Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Politics & government Society

[1951] Of we do not want to go down the path Thailand is on

Thailand has been a popular role model for monarchists in Malaysia, who believe that the monarchy has the potential to be the umpire for an increasingly competitive Malaysian democracy. Now that Thailand again finding itself in shambles, the same Malaysian monarchists are no longer quite as willing to cite our neighbor up north. For others like me, who have always been uncomfortable with the idea of an activist monarchy, this reaffirms our commitment to organic politics.

Thailand finds itself in a quagmire because its government refuses to return to the Thai people to earn mandate to govern. Rather than appealing to the electorates, the ruling class preferred a top-down approach to legitimize their grip to power.

In a society that stresses great respect for the monarch, appealing to the monarchy may be the best way to obtain the mandate to rule. It is hard to ignore the influence of the Thai King over the Thai people. In discussing the politics of Thailand, various publications inevitably work extra hard to remind all of that fact.

Slowly however after a series of unending political conflicts, the reverence for the King may be slowly becoming irrelevant. The latest episode of uprising may finally force a rethink of that reverence as the red-shirted Thai people — Thaksin supporters — organize themselves to confront the yellow-shirted royalists, who are Abhisit’s supporters.

There were multiple opportunities for those holding power to return to the Thai people ever since the military coup d’etat against the Thaksin administration in 2006. Each time the opportunity arrived, however, the yellow shirts — he People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and supporters of the current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva — misused that opportunity. They either appealed to the monarchy — at the expense of democracy — or pressured the government that they disliked to step down without returning to the ballot boxes fairly.

PAD did this because they know they cannot win a general election fairly.The rural population makes up the majority in Thailand and the ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, together with his allies, are popular in the rural areas.

The politics of Thailand is more or less defined by this rural-urban divide, with allowance for those in the south who aligned themselves to the urban elites. The urban elites — almost synonymous to the educated class — align themselves with the royalists. Tyranny of the majority is a real concern when the majority is bent on threatening the rights of the minority. Such majoritarianism is distasteful.

To address such majoritarianism, a liberal democracy where individual rights are secured is required.

But distaste for crass majoritarianism is one thing. Distaste for democracy is another.

What is happening in Thailand, however, is not distaste for majoritarianism but, rather, distaste for organic politics in favour of a top-down approach. The royalist elites’ low opinion of organic politics is visible when PAD proposed what they called ”a new politics”. They wanted a Parliament whose membership is not earned through the ballot boxes but granted by the King.

Such a political maneuver can only certainly disenfranchise the majority while it unduly strengthens the minority, making democracy redundant. Clearly, the word ”democracy” in PAD’s acronym is not worth much. Democracy is only a convenient empty rhetoric to PAD as well as to the Abhisit-led Democrat Party.

When the military executed the coup d’etat with blessings from the monarchy in 2006, the action was presented as an effort to save Thai democracy. At that time, this appeared to be the case and the military and the yellow-shirted masses deserved the benefit of doubt, given the issues associated with the Thaksin administration.

The involvement of the monarchy in breaking the deadlock then was immediately hailed as a wise move, even in Malaysia. Seizing the moment, Malaysian royalists argued that without the monarchy, Thailand would have descended into further chaos.

Never mind that the ones who caused the chaos, the ones who became the judge and the ones who benefited from the involvement of the monarchy were, suspiciously, from the same side — the Thai royalists and their allies, the yellow shirts.

Approximately three years have passed since that royal intervention. And as time progressed, the real effect of that coup d’tat and royal intervention has become clear.

At this juncture, neither has Thai democracy been saved nor does royal intervention appear wise. Instead, in retrospect, the intervention has worsened the situation, from protest by the elites to protest by the masses.

What is visible now as Bangkok falls into a state of emergency once again is the failure of the top-down approach. This is a direct rebuke to monarchists in Malaysia who opined earlier that the monarchy has a greater role to play in Malaysian politics.

The top-down approach and, specifically, the act of deferring to the monarchy, does not work because it does not address real organic differences that exist among the masses. These real differences can only be addressed through the will of the people and not through the will of the monarchy. The answer for Thailand is the ballot boxes and not further royal intervention.

The Thai monarchy — as well as the military, which has shown royalist tendencies — has to be taken out of the equation.

Only a free and fair election can truly break the deadlock. The losers, at the same time, must accept that result of such an election and stop trying to bring down a government that earned its mandate from the people.

Refusal to do so will prolong the chaos.

And if the losers continue to return to the monarchy to subvert the will of the majority, sooner or later that respect the majority has for the monarchy will suffer erosion. The majority will become tired of witnessing their rights being abused again and again by the royalists and the monarchy.

If that abuse happens once too often, Thailand will become a republic.

Already the majority has decided to openly challenge a side that always hides behind the Thai throne. In the past, the Thai royalists’ association with the monarchy is enough to discourage opposition, for fear of being seen to be disrespecting the King. That fear appears to be diminishing now.

For the Thai King’s own sake, he should disengage himself from Thai politics before it is too late.

In a more democratic Malaysia where the monarchy enjoys much less reverence from the people compared to our neighbor to the north, deferring to the monarchy on various issues such as languages and selection of Prime Minister is undesirable.

Unless we dream to subvert our problematic but maturing competitive democracy, and unless we want to risk the status quo for our monarchy, our country must continue to be driven by wisdom of the people.

We should not tread the path the Thais are on if we ourselves do not wish to progress — or regress — further along the evolutionary line of forms of government.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 14 2009.

Categories
Politics & government

[1950] Mengenai Ibrahim Ali yang bercakap tanpa berfikir

Ibrahim Ali fikir kerana Parlimen negara Malaysia dipenuhi dengan ahli-ahli Parlimen rakyat Malaysia berbangsa Melayu, satu kerajaan Melayu yang eksklusif boleh dibentuk. Berdasarkan premis itu, dia menyatakan bahawa kerajaan “sepatutnya memenuhi apa sahaja yang menjadi kehendak Melayu kerana mereka adalah majoriti dan bukan asyik bertolak ansur dengan bukan Melayu.”[1]

Walaupun benar ahli Parlimen berbangsa Melayu merupakan kumpulan majoriti di dalam Parlimen (atau secara tepatnya Dewan Rakyat) jika kita melihat dari segi warna kulit, Ibrahim Ali gagal memahami realiti politik di negara ini. Mata masih terlelap walaupun berjalan di tepi tebing curam yang tinggi. Angin mampu menolaknya jatuh ke bawah.

Angin yang sama juga mampu meruntuhkan premisnya yang goyah.

Bukan semua orang Melayu percaya kepada perjuangan kolot Ibrahim Ali itu. Atas dasar itu, kerajaan Melayu Ibrahim Ali itu tidak akan boleh dibentuk di atas bumi yang nyata.

Ibrahim Ali, seorang ahli politik yang ketinggalan zaman, gagal memahami bahawa bangsa Melayu — malah mana-mana bangsa sekalipun — tidak boleh dilihat sebagai satu kumpulan yang monolitik. Ini dirasionalkan melalui kewujudan kepelbagaian pendapat di kalangan individu-individu. Setingkat ke atas, terdapat kumpulan-kumpulan yang berbeza pendapat di antara satu sama lain. Ini boleh dibuktikan dengan mudah dengan melihat komposisi Dewan Rakyat: ahli-ahli Dewan Rakyat berbangsa Melayu secara amnya terbahagi kepada sekurang-kurangnya tiga parti politik, iaitu PAS, PKR dan UMNO.

Berapa ramai ahli-ahli Dewan Rakyat berbangsa Melayu mahu bersama-sama membentuk kerajaan Ibrahim Ali itu? Mampukan Melayu-Melayu yang memikul perjuangan perkauman itu memenangi undi di Dewan Rakyat dengan sendiri?

Mengambil kira golongan ahli Dewan Rakyat kerakyatan Malaysia termasuk yang berbangsa Melayu yang menolak pemikiran lama yang diterima pakai oleh Ibrahim Ali, secara yakinnya jawapannya tidak sama sekali.

Dengan jolokkan ini sahaja, retorik — dan bukan logik; tiada logik mempertahankan kata-kata Ibrahim Ali itu; hanya kata-kata berapi yang kosong — Ibrahim Ali berjaya dipatahkan.

Satu kerajaan yang diwakili semata-mata oleh orang Melayu yang mahu duduk semeja dengan Ibrahim Ali tidak akan terbentuk. Malah, siapakah yang mahu duduk semeja dengan pengkhianat politik yang sentiasa melompat parti politik kerana kepentingan peribadi?

Jangan terjerit-jerit akan perjuangan bangsa apabila jelas diri itu sendiri tamakkan kuasa!

Oleh itu, wahai ahli Parlimen Ibrahim Ali, janganlah bermimpi basah tentang ideologi perkauman yang sempit lagi keji. Premis anda salah, lemah dan tidak mampu dipertahankan. Maka, kesimpulan anda tersasar ke pahit di tepi jalan tanah merah.

Inilah kualiti salah seorang ahli Parlimen kita! Memalukan!

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR 14 April — Orang Melayu perlu bangkit dan bersatu dalam berhadapan dengan tuntutan kaum lain yang kini dilihat semakin keterlaluan.

Mereka juga perlu sedar dan insaf dengan situasi politik semasa yang menyaksikan pelbagai tuntutan hingga boleh menjejaskan kekuatan politik orang Melayu.

Sehubungan itu, orang Melayu diminta tidak tunduk kepada tuntutan keterlaluan tersebut sebalik bangkit bersatu bagi mempertahankan hak dan kepentingan mereka.

Ahli Parlimen Pasir Mas, Datuk Ibrahim Ali berkata, pemimpin bukan Melayu dalam hal ini perlu sedar yang sesebuah kerajaan itu boleh sahaja untuk tidak ”˜melayan’ tuntutan mereka.

Katanya, jumlah kerusi terbanyak di Parlimen adalah milik Melayu dan ia cukup untuk membentuk sebuah kerajaan berasaskan wakil rakyat Melayu semata-mata di negara ini.

Katanya, justeru, dari segi politiknya kerajaan itu sepatutnya memenuhi apa sahaja yang menjadi kehendak Melayu kerana mereka adalah majoriti dan bukan asyik bertolak ansur dengan bukan Melayu. [Bangkitlah Melayu. Utusan Malaysia. April 14 2009]

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1949] Of MP Khalid Samad at Northeast Malaysia Forum 2009

Knowing that this might be my last opportunity to attend an edition of the Northeast Malaysia Forum in Kuala Lumpur, I decided to be there. Although the KL site was not be as big as main site — as true for two previous editions organized in 2005 and 2008 — I saw great improvement this time around for KL compared.

Unlike previous editions, the KL site was hosted in a proper studio this year. On top of that, the site accommodated audience. There were probably more or less 20 people there, including the studio crew, volunteers, panelists and audience. That was not possible in the past.

This edition was larger in its reach too. Apart from Yale and KL, there were a host of following from other cities, namely Chicago, Singapore, London and Sydney. This is a proof that the alumni of Malaysia Forum are spreading their wing wider.

Now, the most interesting statement that came out from the KL site to me is the one from MP Khalid Samad.

He was touching about freedom of religion. In response to a question relating to Lina Joy, he said that if God had willed it, he would have made everybody a Muslim. But God does not do that and that says a lot about the freedom of religion that Islam grants.

I am not quite sure if he is saying simply because the audience was primarily a liberal group but given his track record, I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt. He is after all one of the more reasonable PAS members, probably in the same vein of the PAS MP from Kuala Selangor, Dr. Dzulkifli Ahmad. When I said reasonable, that definitely means better than a majority of BN MPs.

While appealing to freedom of religion, it is unclear what he thinks of Muslims having the same liberty. He did say in the same evening in front of the same audience that Muslims have their own laws and their should abide to it.

For further material on what was discussed by Khalid Samad, as well as MP Yusmadi Yusoff, friend Yeoh Chen Chow did a good job at summarizing it.[1] You may evaluate Khalid Samad’s words yourself there.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — [Live Blogging of NMF – YB Yusmadi Yusoff & YB Khalid Samad. Yeoh Chen Chow. April 11 2009]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — MP Yusmadi Yusoff, just before leaving the premise, invites members of Northeast Malaysia Forum to visit the Parliament during one of the sittings over the summer. All the more reason why YOU PEOPLE should come back.

He is also looking for individuals to participate in the Asian Renaissance Conference to be held in Manila, the Philippines later in December 2009. What is that? I leave their website to do the explaining.

Interested?

Contact him. Or contact me (I have nothing to do with the Conference. Just doing him a favor).

Categories
Politics & government

[1948] Of the next big step is a small Cabinet

Skepticism comes naturally with broken promises. Due to disillusionment among far too many individuals under the previous administration, the words of a Barisan Nasional-led administration are close to worthless nowadays. It is, therefore, not hard to prove that the window for sloganeering for the new Prime Minister is extremely narrow. What really matters now is action, and the first step in breaking that skepticism is by assembling a Cabinet worthy of trust.

The window for sloganeering should have been shut completely if not for the role of slogans in clarifying any agenda. While catchy slogans still have a place, the agenda must first be set straight and right. In this era of extreme skepticism, doing otherwise invites disaster.

Questions on the slogan will be raised and convincing answers will not be forthcoming exactly because the slogan lacks substance. That will create disappointment, reinforcing pre-existing skepticism. Mixing skepticism with further disappointment is a surefire recipe for cynicism.

Being a skeptic, it is not hard at all to turn myself into a cynic, especially with the mainstream media acting the way they do at the moment. The mainstream media — the major printed and broadcast media — are obviously oblivious to the reason why they lost their credibility in the first place. Their coverage of the three just-concluded by-elections continue to prove that they are nothing more than individuals typically found in the dark back alleys with scant ersatz clothing soliciting for clients of dubious taste.

So early in days of the new administration, there are little clues to the actual agenda of the new Prime Minister, save an unclear slogan with no concrete definition.

”One Malaysia”, for instance, is amazingly opaque despite the untrustworthy mainstream media parading the slogan as a sign of change. Change is not about slogans but the mainstream media would have all of us believed otherwise.

There appears to be some effort by the Prime Minister to elaborate on that slogan on a piecemeal basis but, so far, it is all wishy washy. It is there in the air, warm and fuzzy but nobody can really see it. The new Prime Minister clearly has not communicated his message well.

This has made his slogans open for a gamut of interpretations, making blowback a real possibility. Already ”One Malaysia” is seen by some as a repackaged Malaysian Malaysia, striking fear in the hearts of conservative Malays. On the other side, ”One Malaysia” suggests intolerance for civil dissents and a return to Asian values where unity is promoted at the expense of liberty.

In absence of clear message, one has to look somewhere else to ascertain the agenda of the new administration. The opportunity to do just that is coming with the expected formation of a new Cabinet. The size and the membership of Cabinet will shed light on some of the new prime minister’s agenda.

The size of the new Cabinet will indicate whether the same path of big, ineffective and wasteful government is the order of the day. Under the Abdullah administration, there were 33 individuals with a seat in the Cabinet by virtue of being ministers; there were 27 ministries of various kinds.

It is easy to digest how the number of the ministries translates into a big government. The greater the quantity of ministries is, the greater the requirement for civil servants. Tremendous resources are required just to keep a bloated government running.

A large number of ministries not only suggests the large size of government. It also suggests that the role of government is wide; wide enough to smother the life of private citizens, not only with respect to civil liberty, but also in the areas of business where multiple permits and licenses are required by different ministries, as each ministry tries to justify its existence.

At the back of my head, there is a nagging feeling that these ministries were created to satisfy political demand for positions and power rather than accommodating national needs.

At the very top, having 33 decision makers in the Cabinet makes the decision-making process cumbersome. In a country with limited empowerment as evident through the lack of local elections and in effect unresponsive local government, far too many decisions eventually go back to the top. When such top-down statist set-up is coupled with a cumbersome Cabinet, it is little wonder that the government is ineffective.

Adoption of organic — or bottom-up — approach can solve that problem. One example of that is by returning the power of local government to the people through reintroduction of local government.

With active local government, many functions of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government can be made irrelevant as the decision-making path length is shortened. Greater democratization itself can eliminate the need for the Ministry of Federal Territories completely.

Regardless of democratization, what exactly does the Ministry of Federal Territories do that the local authority, like the City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, cannot?

A new Cabinet must address the problem of big government that has been strongly identified with the past administration. The new administration has to forcefully break from the past. Or else.

Inevitably, that means embracing a limited but effective government led by a small but capable Cabinet.

Functions of ministries need to be streamlined to address the problem of overlapping turfs, ministries have to be merged to reduce the scope of government, and excess positions within the government need to be removed to address more than a decade-old fiscal deficit; the deficit is an indicator of the size of government.

These actions, to me, will produce a very strong signal indicating a change from the malaise Malaysia suffers. That will help in convincing me — and probably others, too — to cut down on my skepticism and to give the new administration a fighting chance.

Unfortunately, elimination of excess positions within an already bloated government might not happen. The mini-budget specifically called for absorption of the unemployed into the government. Past promises are tying the new Prime Minister’s hand.

Nevertheless, reducing the size of government cannot be done in a day. It has to be done in a gradual manner. Yet, gradualism is not a luxury the new administration can afford. Given the urgency and the gravity of the need for change, the only quick big punch to the prevailing skepticism relates back to the size of Cabinet and eventually, the size of government.

Size however is not the only consideration. The composition of the Cabinet is as important as the size. Still, even the question of composition necessarily leads back to the question of size.

The reason is that the pool of Members of Parliament available to the new Prime Minister contains a limited number of qualified individuals with intact credibility. A large Cabinet will more likely than not absorb individuals who do not command confidence from the public in times when confidence is exactly what the new administration needs badly.

If the new administration wants to earn confidence from the masses, a large Cabinet is not an option.

Having said that, it must also be stressed that a small Cabinet does not guarantee a smooth ride for the new administration. The size is a mere symptom of the agenda and a lean Cabinet only suggests that the agenda is on the right track. It says nothing of the agenda itself.

A failure to form a small cabinet will, however, make the years of the Najib administration a hell for Barisan Nasional.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 8 2009.

Categories
Humor Politics & government

[1947] Of he is a minister because he speaks English!

Datuk Anifah Aman, Foreign Minister – Outspoken brother of Sabah Chief Minister, he refused a deputy minister’s position after Election 2008, believing he deserved more.

He was identified as one of those Sabah politicians who was supposed to join Anwar Ibrahim’s PKR but all along he was a Najib loyalist. Given the Foreign Ministry portfolio because of his command of English. [Grading Najib’s Cabinet. The Malaysian Insider. April 9 2009]

Given the Foreign Ministry portfolio because of his command of English.

I suppose, too many Cabinet ministers cannot speak English properly. So low is the benchmark of becoming a minister these days.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — At first glance, the Cabinet line-up looks just okay.[0] Just. Barely.

There are names that I do not like and some stuff like the merging of the two education ministries did not materialize.

Perhaps, too many Senators too; Chew “May 13” Mei Fun is one of those Senators. She is a deputy to yet another Senator, Sharizat Abdul Jalil.

I still remember Chew’s words during the campaigning period for the last general election. She said “if there is no sufficient Chinese representation in the Barisan Nasional, it is not a good thing, the Chinese community cannot afford another May 13 incident”.[1]

Well, we know that that did not happen. Her politics of fear is just another politics of hoax.

The Deputy Minister line up might have some problem. Like I said, I do not like Chew. And while Najib Razak wanted to create a clean Cabinet, he missed a spot: Baharom Johari is one of the deputies.

Do you remember Johari Baharom? I do. And I bet Nat does too.[2] There was an allegation of corruption directed against Johari Baharom by some somebody who commented on Nat’s blog. The police later arrested Nat under the OSA. The Deputy Minister for Internal Security at that time was Johari Baharom.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — [Najib names his new cabinet. Malaysiakini. April 9 2009]

[1] — [Chew Mei Fun: Another May 13 if Chinese representation in BN is insufficient. Wong Chin Huat. People are the boss. January 22 2008]

[2] — Nat was taken away from his office today by 3 police officers to Bukit Aman. According to EK, they said they ”nak cakap tentang internet”. I’m a bit blurry with the details but I will try my best to keep you all updated. In the meantime, whoever wants to go to Bukit Aman to show support please do! Please call 2283 5567 ext 151 (that’s my office number) for more details. If I don’t answer means I’m not at my table. All else, try Eli or Tian if you have their numbers. [flash: Nat being held at Bukit Aman!. Soon Li Tsin. Jelas.info. July 13 2007]