formed to make a new nation-state, premised upon the Malayan peninsula but also framing an even newer political entity made up of four new partners. Singapore left after two years, and thus leaving just three partners of the Federation of Malaysia.

Now, my question of import to establish my Bangsa Malaysia question: Is Malaysia made up of three independent states or 14 post-colonial entities?

Our so-called ‘Jalur Gemilang’ the Federation of Malaysia flag, has 14 well symbolised emblems incorporated in it.

My real question is whether such a framing of the symbol representing 14 really a mistake? Was it the truth, or really a badly-constructed restatement of non-accurate historical facts which now may even appear very one-sided?

Please follow my arguments:

- The nine states of the Federation of Malaya were original kingdoms of feudal lords who are artificially concocted into a federation by political might and influence of colonial masters rather than by some notions of real or true history premised only upon ethnicity, or geography, or past history.

- The two Straits Settlements of Malacca and Penang were colonial territories by equally historical factors. Singapore was almost identical but had a different treatment.

- The two States of Sabah and Sarawak were post-Independent colonial entities who had agreed to form a new Malaysian state with two other states of Singapore and Malaya.

Therefore, we have the original federation of 11 sub-regions, which we call the ‘states of Malaya’ (or nine tanah-tanah Melayu plus the two Straits Settlements).

Then, we have two independent Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak which joined Malaya to make the new Federation of Malaysia. Singapore left the federation in 1965 to become an independent entity.

My problem with the current interpretation of the meanings in the federal constitution are as follows; but which also makes the logic of ‘ketuanan Melayu’ unacceptable as a flawed concept, unless we believe in non-facts and untruths.

My 1BangsaMalaysia argument

‘Bangsa Malaysia’ was a conceptual vision of one people-group (of multiple ethnicities) of one nation-state as originally verbalised by Dr Mahathir Mohamad when prime minister in 1981.

His speech was delivered in English at an event organised by ISIS and had been crafted by Dr Nordin Sopiee. I do not believe my facts are wrong.

Therefore, the rest of my argument is:

• The concept of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ is not a Melayu concept, even if drafted by and delivered by two technical Melayus. It was an international concept of a new and modern nation-state of one aspiration and people group who share a common vision and choose to call them by that national identity.

• While the Melayu word ‘bangsa’ also means race, that was not the intended meaning and application of the word in the speech delivered in English to an international audience.

• I would further argue that the word in Anglicised form is really the new meaning which transcends race or ethnicity while framing a new national identity. Therefore Bangsa Malaysians are a new people-group of a new nation-state called Malaysia even if made up only of Malayans, Sabahans, and Sarawakians.

• Therefore, if we borrow the concept of ‘1Malaysia’ and now apply it to the ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ concept, it can only become the one Bangsa of Malaysians who make up this nation-state we call Malaysia. There cannot be 1Malaysia and multiple other entities at the same time.

To my mind and heart, this must become our agenda as a nation-state we call 1Malaysia to move forward, as a united people who learn to respect the federal constitution and all other preservations and protections given and assured by the same document.

We cannot now refuse the rule of law, as we are already a nation-state ruled by laws and provisions within the same document that constitutes all of us.

All Malaysians and consequential corporate institutions allowed by the constitution must come under the same set and rule of law. No one, including the royalty, is above that same law.

May God grant us the wisdom to understand, appreciate and execute this system of the rule of law for all our common good!

Malaysiakini

It is simply ironic; Umno Baru’s Najib Abdul Razak, has urged the BN coalition to adapt so that it can maintain its relevance in the future – but behind closed doors, all the Umno Baru politicians fear change.

Why? They fear that Umno Baru will cease to exist because of Meritocracy, Accountability, Transparency and Integrity (MATI) – qualities which no Umno Baru politician displays or can ever hope to attain.

It is alleged that Umno Baru politicians laugh at this MATI joke because they realise the significance of adopting the MATI principles, as MATI means ‘death’ in Malay.

Umno Baru tyrants have exploited the rakyat for their own ends, but anyone who has met Najib or former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad will be struck by their apparent friendliness and kindly manner. They will be surprised that despite what is written about them; their alleged arrogance and the alleged corruptions carried out on their behalf, they are very different in person.

That is why it is important for members of the rakyat, to understand that the public persona of these men is just a facade. Behind the public masks, lurk other people – men who are responsible for dividing the rakyat and plundering the nation.

Mahathir started off by separating the rakyat into ‘superior’ Malays versus the ‘inferior’ non-Malays. Each group was then further sub-divided. Malays were separated into ordinary Malays and Umno Baru-putras.

Najib continued Mahathir’s work – for instance, in Najib’s cabinet, the ‘divide and rule’ concept is used to keep the Indians at bay. This can be seen as Hindraf’s P Waythamoorthy eats out of one hand, whilst the MIC representative feeds from the other. Najib reinforces our prejudices by rewarding one group, only if they do as they are told.

The environment which Umno Baru created stifles national unity. The brainwashing of Malaysians has reached epidemic levels. We do not require the presence of people in uniform to make us obey.

Our grandparents thought nothing of entering a Chinese kedai kopi (coffeeshop) for refreshments. Today, when I enter a Chinese coffeeshop to meet a friend, I am amazed at the shocked stares of people along the five-foot way. Worse still, the coffeeshop owner looks anxious and is eager for me to leave quickly. He is afraid that he will incur the wrath of the authorities.

Unity begins at home

Our society has descended into a social morass, and yet these Malaysians – who react like this in Malaysia – have no reservations when they are overseas.

By dividing the rakyat into groups of “them” and “us”, Umno Baru has created a community of overbearing Malays. These people demand that non-Malays treat them with deference. Non-Malays have related their experiences during open house celebrations. They claim that to accommodate their Muslim friends, they would prepare halal food on new crockery and cutlery, but Malays simply snub their efforts.

Unity, like charity, should always begin at home. These may be insignificant acts, but their consequences are enough to widen the gulf between the races.

Despite the injustices in the country, there are many people who refuse to become involved. They are content to watch from the sidelines and say nothing, thus prolonging everyone’s suffering.

Do these people, who are not willing to intervene, condone the lack of meritocracy in the nation? The award of scholarships to students is masked in secrecy. What will happen when their children are denied a place at university? Why should our best scholars end up in Singapore or beyond?

Why are some able and financially secure companies unable to bid successfully for government tenders? Why are the children of politicians, with little or no experience, able to win multi-billion ringgit projects?

When it comes to accountability, are these bystanders not worried about the future of their country? The new inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar has vowed to curb “illegal” rallies, but he has failed to find the men guilty of the increasing numbers of deaths in police custody.

Extremists are let off, and crime is reportedly rising. Is there any accountability in the police force? Khalid claims that he is not politically motivated and yet his actions defy his words.

The new Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin has wasted his superior education. Cheating, crime and corruption are wrong, although he has maintained that there was “not a shred of evidence” of electoral fraud in GE13.

How can you trust a man who once defended former Women’s Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, who was embroiled in the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal? The NFC was allegedly controlled by her husband and children, who misappropriated soft loans to feather their own nests.

Many government projects lack transparency and yet when they fail, it is the taxpayer who picks up the tab. The Penang administration claims that it practises transparency in awarding projects and that the majority of the awards are won by bumiputera contractors. If the Penang state government can achieve this, there is no reason why it cannot be accomplished at the federal level.

‘BN’s lack of integrity’

Waythamoorthy of Hindraf spoke at a University of London (School of African and Oriental Studies) lecture on ‘The Marginalisation of Malaysia’s Minority Indian Community’ in early 2012, where he was asked about the lack of integrity of Malaysian politicians. He agreed that Malaysian politicians were without honour. Little did anyone realise that one year later, he would join the ranks of politicians without integrity.

Young student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim (left) has more integrity than the whole BN government combined. He is worried about the future of the country, whereas the BN politicians are worried about the future of their pockets.

Najib’s crackdown on dissenters is a show of intimidation. He is afraid that the people’s power will topple him and Umno Baru in the same way that a rising tide of anger toppled some north African regimes.

Anyone who thinks that Umno Baru will adapt, or that the Election Commission (EC) will reform and ensure a free and fair GE14, is seriously deluded.

Before GE13, Umno Baru tried to wear down the opposition leader with a barrage of legal persecution. After GE13, Umno Baru is still attempting to quash the will of the people. They have no incentive to clean up the electoral system.

Umno Baru said they would reform, but they failed. When the public rallied to show their disgust, there was a large-scale brutal crackdown on dissenters. Very soon, the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) will cause the prices of ordinary goods to increase further. This – linked with corruption that remains unchecked – will cause our economy to suffer.

Umno Baru politicians have betrayed us and tried to pit Malaysians against one another. 10 years ago, one would not have thought of Malaysians as having solidarity. Today, they are united and will be able to kill off this tyrannical rule.

Malaysiakini

I wrote about it, didn’t I? A vote for Najib Abdul Razak would be a vote for the return of Mahathirism, and no sooner was I proven right last Saturday when student activist Adam Adli Abd Halim was hauled up by the police for investigation into his ‘seditious’ remarks.

While Adam is now out on bail awaiting trial, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Ghafar were nabbed one after another, again under the notorious and anachronistic Sedition Act 1948.

It does feel like 1987 and 1998 all over again, and we are stuck.
We are stuck because this Umno-dominated government persistently refuses to acknowledge that the world has moved on and that a large segment of Malaysian society is now ready to ditch it. The only way for Umno to remain in power is through vote-rigging, bribery, control of the media, electoral fraud and draconian legislation.

While the Internal Security Act is gone, the Sedition Act is not. Najib, now the minority prime minister, announced last July that it would be abolished, but was cunning enough to not gazette it as he knew he would need it after GE13. How convenient. As a closet authoritarian, he never disappoints. And his Wesak message that “there will be an abundance of joy and peace and forgiveness as people seek blessings for themselves and their loved ones” just makes me puke.

Early this week, Mahathir Mohamad (left) warned against street rallies on his blog, saying that “in many instances the police had to withdraw or they may be directed to withdraw. They become disinclined to carry out their duties. Some people would take advantage of this by committing minor crimes. The people would feel insecure”.

But time and again, the protesters have proven him wrong, for those who were bent on wreaking havoc turned out to be agents provocateur planted by Umno!

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, desperate to prove his worth, has first alienated the public with his migration outburst and then come down hard on those who dare to stand up to state bullying. There will be a do-or-die party election end of the year and, true to their chauvinistic nature, all the Umno bigwigs must act tough to secure the support of the rank and file.

As many Malaysia watchers have said, the real contest in Malaysia is not general elections, which are fought on uneven terrain and horribly skewed to the disproportionate advantage of the ruling coalition, but Umno party polls, in which horse-trading, betraying and vote-buying are far more rampant.

This year, it is going to be all the more crucial now that close to two-thirds of the cabinet is made up of Umno ministers, most of whom will not think twice to resort to high-handedness and provocative statements just to up the ante against their rivals, all at the expense of the people.

Iron-fisted tactics

Some have asked why I must blame Mahathir for all that is wrong with Malaysian society today?

Of course one has to apportion a large chunk of the blame to the man who is single-handedly responsible for the rot in our judiciary, distortion of parliamentary democracy, police brutality and media manipulation. In short, Mahathir has practically destroyed the relatively fair system of checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers in 1957.

His iron-fisted tactics in 1987 and then in 1998 have left his successors with a modus operandi to emulate when their authority is severely challenged, and they have shown no qualms in substituting even the last vestiges of our democracy with renewed authoritarianism.

Lest not forget that it was Mahathir who as education minister in the 1970s brutally suppressed our vibrant campus culture, after which student activism went into a sharp decline. In the decades that followed, the Chinese were taught to think they were superior to the Malays academically.

For years, the Chinese parents would want their young ones to shun student activism, focus on textbook knowledge, and care about nothing else. For a student to take to the streets to protest against an unjust system and a suffocating campus culture was not only useless but also a sign of moral decay.

That’s why Adam (right) has been amazing. With his simple but brave act of defiance, he has won the hearts and minds of many Chinese parents. He has changed radically their perception about student politics, and given them tremendous hopes for the future generations. Adam and his supportive father have done Malaysia proud indeed.

I would not care one iota if Mahathir had honoured his promise by not playing a prominent role in Malaysian politics. Instead, he is just omnipresent.

In other words, I would not hold Adolf Hitler accountable for neo-Nazism that is now becoming pervasive again across Europe, or Emperor Hirohito for the jingoistic stance taken by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in recent weeks, or Mao Zedong for the re-emergence of ugly nationalism in China, for the simple reason that all these autocrats who once brought their respective countries onto the brink of total destruction are dead.

Not so with Mahathir, as he continues to manoeuvre behind the scenes and influence his party’s directions in a way that may eventually bring Malaysia ‘securely’ back to the age of tyranny,  not to mention the racist and seditious views which he sees no wrong in uttering every now and then.

This is precisely what the ‘neutral elites’ choose not to admit, pretending instead that Malaysia has moved out of the dark shadows of Mahathirism. Unlike the Germans who have thoroughly de-Nazified their beloved country, we are yet to embark on the project of de-Mahathirisation. The task is doubly hard now that Mahathir is practically the backseat driver, and a devious one at that.

Hence, the arrests of Adam, Tian Chua, Harris and Tamrin are only just the beginning and represent the shape of more abhorrent things to come.

Yes, it is 1987 and 1998 all over again, but the sentiments on the ground are vastly different in 2013. In their pursuit of greater democratic space, Malaysians have demonstrated their determination in confronting state violence face to face. It is a trend that must not be reversed, and change is now a duty that cannot be relegated.

VIVA News

Anwar menuduh pemerintah telah mencurangi hasil penghitungan suara.

Pemimpin kelompok oposisi Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, mengatakan Malaysia masih harus belajar kepada Indonesia soal demokrasi dan pemilu.

Berbicara pada VIVAnews pekan lalu, Anwar mengatakan bahwa institusi demokrasi di Indonesia lebih maju sehingga bisa menyelenggarakan pemilu yang bebas dan tanpa ada campur tangan pemerintah.

Dia mengatakan, calon presiden di Indonesia yang diusung dari berbagai partai politik dapat berdebat dalam forum terbuka. “Sementara di Malaysia, saya dan PM Najib saat ingin berdebat langsung tidak diterima,” ujarnya.

Tetapi Anwar tidak yakin para pemangku kepentingan Malaysia saat ini ingin benar-benar belajar mengenai demokrasi dari Indonesia. Dia berpendapat pimpinan Organisasi Nasional Malaysia Bersatu (UMNO) terlalu arogan untuk mengakui Indonesia lebih unggul dalam hal perkembangan demokrasi.

“Bagi mereka Indonesia itu cuma soal TKI saja. Mereka seharusnya memiliki sikap yang lebih realistis menerima kenyataan bahwa Indonesia dari sudut pandang memantapkan demokrasi dan pengurusan pemilu yang jujur dan adil harus dipelajari pengalamannya,” kata Anwar.

Anwar juga mengecam pemilu tersebut yang menurut mereka telah dicurangi. Anwar mengatakan, dalam penghitungan komisi pemilihan umum Malaysia, seharusnya pihaknya yang menang.

Wawancara lengkap Anwar bisa dilihat di tautan ini.