Lest We Forget: Mahathir's Misdeeds

It may be easy for Mahathir to forget the numerous misdeeds committed during his 22 years of iron-fisted rule.

However, Malaysians must never forget. They must never forget that many of the problems facing the country today originated from his administration of the country.

For Mahathir to come out to blame Badawi for "destroying" BN, the day after the momentous 2008 elections is totally uncalled for. His outburst is certainly not for the interest of the country nor even for the interest of UMNO or BN. Malaysian should never be fooled by what he or his sycophants say.

The following is a sample of what Malaysians think of Mahathir.

Dedicated to Dr M - The People’s Parliament January 31, 2008 (Although this was posted before the elections it is a fitting "dedication") Too late, Dr M, too late. Too late to cover up your dark deeds by blaming the Badawi administration. How I had wished, when you were in your hospital bed in IJN recuperating, that you would do the decent thing - repent and admit all the wrongs you had done towards this nation and its people, all too numerous to enumerate here. True repentance would have led you to speak the truth at the VK Lingam session, would have caused you to open up and apologise and attempt to make things right, would have been medicine for this suffering nation. But you did not. True repentance means you are willing to do all that it takes to undo the harm you caused. But you are not. Your selective amnesia is so you. Some people say your performance before the Royal Commission was vintage Dr M. I say it was wastage. You wasted a great moment where you could have helped expose the truth. You chose self-preservation instead. Why complain and condemn BN now, Dr M? You were their best teacher and they were ready pupils to emulate your ways. So, Dr M, leave the affairs of this nation to others. Sit in your armchair, think of your deeds and sing this song dedicated to you to the tune of ‘I Started A Joke’. I started the rot That sent this nation crumbling But I wouldn’t see That the rot was in me. I took all the power And had the nation crying But I didn’t care That my rule was unfair. I started it all Caused all this mess And people had less But I, I’m on my throne I don’t care two hoots I can go it alone. I’ve started a scheme That’ll make you want me back A pity you can’t see That Malaysia needs me.

Should Pak Lah quit? Are you insane? Hell NO! - blog.thestar.com.my Posted by: aput83 Tuesday, March 11, 2008 I like Pak Lah as a person. He's a genial old man with a wicked sense of humor. When I saw him announce the simple majority win, I almost felt sad. Almost. Then suddenly I get news that the grumpy old retired ex-PM has already started criticizing him, going so far as demanding him to step down. And, oddly enough, there are those who actually agree with Tun M. Are you kidding me? Do people not know why the Opposition could never have gotten their win if Mahathir was still Prime Minister? Do you think the EC would have been under as much pressure to make sure the elections were fair? Do people actually think that if Tun M was still Prime Minister, we would not see another Ops Lallang, with all the Opposition leaders being rallied and locked up? Do you think BERSIH and HINDRAF would actually get any attention at all? I have respect for Tun M, but this is one time he should just shut up. He ruled with an iron fist, misleading the non-Malays into thinking that he was on their side, when he never did anything of the sort. I think we all should be thankful to Pak Lah for actually allowing the Opposition to prove themselves in 5 years to the people in 5 states. True, he is not the best example of good leadership in terms of winning elections, but he has proven himself to be a gracious, humble, accepting and transparent leader, which I have never yet managed to see in my lifetime. Which is more than I can say for that grumpy, old, begrudging predecessor of his.

'Operasi Lallang 2' on Sunday if Dr M was still PM - Malaysiakini Letter Abdullah Junid Mar 11, 08 5:52pm I refer to the Malaysiakini report Dr M calls for Pak Lah to resign. Well, well, well, now! Look which pot we have calling the kettle black. Our ‘beloved’ retired - though I'm sure he wish he wasn't - ex-prime minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad is accusing Pak Lah of destroying the Barisan Nasional and asking him to step down. I laughed so loud, I almost fell out of my chair. Dear Tun, Pak Lah did not destroy the BN. He just inherited the destruction process you had started during your 22-year dictatorship. The corruption, the arrogance, the obscene megaprojects towering over slums populated by hard-done-by Malaysians, the brutal treatment of those who had an opinion contrary to yours - these are all things that were your legacy. The thoroughly discredited judiciary, the instant-billionaire children of ‘Umno royalty’ - including your own - these are all your legacies. The cronies who looted the country's treasury, the constant purges of Umno opponents, the shameful beating up of your most feared opponent - these are all part of what history will remember you for. In fact, we all know what would have happened to leading opposition figures this past Sunday if you had still been prime minister. It would have been Operasi Lalang II. Let's go back a bit further. It was your agitation during the late 1960s that played a big role in putting Malaysia on the racist path that has led to today's overwhelming problems. The sheer arrogance of the man. Not only did he decide personally who would succeed him, but he even decided who would succeed his successor. Now that the prospects of his blue-eyed boy Najib look shaky, he's crying foul. Well, cry me a river! Mahathir's sycophants drool over his supposed charisma. But the fact is, he's been nothing more than a lifelong opportunist who could always sense which way the wind was turning, and then used his oratorical and political machinations to take advantage of them. Well, it looks like age hasn't diminished his ability to smell an opportunity. He knows Pak Lah is at his weakest now, and he has pounced right out of the gate to try and get his boy Najib installed in Putrajaya. Trouble is, he still needs to learn that loyalty in Umno is as fleeting as the post you hold. If he thinks Najib will be his hamba, he's sadly out of touch. But I'm sure many Malaysians wish Mahathir nothing less than a long, long life - long enough for him to be around and watching when Anwar Ibrahim takes the oath of office as Prime Minister.

Whatever it is, don't listen to Mahathir - Malaysiakini Letter Al Tugauw Mar 11, 08 5:40pm I refer to the Malaysiakini report Dr M calls for Pak Lah to resign Before anyone gives any credence at all to anything that Dr Mahathir Mohamad may say, I would just like to say a few words of caution. I am quite sure that Mahathir knows that it all started when he went against Tunku Abdul Rahman (who was until then by his (Tunku’s) own admission ‘the happiest Prime Minister in the world’). That was what they wanted after all, power and money. It was not just him alone, but a whole group within Umno at the time who went by the name of the ‘Contras’ and who supposedly advocated an anti-Chinese stand (but nevertheless all had some Chinese tow kay or another behind them). Even today with their Hidup Melayu! while at the same time siphoning off as much money as they can through sheer abuse of their positions, both within and outside of government. This marked the real start of money politics in Umno and Umno's foray into business and the corporate sector - so that not very long after the implementation of the NEP, the first victim of Umno’s greed was the very bank set up to ‘help’ bumiputeras, Bank Bumiputra. Many other scandals involving enormous waste of government funds and mismanagement followed, all of which could be covered up under the guise of the NEP and through control of all mass media. Mahathir himself and his Umno (also MCA and MIC) cronies who got rich from all the money which they siphoned out of the system through sheer abuse of the NEP - and which was partly used to place him in power to take over as PM and to keep him there for 22 years, as well as to keep the BN in power for so long under Umno - are largely to blame for all these abuses. Abdullah and Najib, who followed that lead and as inheritors of that systemic abuse are also responsible as serial abusers themselves. The evidence is clear - if only ACA was given a free hand to investigate. It really does not matter whether Abdullah stays on or is replaced by Najib, as Mahathir wants. We all know that Mahathir is a man with his own agenda - national interest certainly being not a part of it. If they have not learnt their lesson and continue to abuse their positions, that will certainly be the death knell of Umno and the BN with it. Then again, perhaps that will be better for this country. Mahathir talks as if things would have beeen different under him or perhaps even under Najib (and the BN would not have lost so badly) and that Abdullah's arrogance and misplaced faith in his son-in-law was to blame. Perhaps this may be true, but that is the system which they inherited from Mahathir (and of course continued to abuse). I doubt if Abdullah's arrogance could out-do Mahathir's anytime. All I can say now is that if Umno and the BN and their leadership and members do not undertake the necessary self-reform at the federal level, they can expect to be overthrown in the next general elections. However, if Sabah and Sarawak desert the BN now, which they should, the people will not have to wait for the next general elections for at least some hope of reform to begin so that all Malaysians can get on with life under more just, equitable and fairer conditions instead of letting all these elites continue to bleed the country dry while the rest of us and the country's resources pay for it. Whatever it is, don't listen to Mahathir.

Stop attacking Abdullah, Dr M told - Malaysiakini Mar 11, 08 6:43pm The National Union of Bank Employees (Nube) has told off former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for rebuking his successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. In a statement today, general secretary J Solomon said Mahathir should not be vindictive or hit out at Abdullah. “Stop being a traitor to our government and the people. The current situation in the country did not suddenly arise over the last 4-5 years,” he said. “It is years and years of pent-up frustration across the nation that has grown as a result of the ‘Mahazalim’ reign.” On Sunday, Mahathir had lashed out at Abdullah, after Barisan Nasional (BN) recorded its worst ever election results. Mahathir had led Umno and BN for 22 years before stepping down in October 2003. "My view is he has destroyed Umno, destroyed the BN and he has been responsible for this," Mahathir told reporters. "I think he should accept responsibility for this. He should accept 100 percent responsibility. I am sorry but I apparently made the wrong choice.” BN lost five states - Kelantan, Perak, Penang, Kedah and Selangor - to the opposition. It also lost its two-thirds grip on Parliament, winning only 140 of the 222 seats. Nube described the 12th general election as a true reflection of people’s power. “The result of the elections is proof of a clean and transparent election. There was no malice; otherwise the results would have been different,” the statement read. The union also advised those elected for the first time on the BN ticket to focus on fulfilling their promises to the people instead of making premature demands of Abdullah. Nube expressed its support for Abdullah’s ability to make the right decisions. “Let sour grapes whine in frustration while (Abdullah) works with the elected representatives in various states to build this nation for Malaysians. “We believe (Abdullah) is the best leader to unite and build Malaysia with the various state governments.” The union also said it hopes that those who won in the elections will ‘walk the talk’.

Vote Against Gerrymandering

There is a general expectation that there will be a swing of votes in favour of the Opposition in the 2008 elections due to a long list of issues such as the Lingam video, PKFZ scandal, Auditor-General Report revelations of misuse of funds, Hindraf issue, Bersih rally, etc.

However, despite this expection almost all political observers and even the most optimistic Opposition leaders and supporters concede that the BN will most probably be returned to power after the 2008 elections. Why is this the case? The answer is gerrymandering or the delineation of the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies to give unfair advantage to the BN coalition.

The smallest parliamentary seat for the Federal Territory Putrajaya has only 6,608 voters while the parliamentary seat for Kapar in Selangor has 112,224 voters! What this means is that one vote in the Putrajaya parliamentary constituency is equivalent to 17 votes in the Kapar constituency. This is grossly unfair. The usual justification given for the difference in voters in different constituencies is a "rural weightage". But Putrajaya can hardly be considered a rural area! Of course, the real reason for this discrepancy is obvious. The voters in Putrajaya are mainly civil servants and pro-BN which almost guarantee that this seat will be won by BN.

Such disturbing large discrepancies is also seen in the average voters per parliamentary constituency for the different states. For Sarawak, a state where a large number of parliamentary seats have been won by the BN in the past elections, the average voters in each parliamentary constituency is only about 29,000. However, in Selangor the average number of voters per constituency is about 71,000. To make matter worse, 3 additional parliamentary constituencies have just been created in 2006 for Sarawak which now has 31 seats for the 2008 elections - the largest number of seats for any state. If the population of the states is taken into consideration, and using Sarawak's population as the baseline then Selangor should have 53 parliamentary seats instead of 22 and Trengganu should have 18 parliamentary seats instead of only 8 seats which it currently has.

One must appreciate that such a situation should never be allowed in fair and democratic elections. The equality of voting strength must be recognised as one of the fundamental principles of fair elections. The following are extracted from guidelines from the UN Committee on Human Rights and the European Commission for Democracy Through Law.

The UN Committee on Human Rights, General Comment 25, “The Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right to Equal Access to Public Service”: "The principle of one person, one vote must apply, and within the framework of each State’s electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another. The drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of allocating votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate against any group and should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right of citizens to choose their representatives freely."

European Commission for Democracy Through Law: Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters Guidelines and Explanatory Report Adopted by the Venice Commission, October 2002 "2.2 Equal voting power: seats must be evenly distributed between the constituencies. i. This must at least apply to elections to lower houses of parliament and regional and local elections: ii. It entails a clear and balanced distribution of seats among constituencies on the basis of one of the following allocation criteria: population, number of resident nationals (including minors), number of registered voters, and possibly the number of people actually voting. An appropriate combination of these criteria may be envisaged. iii. The geographical criterion and administrative, or possibly even historical, boundaries may be taken into consideration. iv. The permissible departure from the norm should not be more than ten percent, and should certainly not exceed 15 percent except in special circumstances (protection of a concentrated minority, sparsely populated administrative entity). v. In order to guarantee equal voting power, the distribution of seats must be reviewed at least every ten years, preferably outside election periods."

In our original 1957 Constitution there is a provision for differences in the voters in different constituencies to provide for "rural weightage". However,the discrepancy is limited to no more than 15% from the average constituency electorate in each state. Unfortunately, due to the stranglehold the BN has in the parliament, constitutional amendments were made in 1962 and 1973 which have removed this crucial 15% restriction. In the 1973 amendments the power of the Election Commission to apportion parliamentary electoral constituencies among the various states was also removed. Both the number of constituencies and their apportionment among states were to be specified in the constitution which means that at any time the ruling coalition with its two-thirds majority in parliament can make amendments to the number of parliamentary constituencies in each state.

Such blatant gerrymandering must not be allowed to continue and major reforms of the electoral system must be carried out after the coming elections. However, the BN coalition cannot be expected to voluntarily undertake such reforms. For this to happen a stronger opposition must be voted into parliament.

Sivarasa: In politics, the dice is always rolling

Sivarasa: In politics, the dice is always rolling (courtesy of Malaysiakini) Terence Netto Feb 27, 08 1:40pm The expression of thought in language clear as a window pane is not a quality that’s in terribly abundant supply in Malaysian politics. An hour’s conversation with Sivarasa Rasiah, the PKR parliamentary candidate for Subang, may entice one to conclude that clear convictions and lucid articulation are, after all, not that rare to find. Tangled syntax, hemming, hawing pauses, the pumping of pompous sound and fury into otherwise bland statements of the obvious – all signs of a lack of inner clarity – are conspicuous by their absence in this Rhodes scholar’s discourse. Not even steady interruptions to take mobile phone calls can skew the pellucid flow of his conversation. A mere, “Where were we?” suffices to recover the lost thread and for the chat to resume its crystalline trails. If a gift for vividness is a compelling virtue in politics, then Sivarasa ought to be home and dry in his third quest for parliamentary representation. His maiden attempt in 1999 in Ampang Jaya leveraged on the reformasi surge but fell valiantly short of success; his second attempt in Petaling Jaya Selatan in 2004 was snuffed out by the Ahmad Abdullah Badawi typhoon. For the March 8 general election, the 52-year-old lawyer is fairly sure the electoral pendulum is swinging in favour of greater representation for the opposition though he is not sure of its magnitude. “The dice is always rolling in politics,” remarked Sivarasa, in an interview with Malaysiakini during a pause for lunch in his campaign for the Subang parliament seat in Selangor. He hastened to add that unlike the numbers that come up on a roll of dice, political shifts don’t occur at random. “In the last few years, there has been a confluence of concerns among the people,” said Sivarasa. “The rise in the crime rate, the consumer price spiral, the decay in the judiciary, the perception that corruption is pervasive, inefficiency in the police force and civil service, have all combined to induce in people a feeling that things are slipping out of control. “It has not helped that Prime Minister Abdullah appears to be a captive of indecision. When people begin to say things like, ‘At least Dr Mahathir would go ahead and take a decision and stick by it even if it was an unpopular one,’ you are in trouble because at the last election Abdullah benefitted from a wave that was not so much approval of him as rejection of Dr Mahathir,” opined Sivarasa. We’re more a movement for change Obviously, electoral waves have nuances that are only evident after they have crested and ebbed. Would Sivarasa care to divine the nuances in the wave that he sees as favouring greater representation for the opposition? “I would have to be clairvoyant to do that,” he quipped. “All I’m prepared to say is that there is a shift in favour of a greater presence for us in Parliament. As for the nuances we would have to wait and see.” Sivarasa, who has alternated between central and peripheral roles in the billowing legal work that occurred at the interface between the reformasi movement and the government since the late 1990s, is unfazed by the waiting and the questing. “You must remember we belong not so much to a political party as a movement for change. A movement takes a long time to build and to coalesce into a consensus approved by the masses. There will be currents in our favour that may wax and wane. That’s the dynamics of politics. But so long as our values do not change, we can hope eventually to come up on top,” elaborated Sivarasa. “The journey of a thousand miles begins with myriad single steps,” he concluded. Sivarasa is contesting against MIC first-timer S Murugesan, 40, in a constituency which has 84,414 voters, out of which 50% are Malay, 35.9% Chinese and 13.5% Indian. In the 2004 general elections, MIC’s KS Nijhar romped home in Subang with a majority of 15,460 against PKR’s Mohd Nasir Hashim.

High stakes in Penang

High stakes in Penang (courtesy of Malaysiakini) Bridget Welsh Feb 27, 08 12:48pm From the core base of PKR in Permatang Pauh in the mainland to the multi-ethnic diverse Gerakan seat of Jelutong on Penang island, the 12th general elections campaign is slowly gaining momentum. The stakes are arguably higher in this state than in any other. Penangites have the power to determine the future of the opposition and the multi-ethnic vibrancy of the governing BN coalition. One of the biggest tests in Penang is for Gerakan. The new party president has stepped down as chief minister to move to the federal level. Choosing the mixed constituency of Batu Kawan, his chances for re-election are strong, as long as he maintains support from the Malay community and a cohort of Chinese voters in this fast-developing constituency (Malay: 21%, Chinese: 56.6%, Indian: 22.4%). He faces the formidable opponent of Professor Dr P Ramasamy, who has galvanised the Indian community in this constituency, where the MIC is divided by infighting and the visit by party chief S Samy Vellu with police protection has served to further alienate Indian supporters from the BN. To date, the BN’s campaign in Penang has called into question its multi-ethnic representativeness. The failure of Gerakan to offer an Indian candidate in this state has created the impression that this party is not multi-racial. They have not been helped by the actions of component BN parties, as the MIC has offered two unknown candidates in the three seats it is contesting and the BN as a whole has not illustrated strong policies in this state to address concerns of ethnic marginalisation in areas of local (and national) concern such as temple demolitions, housing and access to education. The BN manifesto, while laying out a multi-ethnic framework, has yet to inspire confidence that it will translate these ideals into policies in Penang. Gerakan leaders in particular will need to illustrate that they can genuinely represent all communities. The composition of the Gerakan slate not only tests the representativeness of the party and the BN coalition, but has raised questions about the future leadership of the state. Using the slogan of ‘Reinventing’, Penangites are not clear whether Gerakan – the BN component party with the most professionals and highly qualified leaders – can offer a slate of alternatives for future development. Uninspiring heir apparent Confidence in the heir apparent Dr Teng Hock Nan (centre), has not taken root, despite his years of grooming in the state executive council. In the past two years, the management of issues of transportation and land development – especially involving the controversial movement of the Turf Club for financial gain to actors outside of the state - has not inspired confidence, and employment generation and crime have not been effectively addressed. The choice of medical doctor Teng over well-respected local urban planner Chia Kwang Chye and the dynamic hard-working lawyer Lee Kah Choon has raised questions about the leadership of the state. The questioning sentiment is most acute on the island, where the downturn in economic fortunes and challenges are most serious. Rising inequality, crime, inflation and concerns about vibrancy were echoed from throughout the state, however, from the new village of Berapit to the middle-class houses in Green Lane. Gerakan will not only have to address the disgruntlement within its party over the choice for chief ministership, but show the electorate that it can bring solutions to the crossroads for the state. It will take more than a ‘reinvention’. Gerakan has faced over the past few years declining support from the federal government. This is despite the fact that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi is from Penang. The transformation of support has evolved from a national move away from focusing on building education, policies that reinforce competitiveness in manufacturing and the orientation of the new economic policies away from the strengths of private entrepreneurship and small business that give this state competitive advantage. The Northern Corridor project has yet to bring in benefits, and these benefits are seen not to be potentially equitably allocated to the state as a whole and communities from and within Penang. Voters, for example, are asking why resources are being concentrated in Abdullah’s constituency rather than equitably distributed. Coupled with this issue of a lackluster national base of support for economic development are concerns about encroaching Umno control over the state affairs. The Turf Club project has severely alienated voters on the island, since it is seen to be driven by the interests of Umno based in the federal government, and the entire process of land development allocation for this project has lacked genuine consultation. The changing ethnic dynamics, reinforced by more seats weighted toward Malay areas in the state, are affecting the composition of state assembly. For Gerakan, the issue will be whether they maintain the dominant position within the state, or whether Umno, which has already called for the chief ministership, will demand more representation. For many non-Malay Penangites, the calls along racial lines have fostered reservations about Umno governance in the state and the overall balance of multi-ethnic representation within the coalition. In some minds, are the lessons of power-sharing of Malacca and Sabah. Penang voters will not only determine the future of Gerakan, but will be a watershed for multi-ethnic coalition dynamics and future state leadership. Return of DAP? For the opposition, the stakes are equally high. The galvanised DAP, coming off an impressive victory in the May 2006 state election in Sarawak and accepted view supported by polling of Chinese alienation, has returned to Penang for a larger mandate. They are asking voters for a more modest support than in the 1990 campaign in calling for breaking the two-thirds BN control. This marker is important since it will provide a check on issues of land development and a stronger voice for raising concerns of governance. They face a pattern of pragmatic split voting by Penang voters, who support the BN parties for service and local access to a greater degree at the state than at the federal level. While their campaign is led by Lim Guan Eng, whose commitment to service and raising issue is long-standing, many of the candidates slated are unknown and although most are originally from Penang have been based out of the state. The DAP will have to show that their youthful dynamic slate has the ability to address the concerns of Penangites. Many of the DAP candidates have long records in the party, with service experience, yet this is not clear to many voters who want access and ideas for solutions to Penang’s challenges. They face a professional slate from the MCA and Gerakan. The DAP manifesto raises the problems facing Penang, but its campaign has yet to illustrate solutions. The ability of the DAP to tap negative sentiment and translate it into positive action remains a challenge. The DAP’s dynamic younger leadership faces this difficult test. The outcome will determine whether the party can go through a generational transformation. In order for this to evolve, respected senior leaders like Karpal Singh need to share his input for Penang’s future and his party’s future. The test for PKR is as intense. The sole seat of Permatang Pauh remains highly competitive, with Umno slating the imam Firdaus Ismail the challenger who ate decisively into the party leader Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s hold over the seat. Her supporters on nomination day were impressive, and enthusiastic, but her record of service and attention to the party affairs rather than her seat makes her vulnerable. The focus of Umno on this seat, on undercutting PKR at its core makes this fight a difficult one. What is important in this campaign compared to 2004 is the ongoing evolution of the party leadership from Wan Azizah to Anwar Ibrahim. Prevented from contesting by the early date of the election, Anwar has been given the gift by the BN in that he can advise and travel nationally rather than focus on one constituency. Yet, Permatang Pauh voters remain uncertain whether he will come back to his home base and whether their vote is for Wan Azizah or an indirect vote for him if a by-election is called in April. Acid test for PKR, Umno PKR’s test is not just about the leadership of the party and its role in one seat, but its ability to reach out and represent beyond Anwar. There are stronger candidates slated in Penang by PKR than in 2004, but the challenge of getting the brand of the party across remains formidable. They are some competitive seats as the party pushes a multi-ethnic agenda (notably Nibong Tebal), but resources remain an obstacle for the young candidates. For PKR the main test is whether it will have a base on the state that is multi-ethnic. This will involve a more dynamic campaign effort than has been illustrated so far. Behind the scenes, there is one additional test for a political party. This involves Umno. The party has brought in a senior minister to establish a mandate and fostered disgruntlement in the means in has chosen its slate. The infighting in the party remains serious, and this could lead to a change in support among Malays as well as a drop in the support for the prime minister. When Nor Mohamed Yakcob, the minister in question, has been a key part of the ministry that has raised prices by removing subsidies, it is indeed interesting to see whether accountability on the bread and butter issues will influence voters or whether resource allocation driven by state access, senior positions in government and incumbency will be decisive. Kepala Batas and Tasek Gelugor will be important constituencies to watch, as they will point to whether Abdullah’s administration and his leadership have support from within Umno and the Malay electorate as a whole. Abdullah’s ability to heal these party rifts and minimise sabotage from within his ranks will come out in the Penang polls. These contests will have important consequences for the main Umno contest, its party’s polls scheduled for later this year. Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, the polls in Penang are on the display internationally and domestically. The spotlight is focused on this pragmatic multi-ethnic electorate of largely middle-age voters. In 2004 there were concerns about electoral irregularities, notably in Permatang Pauh, and the unfair use of taxpayer resources to support specific candidates. The campaign in Penang will be one in which the fairness of the polls will be in focus. This may be the decisive factor that shapes the final outcomes. Campaigning will likely continue to follow the traditional pattern of labour-intensive hand-shaking, ceramah and face-to-face engagement, but will also be one in which concerns of phantom voters, media access, and resource allocation will be critical. In short, not only the future of the parties but the electoral process itself is at stake in Penang. Penangites traditionally relish the electoral process - expect high voter turnout and an increasingly engaged campaign as all sides address their internal and external challenges ahead. DR BRIDGET WELSH is assistant professor in Southeast Asian studies at John Hopkins University-SAIS, Washington DC. She is following the campaign trail in a number of states. Her next stop is Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.

Vote against arrogance

Vote against arrogance - Malaysiakini KJ John Feb 26, 08 2:53pm Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Over the years, I have learnt that this is in fact an absolute statement and no ordinary human is really exempted from it. We saw it in 10 years with Republican rule in America and we saw the same thing in Australia. Those with absolute power think, "you are with us or against us!" The Malaysian Government is no different. After 50 years in office, since independence, the Malaysian Government is truly reflecting the epitome of the nature and culture of all such corrupted power. Ketuanan Melayu is the name of this game. The General Election is the therefore the classic opportunity for ordinary people to participate, to vote, and to make whatever changes are needed and felt in governance. It is always the ordinary people who really finally decide, never the party in power; although they have full control of all the levers of influence. Regardless, ultimately it is the individuals who walk up and can make a choice to define the difference. As we now see in America, have seen in Australia, and again in Pakistan, determined and convicted people have the power to make change happen. Sometimes sacrifices are even needed. Benazir Bhutto died for what she believed and the people did believe her too. The former Australian PM lost his seat. The American people are also asking for change for all the corrupted rhetoric of power systems; and Obama seems to have given voice to all this yearning. It is now going to be our turn. Are we mature enough to become a "developed nation?" Or, are we only condemned to remain a developing nation torn down by tribal and ethnic rhetoric of a feudal form? This article is an open one to all Malaysians to think of the reasons why we too must also vote for change in Malaysia; I am going to. It is now an established fact, thanks to a climate of openness nurtured by the Pak Lah Administration that the Government of the Day not only has a lot of power but has continuously used and abused this power with very poor and corrupted governance. Such abuses of power, as become very evident and amplified by the Lingam case in particular. The almost absolute power has seriously contributed to the rise of corrupt practices across the board and throughout Federal, State and Local Governments. Such corruption has been happening over the last 27 years because of the weakening of the originally designed system of checks and balances. The more than 2/3rd majority in Parliament is the singular core issue which makes for the Executive State; and, the resulting impotence of the judiciary is a directly related issue. The consequentially muzzled and blindly obedient media is the ultimate result of unchecked power. Bribery and corruption happens daily and directly before our very eyes. Shame in Malaysia is no more. Election goodies are being dished out without impunity; with total disregard for the Election Commission. They too are in cahoots with the government. The Law was even amended to allow the Chairman to continue for one more year! The government can therefore see no wrong, hear no wrong and do no wrong, so long as all their agents are "barisan actors." Integrity agenda Minister Rafidah used to say, she has no time for "role-players!" She only believes in assuming a role but never in playing a role. By this she means that everyone should be fully accountable for their every action. Really Minister, did you assume or play a role when you dished out all those APs to your "close friends" and allies? I am sure it was for the sake of developing the auto industry in Malaysia! What about the new holiday boat bought for the PM in the name of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong? Did you ask Pak Lah who is playing the role here? Was it Pak Lah or the King? And the new plane, whose money was used? What about the integrity agenda of the government? What about transparency and openness and greater accountability? What about the last Auditor General’s Report? Was any action taken against all those public servants who made million ringgit decisions without authority? I am talking about the responsible Secretary General or the Minister. Or, was it enough to blame clerks and charge junior officers with crimes? Why was not action taken against a known crooked person in the name of Raja Zakaria of Port Klang? When he has obviously abused power for personal wealth, is that not ugly? All the government can do is merely drop him as a candidate? Was the AG asleep or was he directed not to take action? Are all State DPPs also under the Executive instructions? Did all these crooks do no wrong? Cannot you see their faults? What about the person who has for 27 years misled all Malaysian Indians, and not just the Tamils? What about the 9million Telecoms shares? Does he still get to make one last stand? Why and for what? His personal ego? Or, because Pak Lah has no moral authority to ask him to step down, being equally guilty of such ego trips ? Therefore dear Malaysians, as we go into the 12th General Election period how must we really vote? Should we vote for a party leadership that has already been "exercising executive and absolute power for the last 55 years," or should we give the other side a chance for the first time in Malaysian history? I am going to argue for change, and therefore am asking you to also consider a vote for change and vote against arrogance. I give only three reasons for my preference. First and foremost is the lack of political will for moral leadership demonstrated by the Pak Lah Administration after we gave him absolute power to make changes? He misused that power and authority. The current and incumbent Prime Minister, who preached and propagated the agenda of integrity, has failed to promote and sustain this agenda seriously and consistently. Three obvious reasons I therefore list below three obvious reasons: 1. The Police Complaints Commission has not been set up because the Prime Minister got cold feet and realized that the corrupt Police Force can act to sabotage the Government’s agenda. The abuses of the Police were well documented by the Royal Commission Report. Therefore, what we see now recommended as a bill in Parliament is a lame and inconsequential Commission which is a watered down version of the original Complaints Commission. Why the cop out? 2. The Parliamentary Committee on Integrity which was given a two year mandate which has not been fulfilled because the Chairman of the original Committee (a Minister) resigned because the public services did not respect the Parliamentary Committee. He was supported by two Ministers who worked for opposite purposes. The PM then had no moral authority to deal with this issue and instead let things slide, which led to the resignation of the original Chairman, another Minister in Pak Lah’s Cabinet. 3. With all exposures about corruption in governance, especially the ones promoted, allowed and led by the Media, it is surprising that the PM who argued for integrity and against corruption could not execute his own policies against "the Klang railway gate-keeper turned Raja" or the "close one-eye Member of Parliament?" Both were publicly made evident cases involving obvious corruption. The PM has no moral courage to do the right thing in the right way at the right time. Therefore I conclude that there is no leadership integrity nor the requisite political will on the matter of the Nation’s Integrity Agenda, especially amongst the Cabinet, or the Chief of Executives, called the Prime Minister. The Integrity Agenda remains an espoused theory, or a political ploy, with little or no confidence amongst the people that there is any intention to carry through with the discipline required to instill such good and honorable values. At least, I remain unconvinced. It is still a worthwhile sounding agenda with little or no follow-up and follow-through in the immediate future. Maybe it was only intended to create awareness amongst the public officials; a task therefore assigned to the Integrity Institute Malaysia and their NGO allies with little of no power or teeth to do much else. Even the ACA is really no different because it reports only to the Prime Minister, instead of the Parliament! Same with the Attorney General. Second, the PM has always argued that he is the PM of all Malaysians and asked Malaysians to "work with him and not for him." He has yet to convince me that he abides by this servant leadership model. Although he writes personal notes to Pastors and Elders, and most non-Muslim leaders, when it came to the Hindraf’s real issues, this PM found no time to read the document which was personally presented by the Hindraf leaders to his office in Putrajaya. Instead, they were left to organize the march for their cause, because they were not heard or listened to. But, when it became demonstrated that their concerns were real and serious (with 30,000 supporters), and after he met with non-MIC NGOs, small actions began to be taken for the case of these marginalized Indians. Why did the Barisan Government have to wait all these years to do what a "PM of all Malaysians should have done" without being prompted, if in fact he is the PM of all Malaysians, and not just UMNO? Did they all not know the real issues? Or, is it that such appeals, even from the MIC, really fell on deaf ears within the context of UMNO belligerence? The NEP originally had a primary goal of "eradicating poverty regardless of race or economic function." Pak Lah knows that because he was part of the team which drafted it with PM Tun Razak. What happened to all such targets, even after 37 years of the NEP? The bottom 30% of Malaysian society needs to be heard and sometimes they can only do it via demonstrations, because the Government has become deaf to their concerns. Moreover, what I totally cannot accept is that in a democratic country like Malaysia, peaceful demonstrations to give voice to such issues are now not even allowed (except if it is Barisan-sponsored) because it is deemed to be against the public interest. Since when can the corrupt police alone define public interest, when the Government of the day has not taken heed to the genuine needs of these poor and marginalized Indians; which even the Government has publicly now accepted? PM Pak Lah’s "work with me not for me" edict appears to refer only to Government Departments and towards blind administrative compliance rather than for change and improvement defined by others. Working with NGOs, the Bar Council, and the Civil Society does not yet seem part and parcel of this agenda. Why? Thirdly and finally, the PM’s Islam Hadhari appears to be merely another publicity and political gimmick to ward off the more serious and sincere agenda of PAS’ Islamic State ambition. From an anti-Islamic state stance taken by the BN over the years, which is consistent with the Secular Constitution and statements of the first three former PMs, suddenly now, even the DPM of Pak Lah’s Government and son of the second PM has stated that Malaysia is an Islamic State. That singularly cheats and lies to all non-Muslims and denies the original Social Contract, and undoes the original spirit of the Alliance. Worse still this cheats, lies and breaches the formal contract with Sabah and Sarawak about the original intentions of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement. Consequences of 'false declaration' The many consequences of this "false declaration" are the following: 1. Most public servants on the ground can now decide to take on role of "moral guardians" of the enforcement of the Islamic State agenda. That is why "non-Muslim couples holding hands are now charged in court," "32 bibles are confiscated," the word "Allah is banned for Bahasa Malaysia bibles," and the increasing Islamization of public schools is evident. 2. Lina Joy, a genuine convert to Christianity from Islam was denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion based on her own conscience. Personal conscience cannot be denied. 3. Temples and other places of worship are not given proper locations and instead 100-year old temples built during the British Colonial rule are destroyed based entirely and purely on the "privatization of the land development for housing purposes." Whose responsibility, other than that of the Government is it to safeguard and protect the interests on these "Tamil community settlements in estates;" when the land developers are going to reap millions vide their property development. There is also the general problem of the non-allocation of proper land for the construction of places of worship by the Government. This singular issue caused a Catholic Church in Selangor to be delayed for almost 26years. Moreover, issues related to construction of churches have to be approved by the Islamic Council at the State level. Why is the Federal Constitution and its guarantees becoming subject to State level legislation, especially on non-Islamic religions? 4. The issue of body-snatching after death. Why would this face of Islam find expression under Islam Hadhari? If in fact, Islam is a peaceful religion, as propagated, is not this "after-death" care and concern rather disingenuous? In many of these cases, the original spirit of the Federal Constitution has been violated, with Judges in Civil Courts appearing to be more Muslim than the Federal Constitution’s supreme authority it gives itself. Based on the above three reasons, I would like to appeal to all peace-loving Malaysians who have in the past almost blindly voted for the Government of National Unity, with a promise of continued harmony and peace, to please reconsider and to vote for change. We need to tell the Government of the Day that the voices of ordinary people do count and not just those of their 3000 UMNO members at their General Assembly. What is the absolute worst that can happen, even if most change-minded people find the courage to try and make a difference? I still do not see more than about 75-80 seats falling to the Opposition. The Barisan Government will continue to rule but without the traditionally arrogant attitude of the past few years. Their keris-wilding antics will stop. The Barisan Rakyat (of the people, for the people and by the people) would have spoken and if the Government does not still take the ordinary people seriously, then and only then, will we ever dream of real change in power for the first time in Malaysia. But, why do we have to wait for that? That can only happen in the next General Election. It is far more positive to give the early signal now and let the Government learn that ordinary people have their own limits and that part of the message of a developed nation is having the option to change the Government. After all, that is part and parcel of evolving into a mature democracy. May God continue to have mercy on Malaysia; by denying the Government their two-thirds majority! That is my sincere prayer!

Will urban voters trigger the tipping point?

Will urban voters trigger the tipping point? - Malaysiakini Stanley Koh Malcolm Gladwell in his widely read book ‘The Tipping Point’ brilliantly narrated how ‘little’ things can make a ‘big’ difference. According to The Telegraph, the tipping point “is a magic moment when an idea, trend or social behaviour crosses a threshold, tips and spread like wildfire: like a flu epidemic, popularity of a new product, a drop in crime rate”. Will this happen on polling day, March 8? Malaysians have recently witnessed the Hindraf phenomenon which many believe will radically change the voting patterns of the minority Indian community. Surely this cannot be the only factor in determining the results of the upcoming elections. As an illustration, if we look back at the recent past and the couple of issues which snowballed and created the perception of serious misdeeds by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s government, only then can we begin to understand the hot button issues which can move the urban voters beyond the “bread and butter” issues. In 2007, a survey conducted by Merdeka Center for Opinion Research revealed surprising results. “About two-thirds of the respondents (51% urban and 49% respondents) think the country needs a stronger opposition,” it said. It also observed that “Chinese are more in favour of having a stronger opposition and their desire increases steadily”. The survey asked - does the country need to have a stronger opposition? It showed that at the national level, some 66% agree, 4% maybe and 26% disagree, while in Kuala Lumpur (67% agree, 6% maybe and 17% disagree) and Selangor (58% agree, 6% maybe and 28% disagree). Disparaging, racist remarks What could be the causes of such perceptions? A year before the survey was done, several Umno delegates made disparaging and racist remarks against the non-Malay community at the party’s annual congress along with its infamous keris-raising incident. There appeared to be a serious gap between what government leadership had promised and the sentiments expressed by the ruling party’s rank-and-file leaders. Take these few examples. “I will never allow non-bumiputeras to enter UiTM. I will ensure that the percentage of Malay students given places at public universities will always be higher than the percentage under the previous quota.” (former higher education minister Shafie Salleh, Umno AGM, 2004) “Universiti ini tempat Melayu.” (Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, Umno AGM, 2004, in referring to UiTM) Compare such remarks to the 2004 BN general election manifesto which said, “BN has worked hard to provide universal access to education. We will … foster student interaction to enhance national unity.” The same can be said of other promises made in the 2004 manifesto. “I hope the public will not question the money saved…” (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, March 17, 2006, on the RM4.4 billion saved from fuel subsidies). “Why are you complaining? What more do you want?’ (Abdullah, April 7, 2006 on the 9th Malaysia Plan). Yet the manifesto argued that “BN cares about your needs and will seek your views on important issues.” Promises broken On “religion and culture”, the 2004 manifesto said: “BN will continue to promote peace, prosperity and harmony among Malaysians. BN upholds the diversity of religious practice, language and culture. The reality however is very different, especially with the recent spate of Hindu temples demolition. Or consider what Badruddin Amiruddin (left), who has been picked to defend his Jerai parliament seat, said: “Let no one from the other races ever question the rights of Malays on this land. Don’t question the religion because this is my right on this land. Don’t poke at this nest, for if it were disturbed, these hornets will strike and destroy the country.” During a parliamentary debate, the same Badruddin lashed out at the opposition: “Malaysia ini Negara Islam, you tak suka, you keluar dari Malaysia.” On human rights and freedom, the 2004 manifesto promised, “BN safeguards the interests of all citizens. We listen to and act on the hopes and aspirations of all groups regardless of age, gender, ethnic background and religion.” Here’s the reality - Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz on March 20, 2006 said, “We will not think twice about using this law against anyone who incites - that’s why we still need the Sedition Act and ISA (Internal Security Act)”. On Suhakam’s ineffectiveness, he said, “I think you are dreaming, we have never planned to give any teeth to Suhakam. To give them teeth has never been a proposal.” On the corruption and abuse of power issue, Umno secretary-general Radzi Sheikh Ahmad (commenting on money politics) said, “Umno does not intend to report the cases to the ACA. We have our own mechanism.” Urban voters better informed Today, urban voters are better positioned to evaluate the government’s ability in delivering its promises. This category of voter segment has an information advantage that may arise due to several factors: 1. Greater average wealth 2. Higher education 3. Better access to the media as well as stronger urban focus in media coverage 4. Greater access through the Internet and interactive IT communication Tricia Yeoh (right), director of Centre of Public Policy Studies, has put a rather tantalising question: “Will urban voters translate their political perceptions and sentiments into changing patterns at this general election?” Perhaps part of the answer lies in this remark by economist Zainal Aznam Yusof: “A responsible government would say what it wants to do after the elections. You cannot dupe the electorate - they know what is coming.” Gladwell in his book concluded by saying that people can radically transform their behaviour or beliefs with the right kind of impetus. “Tipping points are a reaffirmation of the potential for change and the power of intelligent action. Look at the world around you. It may seem like an immovable, implacable place. It is not. With the slightest push - in just the right place - it can be tipped.” Will it happen on polling day?

Overcome fear, vote for change

From a letter in Malaysiakini:

"We seem to fear, and it is this fear that the ruling elites capitalise on for the sake of their continued dominance in the seats of power. We must learn to use the power of the vote to ensure that change takes place and to put a stop to corruption and the complete control of the executive over the other two state bodies (the judiciary and the legislature). Healthcare, education, the cost of living, religious sensitivities and, most precious of all, equality and freedom must be in our minds when we cast our votes.

If we, the people, are known to change the government once every two or three terms, the ruling elites will come down from their ivory towers and start treating us as equals. That must slowly start this election.

More seats must be won by the opposition so that the rakyat will slowly overcome the culture of fear that has been drilled into them by a compliant media and the state apparatus. With the exposure of corrupt practices in high and powerful seats of government, we the rakyat must not waste this upcoming opportunity."

Read More

BN won 7 parliamentary and 2 state seats uncontested

After the close of nominations for the 2008 elections yesterday, BN won 7 parliamentary seats unopposed compared to 17 parliamentary seats which it won uncontested in 2004. It also won only 2 state seats on nomination day compared to the 11 seats it won unopposed in 2004.

PAS won the Kijang state seat in Kelantan when the BN candidate was disqualified for being an undischarged bankcrupt.

BN wins 9 seats - the Sun