Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1955] Of a specialized Asian column at The Economist

In the inaugural specialized column on Asia, The Economist pays respect to Perak’s democracy under the banyan tree:

In early March, in Perak in Malaysia, the state assembly convened an emergency session under a tree. It was, said outraged national ministers, a return to the jungle, making Malaysia a laughing-stock. We beg to differ. An ancient connection exists between public business and the banyan tree, as between its huge overarching shade and its deep intertwining roots. In South-East Asia, and Java in particular, the shade was a place of learning and a site where rulers vowed justice. Those are Asian values to which Banyan will happily subscribe. [In the shade of the banyan tree. The Economist. April 8 2009]

Hail.

Categories
Politics & government

[1953] Of Najib’s BN is trying to outflank Pakatan Rakyat

When Najib Razak said by-elections are distracting attention from things that matters like the economy, he might risk contradiction if he had said Barisan Nasional would participate in the Penanti by-election, made possible by the resignation of former Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, Mohamad Fairus Khairuddin. By indicating that BN may forfeit the by-election, Najib Razak may have taken the battle to another plane where the odds suddenly shift against Pakatan Rakyat.

It is hard to imagine how BN would win in Penanti, despite the possibility of seeing Pakatan on the defensive due to the scandals associated with a number of Pakatan politicians, specifically attached to Parti Keadilan Rakyat. This is so because Penanti is part of Permatang Pauh, the Parliamentary constituency of the wildly popular Anwar Ibrahim.

BN may have taken a fatalistic perspective towards the outcome of Penanti by-election and that is a fair position to take. At the same time, further defeat at the hand of Pakatan will contribute to downward momentum suffered by BN, despite talks of renewal by BN and BN-backed media. Further defeat will work against the BN media, further distancing created image promoted by the mainstream media and reality on the ground.

And so, skipping the by-election is a good option for Najib Razak. Indeed, with it, he kills two birds with one stone.

It is so not only because skipping the by-election puts a stop — notwithstanding time horizon — to the expanding divide between created image and reality by eliminating a possible further proof for BN unpopularity. The act also gives BN and more than anything else, the Najib administration a chip to shore up its position of concentrating on the economy, which is taking a beating despite sporadic good news appearing here and there.

By skipping the by-election and appearing above politics, the Najib administration takes over a moral high ground of fighting for the benefits of the people, the country. While doing so, BN can continue accusing Pakatan of interested only in politicking and not the greater good. This is especially easy to do if Pakatan continues to assault BN on issues of Perak.

That is almost unfair to Pakatan since Perak was wrestled by BN from them and therefore, Pakatan has every right to continue to politically assault BN in Perak. One has to remember however that there are increasing number of individuals becoming tired of such politicking. Already, the phrase voter fatigue is out and about, indicating that Malaysians may have finally approached a politicking saturation point.[1]

This is really a chance for BN to outflank Pakatan. For Najib Razak himself, it is chance to prove that he is a statesman instead of a mere politician. Whether this is real or apparent, that is hard to say but tactically, his maneuver is an effort to achieve that statesman status.

Pakatan should be mindful of being outflanked because that is not the only effort based on outflanking by the Najib administration.

Already the Najib administration tries to appear to be liberal despite the illiberalness of UMNO grassroot. His rhetoric appears as such, talking about a more open society. Najib’s rhetoric may appear empty, fuzzy and cloudy but it does show some effort at becoming a more open government, however small the steps that is.

Liberal attitude, specifically regarding open society, has been the domain of Pakatan. Even the conservative PAS — despite the debate in PAS on the matter — is regarded as more liberal than UMNO with respect to freedom.

If UMNO in particular can prove that it is liberal enough — meaning, not as in a real liberal’s wet dream but just enough to show its commitment to a more open society — UMNO and in general BN may be able to eliminate a reason why many individuals vote for Pakatan.

Whether that gap can be closed or not, the intention or at least the appearance to do so is there. Pakatan must take heed of this trend, lest they may find themselves at a disadvantaged position come the next general election.

Because of this, if BN decides to forfeit Penang, Pakatan should not celebrate too hard. In fact, Pakatan watch out to its sides to secure its flank because Pakatan Rakyat is probably facing a new BN smarting for past mistakes, even if that smarting process is going at a slow rate.

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

[1] — “By and large, there is fatigue among voters,” says Ibrahim Suffian, chief of opinion research firm Merdeka Centre. However, he says that this by-election is notable as it could be the first where a state assembly representative has resigned on account of integrity issues. [As Penanti by-election looms, polls fatigue a concern . Lee Wei Lian. The Malaysian Insider. April 16 2009]

Categories
Politics & government

[1952] Of the confusion begins to pit the PM with Utusan Malaysia

PM Najib Razak’s slogan One Malaysia — or 1Malaysia however weirdly it is spelled — amounts to nothing to me. At worse it is an undefined slogan with multiple definitions arising from individual efforts to offer explanations and at best, it is a slogan with wishy-washy vague definitions with no substance. I have stated this on April 8. What I know is that his effort at sloganeering fast becoming a disaster he does not need.

If things continue as if it, it probably would not be long before the PM has to fire his public relations team.

Back to the issues at hand, yes, I do not believe in that slogan. Yet, that does not mean I am ignoring the slogan altogether. Far from it, amid piracy off the Horn of Africa, unrest in Thailand, the democratic success in Indonesia and the state of Malaysian economy, I admit I do observe the development surrounding the slogan. At this particular point, I do watch it with amusement.

Days ago, Utusan Malaysia elaborated or suggested the meaning of 1Malaysia based on whatever vague definition haphazardly provided by the new PM. Suffice to say, Utusan Malaysia took a very racial position on the matter.

The PM was asked to comment on Utusan Malaysia’s articles today. His reply was:

That is up to individual interpretation, but to me and I’m speaking not on Utusan but generally, I don’t want an extreme attitude in our country, regardless whether that extremism is from whichever side. [PM says his 1 Malaysia is about sharing power and wealth. Debra Chong. The Malaysian Insider. April 17 2009]

Heh. Did the PM just rebuke Utusan Malaysia?

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]