Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1615] Of China is no stranger to the politicization of the Olympics

In addressing the proposed boycott of the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, supporters of People’s Republic of China are urging the world community to not to politicize the Olympic Games. That is a fair comment. After all, in ancient times, the Games offered an Olympic truce during war. Yet, supporters of China cannot really be truly honest about the issue of the politicization of the Olympics until they condemn China too; China itself is guilty of politicizing the Olympics on a number of occasions in the past.

China boycotted several Games to object to the participation of Taiwan in the Olympics from the 1950s up to the 1980s.[1] In 1976 in fact, not only China boycotted the Olympics, it forced the host Canada to pressure Taiwan on the issue of national identity. That eventually caused Taiwan to refrain from competing in the Games.[2] In 1980, China again showed its willingness to politicize the Olympics: it boycotted the Moscow Olympics to protest the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.[3]

Supporters of China must acknowledge China’s past politicization of Olympics and criticize China for that if they would like to have the moral authority to criticize those whom propose a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

Regardless of that, I do not support a boycott of the Olympics, be it in partial or in full. Rarely does a boycott work. In my opinion, the better way of highlighting issues associated with the Games is engagement. Witness the torch relay first hand, watch the opening and the closing ceremonies and follow the Games.

But do it in protest. While attending or watching the Games, whether in private or public, express your displeasure of China’s action peacefully. Put banners up. Distribute pamphlets around. Engage the crowd and make them aware of the situation in Darfur and Tibet as well as China’s record of disrespecting liberty.

It is only through greater awareness could the world gently realize of the issues at hand and apply gentle pressure on China to reform and respect liberty.

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

[1] — China participated in 1952 but boycotted the Games after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognized Taiwan. The Taiwanese team carried the “China” banner in 1956, and China did not return to Olympic competition until the 1980 Winter Games. [Cold War Olympics highlights. CNN. Accessed April 9 2008]

[2] — See the 1976 Summer Olympics at Wikipedia.

[3] — See the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott, at Wikipedia.

Categories
Politics & government

[1613] Of Mr. Ma has a herculean task

May 20 will be the day the new Taiwan President gets sworn in.

While I am an avid admirer of Mr. Ma, I think he is facing an impossible task ahead of him.

For eight years, this country had laid stagnant due to political infightings while the government that was more interested in advancing its political agenda of Not Part of China than taking care of its own people. National pride and maintaining the dignity of the country is important, but it is nothing compare to improving the living standard of your own people and developing the economy.

Most casual outside observers would look at the election result and ask, “So, are 60% of the Taiwanese people pro-reunification?” These people most likely drew the same conclusion in 2000 and again in 2004. While it is true that the China topic has always been hotly debated in all the presidential elections, Taiwanese people ultimately cast their vote based on the issues that concerns them the most: it’s the economy, stupid!

In 2000, KMT was the poster child of corruption and ineffective government. It was essentially living off its past glory and getting out of touch with the people. DPP meanwhile was the fresh alternative to KMT and the candidate at that time was a charismatic leader who is vocal about changes, getting rid of corruption and running a government that is more for the people. DPP’s Chen Shui-bian won that election.

DPP did not do a fantastic job during its term. The opposition however was just as pathetic and the next 4 long years turned out to be grudge match between the two sides. Essentially, the same factors that contributed to the defeat of KMT in 2000 were still applicable in 2004. While you can always blame the shooting scandal for the upset, KMT wouldn’t have gotten a pretty win, and on hindsight, had KMT won that election, it will just mean reverting back to the old way of doing things as KMT offered the same deal to voters as they did 4 years previously.

This time around though, KMT, at least on surface, have more young blood surfacing to the front. While many would argue that the old faces had merely moved into the dark acting as puppet masters, this at least offers some progress. So, to a lot of people, the 2008 election may not be an indication of how well KMT had transformed, but more of how bad a job DPP had done over the last 8 years and how quickly it had followed in the footstep of the “old” KMT. Over the last 8 years, we saw corrupt officials, we saw ineffective government, we saw policies that ignored the need of the people and we saw Taiwan continued to lose its competitiveness in the global economy.

So by electing Mr. Ma into the office, voters have extremely high (and even unrealistic) expectation of him. He will need to catch up on what was not done over the last 2 terms, he will need to grow the Taiwanese economy at the backdrop of a possible global recession, he will need to convince people that there are no puppet masters in the dark and he can control the different factions in his own party and ultimately, he is the leader that will take Taiwan back onto the right track. And yes, he also needs to protect Taiwan from the 1,400 missiles aimed at the island right now.

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

LIU YEN LIN, the author, is a Taiwanese living in Singapore. He is an economics and political science graduate of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Categories
Activism Personal Politics & government

[1610] Of from Titiwangsa to Kelana Jaya

I never thought I would live to see that day so soon. Some had waited for less than eternity but my generation only had to wait less than a decade for March 8 2008. It was a wonderful feeling and it still is. It feels so good that there is an urge inside of me to share my part of the journey to many others that made this new political reality possible.

My election-Saturday-day started early. I fulfilled my civic duty with an ease that would have surprised me months ago: I voted for PAS without any hesitation despite my misgivings of the party. With help from friends, I managed to rationalize such move by appealing to my ideal rather than crude pragmatism.

The situation in my area was obvious: PAS was going to win. In retrospect, PAS would win regardless of my decision. I did not know the tempo in the Titiwangsa parliamentary seat as a whole but for my area, UMNO suddenly found itself in a hostile territory while once, this was their fortress in Kuala Lumpur.

As a bonus to me, Dr. Lo’lo’ Mohd Ghazali of PAS lives just a street away from me and the UMNO candidate Aziz Jamaluddin is a clear outsider as far as I am concerned. That helped a lot in justifying my decision because I have always believed in local representation rather than parachuted candidate from outside any area. I am relieved to discover later in the day that Kampung Baru joined us hand in hand in rejecting UMNO.

After the casting of ballot, I found myself empty in the inside. I was anxious. That emptiness brought me to drive across the city to support a friend, Nik Nazmi whom was running for the Seri Setia state seat of Kelana Jaya in Selangor. After all, I was part of his campaign team, however small my role was. I thought it was only right for me to be there.

The whole episode started about three or four weeks before the election. My cell beeped to a message from him; he wrote to me as well as to a few other friends that he might run for public office: he needed opinion. He called for a private meeting at his place.

This caught me by surprised because he had earnestly spoken of running in the next general election to me earlier countless of times, not for the 2008 edition. When he spoke of it, I came to realize that Parti Keadilan Rakyat might not have enough candidates and thanks to that, he was on an accelerated track.

At a dinner of friends, he clarified the matter but uncertainty still loomed: parliamentary or state seat?

For a moment, the prospect of running for Parliament was dominating the scene. Immediately, the drama West Wing popped up in my mind. That, embarrassingly, was the final push I needed to say yes to Nik Nazmi. Reality turned out much less glamorous than an Oval Office with a Prize in Economics winner Democrat President as well as a top adviser from Michigan (Go Blue!) but still, it felt great.

Days later, PKR decided that he should run for the state seat and from there on, the campaign concentrated on local issues. I am absolutely overjoyed with the focus because I could never agree to economic populism espoused by PKR. Throughout the campaigning period, I listened to some speeches made by people from PKR and I frowned each time there was a hint of populism; economic populism an irresponsible policy which suffers from severe myopia. But Nik Nazmi did not touch much of it and I have no problem explicitly expressing my support of him and becoming involved in his campaign. On top of that, he already accepted the need of a gradual reduction of fuel subsidy during one of several friendly conversations I have had with him.

While driving to Seri Setia, I was playing several scenarios in my mind and the scariest of all was one of disappointment. Not for Nik Nazmi or Budu as he is known to friends, but for the whole country in general. Honestly, I was hoping for a new government but as the Election Day drew nearer, that hope seemed excessively optimistic. It was an illusion of grandeur and there was a serious requirement for an expectation realignment. With expectation reset downward, I stepped out of my car and walked toward PKR’s operation room in Seri Setia.

The usual suspects were there, as well as Budu.

The atmosphere of the space was celebratory and I understood why. Before I had gone into my car, I had logged on the internet to read the latest update. From the looked of it, Penang was in for a new administration led by DAP.

But the real news was this: Budu was leading against the incumbent from UMNO, Noli Seripah Syed Hussin. The politician from UMNO had earlier ridiculed Budu by saying “buduk kecik nak jadi ADUN” to her supporters — a kid wants to be a state representative. A number of Budu’s volunteers and supporters retaliated by calling her “nenek”, or grandma but Budu took the high road. Instead of trading barbwire, he requested for a debate. Noli Seripah did not respond to the challenge, possibly because she knew she would not last long in a debate on issues.

Regardless, I soon found out that Kelantan remains out of BN’s reach while news of the DAP-PAS-PKR loose coalition’s marvelous performance all over the country started to spread as early as 21:00 hours.

As news favoring DAP, PAS and PKR developed, the RTM and TV3 only aired results for the Malaysian Borneo which favored BN. Clearly, both channel refused to acknowledge a new ground breaking reality in Peninsular Malaysia. And then, the news came: Budu unofficially won the contest. The key word is unofficially but that did not stop everybody present from being ecstatic. Calls were made and wishes were exchanged. Budu won. We won.

Eager to listen to the official announcement, we made our way to Kelana Jaya’s counting station in Subang Jaya. The Election Commission however was not ready to release the results but we were willing to wait. As the hours crawled passed us by, more people joined us and soon, all three candidates within Kelana Jaya — Budu, Hannah Yeoh dan Loh Gwo Burne — as well as their supporters filled the area just outside of the center’s gated compound.

More news came after that. The infamous former Information Minister was out of office. So were Samy Vellu and Koh Tsu Koon while rumor of Ong Ka Ting’s defeat started to spread like wildfire. Former Minister Sharizat Abdul Jalil was trailing Nurul Izzah Anwar in Lembah Pantai. In Rembau, rejection, however slim it was, of Khairy was being celebrated though a recount was called which later overturn the result while in Titiwangsa, Dr. Lo’ Lo’ was set to be my next MP. One of the crazier rumors was that Rafidah was on her way out. As we all know now, Rafidah Aziz is still in control of Kuala Kangsar and in fact, with Sharizat out, Rafidah is alone at the top, possibly unchallenged among women.

We kept on standing at the gate and became restless. A friend and I hated the spread of unconfirmed news being shared among the crowd and we hate getting wet; it was starting to drizzle. Hoping to validate the information and run away from the rain, we took a kilometer walk to find the closest free hotspot area. This was at about 22:30 hours.

I had not been to Subang Parade for a very long time and there I was, drinking coffee with a friend while logging onto the internet. With a connection to the virtual world, a flurry of verified and up-to-date information hit us and we were astounded at the path voters nationwide were taking Malaysia to. Penang and Kelantan now possibly had a new government while there were real competition in Kedah, Perak and Selangor. Though it has become a cliché now, political tsunami did indeed describe the situation aptly. This was way better than 1999.

But a laptop’s power last only for so long and we found ourselves walking back to the counting center while registering Malaysian new political landscape.

It was midnight and suspiciously, the result had yet to be officially release. Words on the street had it that this is part of BN’s strategy to frustrate supporters of DAP, PAS and PKR in hope to light up a powder keg. In 1969, the Alliance suffered almost the same magnitude of defeat but riots erupted. That gave UMNO and its allies the opportunity to declare martial laws and nullify the result of the election. Many of the more educated supporters were mindful of this and were prepared to ignore any kind of provocation that may happened in which any hostile reaction may rob us of victory.

A police squad was present to prevent any untoward incident but I felt they were there to suppress us. We were not allowed to make noise (!), no loud hailer was permitted and no celebration was allowed. Deep in my heart, a voice told me that this is unfair. I am sure that UMNO would receive a more preferable and realistic treatment. But what was a call for strict discipline for a few hours compared to years of unfairness? We were willing to play along and that was enough to show how badly we wanted change.

Soon, a new day was at hand but the result was still pending and patience was running low. Discontent was visible within the crowd.

Among smaller circles which trust could be easily established, the reason for the delay was made known. Before the official result could be announced, the Election Commission must sign off a document and transmit it over to the counting station. In this case, BN were applying pressure on an EC officer to delay the sign off. Several individuals expressed measured dissatisfaction upon hearing this while some had begun accusing BN as sore losers. I myself had begun to rationalize the implication of this: a cause for a righteous revolution. John F. Kennedy had once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” BN were playing a very dangerous game.

Many had speculated the reason behind the delay but it became apparent to me after I discovered through the internet later in the day that some state documents were shredded and burned. I suspect that BN needed time to erase all compromising details out of public knowledge.

Throughout the waiting whenever I was not hanging around with friends, I found myself chatting with strangers and most of these strangers were those older than me. The theme behind most conversation was this: at long last, victory.

Finally, at around 03:30 hours, it became official. Budu won. We cheered but the cheering was not as loud as it would if the result was announced much earlier. But we cheered nonetheless.

From far, I thought I saw Budu was holding back his tears while giving a short victory speech. I am unsure what was said or done in temporal order but I seem to remember Budu citing Bob’s words: that he, Bob, Shin and Nurul Izzah worked in PKR when morale in the party was at its lowest just after the 2004 general election. Budu said, after all the humiliation and the ridicule, he finally felt vindicated. PKR is now vindicated. I myself am not innocent of ridiculing PKR in the past but I can say in all honesty, I am glad that PKR has risen back up and higher, much like the phoenix.

By the time I got back home, it was 06:30, March 9 2008. A new dawn has arrived, I told myself, before falling into a deep slumber.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1604] Of us and them

Foreign Affairs has an article on ethnonationalism and in my opinion, how it is the most stable form of nationalism. It focuses on European experience but it is relevant to Malaysian politics. This is surely something the adherents of Bangsa Malaysia, or liberal nationalists whom despise ethnonationalism, may want to read.

It is especially pertinent when chatters in the background seem to suggest that race-based politics is coming to an end in Malaysia. As much as I would like to believe that, I feel “protest votes” describes the result of the last election better. So, there is still future for race-based politics in Malaysia. The issues surrounding the appointment of Menteri Besar in Perak, the deputies in Perak and Selangor and the appointment of members of states’ Executive Committee definitely highlights the relevance of race in politics.

Back to the article:

In short, ethnonationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to reoccur elsewhere. Increased urbanization, literacy, and political mobilization; differences in the fertility rates and economic performance of various ethnic groups; and immigration will challenge the internal structure of states as well as their borders. Whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century. [Us and Them. Jerry Z. Muller. Foreign Affairs. March 2008]

What I find most disconcerting is the suggestion that separation, may be the the best answer to communal conflicts.

Partition may thus be the most humane lasting solution to such intense communal conflicts. It inevitably creates new flows of refugees, but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland, and providing financial aid for resettlement and economic absorption. The bill for all of this will be huge, but it will rarely be greater than the material costs of interjecting and maintaining a foreign military presence large enough to pacify the rival ethnic combatants or the moral cost of doing nothing. [Us and Them. Jerry Z. Muller. Foreign Affairs. March 2008]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1600] Of activist monarchy

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.

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

[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]