Tag: Malaysian elections

Categories
Activism Politics & government

[1569] Of Elizabeth Wong for Bukit Lanjan

Need I say more?

Fair use.

Apart from blogging, Eli is actively involved in human rights NGOs. I will just quote her about page:

ELIZABETH WONG (黄洁冰) has been involved in human rights since her student days in Sydney and subsequently during her work in Nepal. She was the secretary-general of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam) (全国人权协会)from 2000-2006 (now sitting as a member of the Ex-Com), a member of the Suaram (大马人民之声) secretariat and was a human rights fellow of Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs (2002-03). She is also a political consultant and has been involved in the setup of the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus for Democracy and Solidarity Campaign for Human Rights in Aceh. [About. Elizabeth Wong. Accessed March 2 2008]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1568] Of refusing to dance with Sophie

A refrain from voting effectively disenfranchises refraining voters from decision-making processes. When options sit along a political spectrum and the refrain causes candidate standing farthest from specific voters is elected into office, it is highly likely that issue raised by that specific voters will be ignored in favor of issues raised by the supporters of the candidate. As I have explained earlier, this makes voting imperative, especially when the participation rate is high and when the voting outcome affects the voters. Thus, Hobson has been taken out of the equation. While the importance of voting has been established, I have yet to answer the question of how does one vote under the current Malaysian circumstances. Sophie still stares at us.

To do so, we have to establish our goal, be it libertarian or some other thinkings. With two points identified, we then will be able to determine which path to follow.

To answer my dilemma — which many share, I am sure — we cannot solve it by working from the stage of reality to the stage of ideal. To convincingly answer it, we have to take our goals and work it backward.

The libertarian goal is the maximization of liberty and that is my goal. The typical caveat applies but this is not an entry about the definition of libertarianism and so, we shall leave it there and confidently move on.

Prior to the dissolution of the Parliament in February, we had an influential government with a shockingly strong mandate. Subsequent events in the past several years have proven that the mandate had enabled tyranny of the majority; the inferiority of majoritarian democracy to liberal democracy was proven albeit painfully. I have repeatedly emphasized the superior of a liberal democracy to “democracy, Malaysian-style” and so, I will say no more of majoritarian and liberal democracy.

I repeat, an extremely strong Malaysian government resulted in the minimization of liberty. So strong it was that liberties supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution have been grossly violated from time to time. Worse, the Constitution and policies could be amended according to Prime Minister’s mood of the day. A case in point: the extension of the retirement age of the EC chairman.

Given the status quo and the ultimate goal of libertarianism — or at least, the prevention of tyranny of the majority — the immediate goal for the 2008 Malaysian general election is clear. The immediate goal is the reduction of the power of the state. With history suggesting that BN will form the majority in the Dewan Rakyat by default, this translates into voting against BN.

That however does not quite cut it for me. I am facing a choice between having to choose UMNO, which is part of BN, and PAS. Does voting for PAS enhance my liberty?

Ideologically, it does not but pragmatically, it does enhance liberty due to rationale against tyranny of the majority.

At a stall last week, I had a supper with a several individuals and one of them was the respected lawyer Haris Ibrahim. He said, “this is not the time for a debate” in response to question by a Christian whom asked why should she vote for PAS?

Mr. Haris further stated, “do the arithmetic. PAS will not be able to form the government.” PAS is contesting only about 60 seats and it is only expected to win at least 40 seats. With 111 seats level marks the 50% threshold — if PAS is interested in forming a government; assuming BN would sit in the opposition — PAS will have to collaborate with other political parties which do not share the goals of PAS, including DAP.

Compare this to the current unmitigated Islamization process done by BN, led by UMNO.

Unlike UMNO, PAS limited influence can be controlled. UMNO’s influence on the other hand is too enormous to manage. Just observe BN; despite the presence of MCA and MIC as well as other junior partners, UMNO is free to dictate the direction of the coalition while dissent is swiftly punished. Fascism is the word of the day. If I may say so, intolerance for dissent is the reason why parties instead of individuals dominate Malaysian politics. Until these parties are humbled, individual-based politics will not thrive.

The only way I could think of to starve off creeping Islamization is the introduction of political competition in the legislature. This leads to the same conclusion yet again: the reduction of the power of the state.

Finally, when PAS knows that it is getting protest votes from those that do not agree to its Islamism and if PAS is interested in keeping and building its influence, it will have to continue to cater to these voters, which does not the traditional voters of PAS. Eventually, PAS agenda will be toned down.

Thus, the Sophie’s choice is solved without appealing to the rationale of the lesser of the two evils. What I have done is realizing an aspiration to achieve the noblest of all goals with clear conscience. I refuse to dance with Sophie.

Categories
Activism Politics & government

[1565] Of send Nik Nazmi into public office

Malaysian politics is immature and most politicians of older generation do not have the maturity to develop Malaysian politics. Our political scenario is one of bankruptcy. It is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. Our policies are outdated and if we continue on this path, the whole world will leave us behind. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have left us behind when once, Malaysia was in the same league with these countries. Unless we change, we will find others like Vietnam up ahead while we will be left languishing behind, competing with Ghana and the likes. Even the Arabs are catching up when once, Malaysia was instantly recognized as the most modern of countries with a Muslim majority along with Turkey. The horrifying thing is, these seasoned politicians, especially from BN, are proud that we are competing with backwater African countries instead of modern East Asian and European states!

First world infrastructure, third world mentality, they say. Indeed.

Ironically, it will take younger generation politicians with fresh ideas to give our politics the maturity our country urgently needs. It will take new politicians to develop first world mentality by implementing good policies to cope with the changing world.

This is why this blog endorses the candidacy of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad.

Public domain.

Enough of politicians whom are stuck in the past, with their outdated mode of thinking, with their inflexibility. Enough of politicians that still resound the specter of May 13 to gain support. We are the future and we deserve better. We need new policies to meet new challenges and achieve greater height.

We want ideas, not threats, not freebies, not feel good news but ideas.

Categories
Politics & government

[1564] Of make yourself irrelevant by not voting

Two doors.

Behind a door is an evil and behind another is yet another evil but of a different species. Which door would you choose to venture through?

In many cases especially in politics, it is about choosing the lesser of the two evils. Sometimes, we talk so much about choosing the lesser that we overlooked the third option: not choosing at all. Indeed, many voters have expressed their unwillingness to make a decision when presented with two evils. I was part of them for awhile until I began to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

I deplore being having to choose between two evils but that is the case I will be facing for the upcoming election. There are only two candidates contesting in my constituency; one is from UMNO and another is from PAS; being having to choose between a racist and an Islamist party is a real turn-off.

Presented with limited options, I had to ask myself, do I need to vote at all?

Regardless the options, I do feel strongly about voting. I blame this on MTV, with its incessant messages extolling the virtue of voting. I bought so much into it that if I were given a chance, I would not hesitate to vote in the 2004 US Presidential Election. What made the urge greater was the options presented by the day; between Bush and Kerry, my choice was clear. Living in a liberal bastion of Ann Arbor and close to the Bible Belt made the decision easier to make.

I feel strongly about exercising my right to vote because I believe those whom consciously fail to vote practically relinquished their moral authority to discuss matters of collective importance, from state to the federal levels. Rightfully, every individual has a say in the governance of a state, especially so if those individuals are taxpayers. They have a stake in setting the direction of their state and refusal to vote should not affect that. Yet, a normative statement is not a positive statement. Positively, failure to vote means one disenfranchises oneself from the system.

An event in Iraq provides a clear example how failure to vote causes one to be irrelevant. In January 2005, Iraq had an election to appoint various representatives into its national assembly. The Sunnis mostly boycotted the process and as a result, the Kurds and the Shiites dominated the house.[1] Regardless how the boycott affected the legitimacy of the election, the house was formed to draft a brand new constitution for the war-torn country. Due to limited participation from the Sunni, the Kurds and the Shiites could have a free hand in writing a new constitution, the supreme law of Iraq.[2]

The rationale for refusal to participate in Iraq in 2005 is different from the Malaysian scenario but the effect is still the same. Those that refuse to vote make themselves irrelevant to the system. Unless, of course, if you are planning for a bloody revolution. Yet, a free election is a revolution in its own way.

All that does however only explain why it is imperative to vote. It does not tell how one breaks the false dilemma of choosing between two evils. I will touch on that soon.

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

[1] — Read Iraqi legislative election, January 2005 at Wikipedia. Accessed February 28 2008.

[2] — The Sunni Arabs’ January 2005 election boycott and the simultaneous campaign of intimidation of Sunni Arab voters by the insurgency resulted in only seventeen Sunni Arabs elected to the 275-member Assembly—a very low number compared to the proportion of Sunni Arabs in Iraq, conventionally estimated at 15 to 20 percent. By contrast, the Kurdistan Coalition List won seventy-five seats and the predominantly Shia United Iraqi Alliance won 140—an absolute majority that in theory, if not in fact, gave the Alliance the ability to write a constitution without the involvement of any other political grouping. [Iraq’s Constitutional Process II: An Opportunity Lost. Johnathan Morrow. United States Institute of Peace. December 2005]

Categories
Activism Liberty Politics & government

[1563] Of Nik Nazmi’s manifesto and putting bloggers into office

Friend Nik Nazmi is running for election and he has produced a video articulating his agenda for his constituency.

At the Malay College, we used to joke that he would be the first among our class to be thrown into prison, courtesy of ISA. We did not joke about him being the first among our class to run for public office.

Public domain.

Friends. Remember to blog about Nik Nazmi tomorrow as part of an initiative to put bloggers into public office!

While I am at it, allow me to touch a criticism directed at the effort made by Siber Party of Malaysia. They wrote:

While we read blogs and we do operate a blog, it is only our platform and website to inform the good citizens of Malaysia about our views and policies on matters that concern all Malaysians.

Which also means we are not going to support a blogger because he or she is a blogger. we want to know their stand, their approach, their policies, philosophies, politics on all things Malaysian and the world. [Between axes. Siber Party of Malaysia. February 25 2008]

I absolutely agree that we should not support a candidate just because the candidate is a blogger. Yet, I need to point out that the criticism misses the whole point of the initiative: the initiative at its heart is about freedom. I wrote ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ no less than 4 times in emails that I sent out to probably 100 bloggers and the entry which introduces the initiative.

The idea behind the effort is to put those that embrace freedom of expression into public offices. From these offices, they have opportunities to defend their and our freedom from tyranny. I honestly believe the bloggers whom I have listed believe in freedom of speech, which is essential to blogging. Elizabeth Wong has probably been doing something for liberty when I was in diaper (okay, that is an exaggeration). Jeff Ooi knows what freedom of expression is, especially when it revolves around blogging and I know enough of Nik Nazmi to know that he appreciates freedom. TAs for Badrul Hisham a.k.a. chegubad, well, he is up against the son-in-law.

The crux of the message is freedom. Indeed, supporting a candidate just because he is a blogger does not make sense. I would certain not support a religious extremist‘s candidacy for public office just because he is a blogger.

So, Siber Party of Malaysia, are you willing to reconsider your position?