Yup. Four locations: Boston, KL, Penang and Singapore connected!
There will be live blogging from Boston too.
Also, at ReCom.org.
We are broadcasting on Justin.tv as well.
Category: Liberty
When DAP called for a boycott of a swearing-in ceremony for the Menteri Besar of Perak, Utusan Malaysia ran a headline labeling DAP as rude: the headline was “DAP Biadap”.[1] Now that UMNO had boycotted the swearing-in ceremony for the Menteri Besar of Terengganu, Utusan failed to replay the same message all over again. Regardless the crass hypocrisy, both episodes were caused by intervention of respective state palace in a political process which the palace should have no say in and the trend of monarchs actively interfering in the process worries me.
I have always considered a monarch as a figurehead in Malaysia. After the bloodless Thai coup d’etat in 2006, somehow, taking cue from the Thais, many Malaysians began to elevate the role of the monarchy institution as the fourth branch of government. And with that, the monarchy system starts to hold itself higher than usual, however limited their influence are.
I am fan of organic politics and therefore, I believe political power has to be primarily derived from the ground up whenever it concerns the make-up of a society. In other words, the state, or any entity that shares similar function derives its legitimacy from the governed. So, when a monarch, specifically the Sultan of Terengganu, begins to exert his power against organic processes, I find it hard to side with him, even while I quietly celebrate the fact that UMNO — particularly, the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s loyalists — found itself in a quagmire, even when I sort of like the Sultan.
At the center of the controversy in Terengganu is the sovereign’s ability to appoint the chief of the executive; the Sultan does not approve the candidate which garners the trust of the majority for the Menteri Besar post and it does not end there. The Sultan went on to appoint the candidate of his choice which very much goes against the majority power in the state assembly. Regardless the constitutional legalese which is beginning to plague the issue at hand, it is the spirit of the document that matters, not the letter and my position is that the Sultan should bow to the organic process.
To solve the issue once and for all, I favor direct election into the office of the Menteri Besar. And the Prime Ministership for that matter. With this, the monarchy will have no opportunity to overturn the wishes of the people. In fact, this method to a certain extent transfer the power of political parties’ bureaucrats to the people. It kills two birds with one stone.
Nevertheless, the friction between the Sultan and UMNO may finally give meaning to the idea of federalism in Malaysia, which by the way is experiencing a shoved-to-the-backstage treatment for far too long. The federal government has too much power over state politics and this is obvious through the Prime Minister’s influence in the selection of various states’ Menteri Besar or Chief Minister, except, possibly for Sarawak and states not under BN’s control. Therefore, the crisis may actually be a blessing in disguise; the monarchy as the fourth branch of government — activist monarchs — may not be a bad idea, after all.
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR 13 Mac — Ketua Penerangan UMNO, Tan Sri Muhammad Muhd. Taib menyifatkan arahan DAP supaya wakil rakyatnya di Perak memulaukan majlis angkat sumpah pelantikan Menteri Besar, sebagai sungguh biadap dan kurang ajar. [DAP Biadap. Utusan Malaysia. March 13 2008]
Jeff Ooi said:
I am not trying to be cheeky, but if Shabery Cheek wants to meet the blogging community, the first person he should call is Rocky Bru, the president of ALL BLOGS (National Alliance of Bloggers). [Just being cheeky about bloggers? Screenshots. March 23 2008]
A reason why bloggers are hard to deal with is the anarchic nature of the whole business. Every blogger is an independent individual with no queen of the hive acting as central command. So, when Jeff said if the Information Minister wants to speak to the blogging community, the Minister should first talk to Rocky Bru, I would like to say, I did not elect Rocky Bru or ALL BLOGS for that matter, as my representative.
In fact, the Minister should meet the president of the STFU, which is me! Hah!
A better engagement would involve an open invitation to all bloggers to discuss on whatever the Minister wants to discuss about and not with just one blogger or some shoddy association which claims to represent local bloggers. But even that is useless.
The best method is to read the relevant blogs, watch the beauty of free speech in action and practice it offline.
Astonished. Surprised. Shocked. Unexpected. A thesaurus has a spectrum of words to describe the result of the 2008 Malaysian general election. While the result delighted me, I wonder if the result would be as shocking as it was if we had freer press.
In the run-up to March 8, the function of the mainstream media was transformed from that of as informants to that of as brainwashing machines. What was a channel of reporting organic news became a propaganda machine that would rival Izvestia. Contrary to popular belief, in the Soviet Union, Pravda was not the propaganda machine many believed it was. That function was performed by Izvestia; Pravda was the medium that relayed official policies to the masses. Regardless, both were notorious for it contributions to communism in Soviet Union. There is a saying in Russian that described the lies of both newspapers: in The Truth, there is no news and in The News, there is no truth. Both Pravda and Izvestia mean the truth and the news in Russian respectively.
That saying described the Malaysian mainstream media aptly because no news and no truth were reported. From MCA-owned The Star to the UMNO-owned New Straits Times and Berita Harian, all of them were eager to shape opinion rather than committing to neutrality in reporting. This is so because they are unfree to report organic news; news had to be presented in a way that influence opinion rather than simply inform. Due to this, there was a serious disconnect between sentiment on the ground to accepted reality of those high in the establishment.
The cognitive dissonance was only reconciled at the ballot boxes. And obviously, those in the establishment whom believed their own lies were shocked to discover how far off they were from reality.
The odd thing about this explanation is that even the sources of organic news, the voters themselves, were surprised at the outcome of the election, despite strong observable undercurrent. What actually caused the differential between voters’ expectation and the actual result?
I am inclined to speculate that history matters a lot in expectation formation. After so long being used to Barisan Nasional’s wide influence in all aspects of the state, voters somehow are used to it. Considering that each time the pendulum swung such as in 1999 and 1990, it did not swing as much as many expected it to be, many would naturally ask why would 2008 be any different.
Furthermore, to some extent, the influence of the mainstream media may have convinced voters that the general sentiment was pro-Barisan Nasional.[1]
In the final analysis, I believe if the mainstream media was freer and was more readily willing to report organic news, a clear picture would have reached all voters sooner rather than later and the result that we saw on March 8 and 9 would have been less of a shock to most of us.
[1] — Even The Economist believed it was so:
The Economist Intelligence Unit expects the ruling coalition to win, and to maintain a two-thirds or better majority in parliament. [An election in Malaysia. The Economist. March 6 2008]
Categories
[1589] Of free Tibet
