Tag: democracy

Categories
Politics & government

[2680] Undemocratic Kuala Lumpur

Life in Kuala Lumpur in the past few weeks has been a constant reminder of our flawed democracy.

If you are in the city, look all around you. You will see banners and posters of political parties almost everywhere. Superficially, the colorful show of political flags is a sign of democracy. Now, look closer at those belonging to Barisan Nasional and especially those with Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin on it. Be mindful of their messages.

Those messages celebrate the achievements of Raja Nong Chik as a minister. It highlights what he has done over the past few years, with him heading the Ministry of Federal Territories. It appears like the all too admirable democratic judge-my-record, thank-me politics. He even thanked himself in many of his political banners and posters for stuff he did in the city.

Yet underneath this veneer is acid corroding the pillars of our democratic institution.

The campaign narrative told by BN to the voters in the city makes one think that Raja Nong Chik is the mayor of Kuala Lumpur. This is all the more so in Bangsar where he is contesting in the general election. If those messages are to be believed, it would appear that he was both the mayor of Kuala Lumpur and the Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, the parliamentary seat which Bangsar is a part of.

If all those achievements highlighted for electioneering purposes are truly his, then he must have directed the very public resources belonging to the city to do what he did. He takes credit for things that are the normal function of City Hall, like the maintenance of drainage around the city, which is funded by taxpayers’ money.

There is a problem with this if one views it through a democratic lens.

The truth is that Raja Nong Chik is an unelected senator appointed as the minister for the Federal Territories. He is not the elected mayor of Kuala Lumpur and he is not the elected representative for Lembah Pantai.

The 2008 general election saw BN win only one out of 11 Parliamentary seats in Kuala Lumpur. While Parliamentary seats are an inadequate proxy to the will of the majority in the city, it is the best proxy we have got since there is no local election. Based on that proxy, the majority in the city conclusively rejected BN candidates and BN itself then in March 2008.

In spite of that, BN continued to control City Hall through the Ministry of Federal Territories as if they had the moral mandate to do so. With that, the party was the one that determined the development agenda of the city. Or perhaps, more importantly, BN controlled the spending priority of City Hall.

Add in the fact that the actual mayor of the city also is unelected, voters of Kuala Lumpur are quite simply unrepresented in the very authority that governs the affairs of their home. The elected representatives are dependent on the goodwill of City Hall and the ministry to execute the normal functions of an elected representative.

It is Putrajaya with its pretentious grandiose buildings that dictate the affairs of Kuala Lumpur. The city of millions is being governed from a desolate town erected in the middle of nowhere.

That is undemocratic. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the premise that BN’s campaign messages rest upon.

How long more will the Kuala Lumpur electorates continue to be politically unrepresented in the running of the city?

There is no reason for BN to change the status quo because it is the beneficiary of things as it is. If BN continues to be in the minority in the city, it is in their favor to keep the whole undemocratic structure intact. Even if BN somehow miraculously wins a majority of Kuala Lumpur Parliamentary seats and by proxy, the will of the voters of Kuala Lumpur, the moral authority BN might gain through this democratic process is only a redundant bonus.

That begs a question. If Raja Nong Chik and BN do not require a win to do what he did in the next Parliamentary term, why vote him in at all?

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 24 2013.

Categories
ASEAN Liberty

[2668] The Sulu and the Philippine claims of Sabah are undemocratic and unlibertarian

I have a fundamental objection to the Sulu and the Philippine claims of Sabah. Calling it the claim of Sabah is somewhat inaccurate because if the Philippine claim is wholly based on the Sulu claim, then by right the claim only covers roughly the eastern half of Sabah. Nevertheless, the objection that I have is not based on nationalistic sentiment. It is based on democratic and libertarian values.

Know this. The claim by the two parties are undemocratic and certainly unlibertarian. It is both undemoractic and unlibertarian because it completely bypasses the will of the people in Sabah.

The Sulu claim especially is made by a pretender to the throne of the Sulu Sultanate, a monarchy which practically has been extinct for a long time now. The claim by the monarchy highlights how it is undemocratic and unlibertarian.

The term libertarian that I use here is almost democratic and almost committed to a liberal democracy.

Libertarians come from the tradition that the state derives its legitimacy from its people. After all, the most important component of any society is the individuals who form it. Libertarians seek to secure freedom of individuals and the best way to do so within the framework of the state is to make the state answerable to its citizens.

The Sulu claim certainly does not fit into the libertarian framework. If the claim is realized by the Sulu Sultanate, then it will be clear that it is the sultan who will be in power. The Sultan, after all, is running the show, ordering the doomed incursion into Sabah. Any political power will originate from him and that is unacceptable to any libertarian.

Of course, the new Sulu power in Sabah can institute democratic infrastructure to turn the direction of the origin of power more libertarian and that will solve the democratic and libertarian concern. But the fact remains the claim has its origin from a very autocratic nature.

If one compares the Sulu claim to Malaysia’s, it is clear that the Malaysian claim is more libertarian. This is not to mean that Malaysia is a libertarian utopia but relatively, Malaysia is far above the rung compared to the Sulu Sultanate.

The most libertarian argument for Malaysia is that the Malaysian claim is not really a Malaysian claim. It is a Sabahan claim. The people of Sabah decided to be part of the federation of Malaysia and as a federation, all states within Malaysia is responsible toward the security of Sabah. In the face of armed adventure embarked by the Sulu Sultanate, the self-defense action by the Malaysian security forces is legitimate from the libertarian perspective, especially from the libertarian concept of non-aggression axiom. The axiom can be problematic at times by in the case of Sabah, its application is straight forward.

And this brings us to the Philippines, which for all intents and purposes is the successor state to the extinct Sulu Sultanate. What makes the Philippine claim more legitimate from libertarian perspective when compared to the Sulu claim, is that the Philippines, like Malaysia, is a democracy. Both democracies may not be perfect and there are flaws in the system but principally, they are. There are democratic institutions and there are guarantees of individual rights although the guarantees do not go as far enough as a libertarian would like and there are deplorable violations of those rights.

Of course, comparing Malaysian and Philippine democratic institutions to Sulu’s, which do not exist, is unfair because they have not been given a chance to develop it. Nevertheless, the setup highlights the origin of power. For both states, the origin of the power comes from the people, not some autocrats like a sultan.

That however does not make the Philippine claim very much more agreeable from the Sulu claim. The Philippine claim still bypasses the people of Sabah. So, the only libertarian (and democratic) way of solving the claim is by going back to the people. Let us have three options. Malaysia, independence or the Philippines. I have a feeling that the first two options will be more popular to the last one.

And then finally, the Malaysian setup is far more likeable to libertarians than the Philippines. Malaysia is a federation and the Philippines is a unitary state. Sabah has considerable autonomy within Malaysia. Even then, there are accusations that Kuala Lumpur is meddling in the affairs of Sabah. Imagine the Philippines with its unitary state mentality. That would be ugly not just to libertarians, but more so to Sabahans and the Philippines.

Categories
Society

[2444] Large numbers, small minds, majority voters

I find it hard to take the masses seriously sometimes. Here is a story why that is so.

I attended a Pakatan Rakyat-organized forum a few weeks ago. The organizers were promoting the coalition’s proposed federal budget. There is nothing wrong with that.

My problem is with the audience.

Since the proposal is a plan for public finance at the national level, the numbers do run to the billions. The nominal size of the economy itself is more than a trillion ringgit and the federal government intends to spend more than 200 billion ringgit in 2012. Various ticket items come with large numbers indeed.

These large numbers awed the audience. I found this a bit shocking. Yet another billion mentioned, there came another chatter. These murmurs mostly came in the fashion of “that’s big.” They were too easily impressed with a lot of things. The way they experienced the awe made me doubted that they understood what impressed them.

For instance, they were surprised that the federal government owes billions but they did not know that that is normal all around the world, and what matters is the ability to service the debt. Even so, the absolute billions impressed them. If the Malaysian government had a debt of only one billion ringgit, they would awe still, never mind that a billion to 200 billion is like 0.005 sen to a ringgit. They could not grasp the triviality of the large numbers.

To them, large numbers are, well, large. It is so large that, it has to be awfully serious.

Granted, the most of the audience did not seem like the professional type. They were not the overly-critical wonkish type. They were those whom loved their politics instead.

They are probably the majority within the realm of electoral politics. And democracy demands they are taken seriously. That is dispiriting.

But at least I learned something new. If you want to pull a fast one, just mention something very, very big.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[2378] To impress, support tyranny

It is quite understandable why Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak wants to impress King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an important country to Malaysia. It is the largest oil exporter in the world. It is the leader of the Muslim world by default, for better or for worse.

But when the Prime Minister decided to offer military assistance to Bahrain and back the roles Saudi Arabia had played over the course of the Arab Spring,[1] that was just a little bit too much.

The government of Bahrain has suppressed unarmed protesters with brutality. Saudi Arabia aided Bahrain in suppressing demand for democratic change, fearing the democratic change that began in Tunisia and Egpyt would spread at the expense of autocratic rulers. Najib said those efforts by Saudi Arabia were noble.

Shame.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak says the country is willing to send peacekeepers to help “de-escalate tension” in Bahrain while backing Saudi Arabia’s role in resolving regional unrest.

Bahraini authorities in the kingdom ruled by a Sunni dynasty have attempted to curb violent protests in recent months inspired by uprisings that toppled Egypt’s and Tunisia’s presidents.

“Malaysia stands ready to contribute peacekeepers to the Kingdom of Bahrain, if invited to do so by the Bahraini leadership,” Najib said in a statement on Friday following a meeting with Saudi Arabian monarch King Abdullah in Riyadh.

 

 

 

“Malaysia will consider it a great honour to offer assistance in this noble effort.” [AFP. Malaysia pledges to help Bahrain. New Straits Times. May 15 2011]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2313] Of hook me up a new revolution?

While having a quiet dinner in Montmartre in Paris, I overheard the waiter talking in French to a group sitting at a table. The waiter answered, I assumed to an English equivalent of the question where are you from, “Tunisie. Révolution!” He further said, this time in English, “Now, I can go home”.

The whole table was excited. I do not need to understand too much French to know that. Some time within the conversation, somebody mentioned Mubarak. By the time I got back to my hostel, “Mubarak Steps Down” was written on the front page of the New York Times.

This is a joyous day. The Arab world is full of dictators. That is beginning to change. The wave that began in Tunisia begins to resemble the Spring of Nations that happened in 1848, when the revolutions across Europe prepared various states for real liberal change for decades to come.

Nevertheless, immediately in my mind, I remember a verse belonging to Foo Fighters’ Learn to Fly. As it goes, “hook me up a new revolution, ’cause this one is a lie.”

The protest in Egypt has been exciting to me because it is genuinely organic. Nobody can claim to lead the protest but everybody can claim to be part of it. While I was watching the BBC in London with an old friend less than a week ago, we discussed exactly this and we shared the conclusion of the danger how this revolution may end up, which could be a disappointment.

Mubarak has been reported of handing over power to the military. I am not an expert in Egyptian politics but the idea of having the military in charge, I would think, is not ideal. An interim civilian government would be great, although who should form the interim government, given the lack of leadership of the revolution, is unclear.

Let us just hope that the military will not be addicted to power, and stand ready to return its newly assumed power to the legitimate civilian government soon.