How to behave like gov't-in-waiting

The purpose of electoral politics is to gauge public support and harness that support to make a success of governmental policies. In short, elections are not mere rituals of democracy but a way for the government of the day to find legitimacy.

MCPX

Of course, this is an imperfect system and there are times when a political party or coalition of parties is so strong as to make elections seem a mere ritual. The upside is that the ruling clique can push through controversial policies acting like a benign or benevolent dictatorship.

The downside, as can be seen in Singapore today, is that the government is never sure whether there is enough scrutiny to make those policies reach their full potential. Another problem with such dominance is public apathy, with citizens refusing to take ownership of those policies.

Public apathy that leads to a refusal to take ownership of governmental policies feeds into the delusion that the political elite are all-powerful. Because we know that only God is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful then we know for a fact that the political elite is as dominant as we will it to be.

For example, under Dr Mahathir Mohamad the BN seemed infallible. But even in the thick of BN’s dominance of Parliament, it was not impervious to criticism and oppositional resistance.

Ultimately, the problem with such dominance is that it breeds the seeds of its own destruction in the form of hubristic and arrogant attitudes. Power corrupts, the saying goes and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is why it is important to have elections. One can argue, as the eloquent Khairy Jamaluddin, did that elections at this time of global economic crisis is irresponsible. He was referring to the Penanti by-elections, which to his mind is a waste of public funds and creates unnecessary politicking. This must be the first time in history a politician openly turns down a chance for politicking.

The merits of Khairy’s arguments are best left to the people. In the case of the Perak state assembly, now mired in judicial controversy, the prime minister reminds us that it was not BN’s doing. Some claim that the BN has a simple majority. The reality is that there is a stalemate between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. The kingmaker includes two assemblymen facing corruption charges and one very unpopular and disgruntled assemblywoman.

Can BN continue to defy public opinion?

Public opinion is now fixed on dissolving the state assembly and having state elections. In an ntv7 survey, some 99% of callers wanted the state elections. Mahathir does not, simply because he thinks the BN will lose.

The question then is whether or not the BN should hang on to power in Perak whilst openly defying public opinion?

The answer is based on the costs. There is no doubt that hanging on to power will have some effect on the next general elections. Mahathir himself said that he hoped the public will have short memories. But chances are, even if the economy recovers, it will never be able to close the income gap and thus create any feel-good feelings on the ground.

This will mean that voters will be less likely to forgive BN. In such a situation, issues become important and the memory of Perak will certainly swing some votes to Pakatan. This explains the dissenting voices in BN from the MCA and Gerakan over Perak. These parties know that they will be at the frontlines and will feel the full brunt of anti-government voting.

Political parties that cannot win votes are doomed. Even the mildest unhappiness will see both these parties wiped out in the next general elections. The MIC is already caught in a life-and-death struggle, owing to internal ossification and the Hindraf movement. If the BN were to lose in non-Malay majority and mixed seats, the MCA might very well be the only Chinese-based party in the world that can only win elections in Malay-majority areas.

Perak is also turning out to be a bane for Umno. It knows that if elections were held today, the BN may only get one-third of the seats. The casualties will be Umno. This will strengthen the
position of PAS within the Perak state government and end all the Umno accusations that Pakatan MB Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is a puppet of the DAP. But more significantly, it will show that a PAS government is able to rule in a multi-cultural state like Perak.

Between a rock and a hard place

But can Umno take the risk of having elections now and ending up with a stronger PAS presence in Perak? This will mean a more ethnically balanced state exco and the seeds of PAS replacing Umno can finally sprout new branches.

The BN’s future as a coalition is now on the line. If it continues to hang on to power in Perak, it will mean MCA, MIC and Gerakan will have to take a gamble at the next general elections. With non-Malay voters fixed on the future and voting for non-sectarian political parties, they will face a great challenge even with elections were held in an improving economy. It does not take a genius to figure out that race-based voting does not benefit a shrinking non-Malay electorate.

Here is a case of being between a rock and a hard place for BN. If it continues to hang on to power in Perak, it will be forming a state government with the support of three very unpopular kingmakers.

As Mahathir said at the outset, why would BN want to associate with two assemblymen - former PKR excos Osman Jailu and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi - which it had condemned as being corrupt? Meanwhile, DAP defector Hee Yit Foong is already a hate figure amongst the Chinese.

This will certainly strain intra-BN politics. Ultimately, it will convince the public that Umno calls the shots in BN, it always puts itself above its junior partners and rides roughshod of institutions whether that be the police, the civil service, the judiciary, and in Perak, public opinion.

If BN was to agree with the opposition and jointly put the case for dissolution to the Perak sultan, it may yet have a fighting chance. BN needs to show that it can set the agenda and turn the voters’ minds to bread and butter issues. This has always been its recipe for success.

Of course, elections are risky. There is always a chance of losing. The choice now is whether to risk losing one state or the entire Peninsular?

First Published on May 26, 09 12:50pm

BN's choice - lose Perak or the Peninsular?

The purpose of electoral politics is to gauge public support and harness that support to make a success of governmental policies. In short, elections are not mere rituals of democracy but a way for the government of the day to find legitimacy. MCPX Of course, this is an imperfect system and there are times when a political party or coalition of parties is so strong as to make elections seem a mere ritual. The upside is that the ruling clique can push through controversial policies acting like a benign or benevolent dictatorship. The downside, as can be seen in Singapore today, is that the government is never sure whether there is enough scrutiny to make those policies reach their full potential. Another problem with such dominance is public apathy, with citizens refusing to take ownership of those policies. Public apathy that leads to a refusal to take ownership of governmental policies feeds into the delusion that the political elite are all-powerful. Because we know that only God is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful then we know for a fact that the political elite is as dominant as we will it to be. For example, under Dr Mahathir Mohamad the BN seemed infallible. But even in the thick of BN’s dominance of Parliament, it was not impervious to criticism and oppositional resistance. Ultimately, the problem with such dominance is that it breeds the seeds of its own destruction in the form of hubristic and arrogant attitudes. Power corrupts, the saying goes and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why it is important to have elections. One can argue, as the eloquent Khairy Jamaluddin, did that elections at this time of global economic crisis is irresponsible. He was referring to the Penanti by-elections, which to his mind is a waste of public funds and creates unnecessary politicking. This must be the first time in history a politician openly turns down a chance for politicking. The merits of Khairy’s arguments are best left to the people. In the case of the Perak state assembly, now mired in judicial controversy, the prime minister reminds us that it was not BN’s doing. Some claim that the BN has a simple majority. The reality is that there is a stalemate between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. The kingmaker includes two assemblymen facing corruption charges and one very unpopular and disgruntled assemblywoman. Can BN continue to defy public opinion? Public opinion is now fixed on dissolving the state assembly and having state elections. In an ntv7 survey, some 99% of callers wanted the state elections. Mahathir does not, simply because he thinks the BN will lose. The question then is whether or not the BN should hang on to power in Perak whilst openly defying public opinion? The answer is based on the costs. There is no doubt that hanging on to power will have some effect on the next general elections. Mahathir himself said that he hoped the public will have short memories. But chances are, even if the economy recovers, it will never be able to close the income gap and thus create any feel-good feelings on the ground. This will mean that voters will be less likely to forgive BN. In such a situation, issues become important and the memory of Perak will certainly swing some votes to Pakatan. This explains the dissenting voices in BN from the MCA and Gerakan over Perak. These parties know that they will be at the frontlines and will feel the full brunt of anti-government voting. Political parties that cannot win votes are doomed. Even the mildest unhappiness will see both these parties wiped out in the next general elections. The MIC is already caught in a life-and-death struggle, owing to internal ossification and the Hindraf movement. If the BN were to lose in non-Malay majority and mixed seats, the MCA might very well be the only Chinese-based party in the world that can only win elections in Malay-majority areas. Perak is also turning out to be a bane for Umno. It knows that if elections were held today, the BN may only get one-third of the seats. The casualties will be Umno. This will strengthen the position of PAS within the Perak state government and end all the Umno accusations that Pakatan MB Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is a puppet of the DAP. But more significantly, it will show that a PAS government is able to rule in a multi-cultural state like Perak. Between a rock and a hard place But can Umno take the risk of having elections now and ending up with a stronger PAS presence in Perak? This will mean a more ethnically balanced state exco and the seeds of PAS replacing Umno can finally sprout new branches. The BN’s future as a coalition is now on the line. If it continues to hang on to power in Perak, it will mean MCA, MIC and Gerakan will have to take a gamble at the next general elections. With non-Malay voters fixed on the future and voting for non-sectarian political parties, they will face a great challenge even with elections were held in an improving economy. It does not take a genius to figure out that race-based voting does not benefit a shrinking non-Malay electorate. Here is a case of being between a rock and a hard place for BN. If it continues to hang on to power in Perak, it will be forming a state government with the support of three very unpopular kingmakers. As Mahathir said at the outset, why would BN want to associate with two assemblymen - former PKR excos Osman Jailu and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi - which it had condemned as being corrupt? Meanwhile, DAP defector Hee Yit Foong is already a hate figure amongst the Chinese. This will certainly strain intra-BN politics. Ultimately, it will convince the public that Umno calls the shots in BN, it always puts itself above its junior partners and rides roughshod of institutions whether that be the police, the civil service, the judiciary, and in Perak, public opinion. If BN was to agree with the opposition and jointly put the case for dissolution to the Perak sultan, it may yet have a fighting chance. BN needs to show that it can set the agenda and turn the voters’ minds to bread and butter issues. This has always been its recipe for success. Of course, elections are risky. There is always a chance of losing. The choice now is whether to risk losing one state or the entire Peninsular? (First published on May 19, 09 11:35am)

Fork in the Road

Zambry Abd Kadir should understand by now that he is at a fork in the road - he will have to make the final decision on Perak, as the prime minister has said.

As there is no tradition of collective responsibility in the Barisan Nasional (BN) and Umno, every Umno politician will meet this proverbial fork in the road.

Whatever the outcome of the court decision, Zambry now has to shoulder the consequences.

What exactly are these? In the worse-case scenario, the BN loses the 13th general election with the Perak power-grab being a key issue.

The more immediate possible consequence is that Perak becomes ungovernable, its economy falters and the BN ‘loses’ the state, meaning the support of the people.

But more dangerous is that Malaysians may become convinced that they are being pushed into a corner and have no other way to react except through passive resistance. Not cooperating to make governmental programmes work. In other words, apathy may grow to even higher levels.

As public confidence in the civil service and the police declines, the crime rate goes up. The police force numbering in their thousands cannot uphold the rule of law effectively without public cooperation. People may make police reports but will refuse to help, making crime-solving even more difficult.

Malaysians are already flaunting the law in small but significant ways. They do not respect traffic laws, drive against the grain in one-way streets and when asked why, the answer is that “there is no law in this country”. We have laws but they seem to be enforced selectively.

Elements within the civil service that do not support political actions like the ones we see unfolding in Ipoh may decide to be less efficient. They will not be inspired to put in the extra hours to make a success of governmental projects. The net result would be mass dissatisfaction.

Of course, a government that has no respect for public perception cannot expect support from the same public it disdains. Zambry may be the “Mandela, Gandhi and Martin Luther King” of Umno but he certainly isn’t for the rest of us. If in doubt, check Facebook postings commenting on his claim.

Stop pushing the buck

The deputy prime minister is correct in saying that when a decision is finally made, it must have the people’s interests at heart.

Of course, Zambry may still think that his team is capable of taking Perak forward. But it will be most difficult to convince Malaysians that the BN did not orchestrate the problems and then muck up in Perak.

There is really no need to drag the sultan and the Perak royal family further into this political quagmire.

If the BN and Umno, in particular, have any love for the royal institution, it must stop pushing the buck. The sultan did not create this mess.

The right thing to do, a veteran Umno leader and a Gerakan council member suggested, is to return to the people. If, as Zambry claimed, the opposition has used all sorts of under-handed tactics to bring disrepute to the BN and himself, the best platform to clear matters is through state elections.

Moreover, this will spare two venerable institutions from further public odium. The Perak royal family will be spared from public criticism whilst the judiciary need not hear the case any further.

The consequences for not doing the right thing at this stage may be so great that it overwhelms whatever gains this temporary stewardship of Perak brings.

Whatever Zambry, Umno and the BN decides, they must remember that a time to settle old scores will come in 2013 and for believers, judgment day eventually comes for us all.

(First Published on: May 13, 09 11:49am)

UMNO has gone against the rulers before.

Certain quarters are calling for their fellow Malaysians to be stripped of their citizenship. Presumably because these individuals have committed treason by disrespecting HRH the Sultan of Perak.

In the case of former Perak menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin , it is because he declined to resign when told to do so by HRH the Sultan of Perak. Since the Malaysian constitution is clear that when such an impasse occurs, the sitting menteri besar has the right to seek legal recourse to dispute the legality of the new state government, Nizar is within his constitutional rights to decline the royal command and seek the judgment of the Malaysian courts.

In cases like this one, we might consider looking to the words of our founding father. Tunku Abdul Rahman who was a prince, lawyer and prime minister. His words must surely carry some weight. On the matter of the role of constitutional monarchs, the Tunku had this to say: ‘Under our constitutions, either federal or state, the ruler is the fount of authority, and as such guardian of the constitution. Just as the constitution ensures that his office is respected, so too must aruler respect the constitution.’ (Looking Back, 215)

No one should doubt the wisdom and the authority of HRH Sultan Azlan Shah, who was our former Lord President. In this matter, HRH acted in good faith. Yet, to quote the Tunku again, ‘They (the rulers) must set the best example, or show in kingship as well as sultan-ship that thereis much they can do that can be appreciated and expected by their people’.

Therefore, just as the constitution provides for the authority and dignity of the rulers, it also provides for the safety for the common citizen. Nizar is well within his rights to defy the royal order, challenge the legality of the appointment of the BN state government and have his day in court.

The second Malaysian whose citizenship is called into question is that of DAP chairperson Karpal Singh. A senior lawyer and senior member of parliament, Karpal Singh suggested that HRH Sultan Azlan Shah be named as a defendant in a potential law suit calling into question the legality of the BN Perak government. No one wants to see the Perak royal house being taken to court. Some people are calling Karpal's suggestion ‘treason’ and that he should be stripped of his citizenship. The loudest voices are from Umno Youth. This is ironic as no other political party in Malaysia's history has a longer list of going against the Malay rulers than Umno.

In the run up to Merdeka, when the Alliance of Umno and MCA made their stand against home rule and instead wanted independence, the Malay rulers were dead against the suggestion of elected representatives being the majority of the Federal Legislative Council.

Here again, I quote the Tunku:‘The sultans were adamant and refused to give in. They were frightened about what might happen to them if the people had control of the country...I had to think and plan very carefully, because at all costs I wanted to avoid having a split with the rulers...I was in Johore, and decided the best course was to call on the sultan to present a petition requesting him to agree to a national election and independence.

‘We led a procession of thousands to the Istana Johore, including all the Alliance leaders, Tun Cheng-Lock Tan, Tun Leong Yew Koh, Tun Dr Ismail, Tun HS Lee and Datuk Sulaiman Abdul Rahman. We marched in the sun and reached the Istana at noon. Sultan Ibrahim stood at the top of the Istana steps to greet us, looking over the lawns below at the thousands of Alliance members of Umno-MCA. In front of the vast crowd, I presented our petition, and when the Sultan took it in his hands from all around there rose a shout in salute, the words of homage, ‘Daulat Tuanku, repeated three times.’ (Looking Back, p. 27)

It appears that the British colonial government did not try to keep the rakyat away from their sultan. Perhaps tear-gas had not been invented yet. On another occasion, when the Sultan Ibrahim of Johorinstructed the menteri besar Datuk Seth to retain a British Adviser, the Tunku related what amounts to be something along the lines of mohon derhaka on the part of Datuk Seth.

‘During a discussion on the posts of British advisors and residents, the late Datuk Seth, acting menteri besar of Johor, declared that his sultan had ordered him to fight and retain the office of British Adviser in his state, but he himself, speaking as a Malayan representative and a patriot, would not support his sultan on this issue.

‘Datuk Seth agreed with the rest that the posts of British Adviser and British Resident must go. To ensure that this would happen, Datuk Seth said he was prepared to accept whatever punishment his ruler might decide to impose on him.’ (Looking Back, p. 60).

Would Umno Youth or any NGO call for the retrospective stripping of citizenship of Datuk Seth? Here is a clear and irrefutable case of refusing to carry out the orders of the Sultan of Johor. There aremany other cases where Umno led and the people followed.When Dr Mahathir Mohamad proposed to remove the immunity of their Royal Highnesses from criminal and civil prosecution, Umno backed the call.

This writer remembers reading articles in the Dewan Masyarakat as a schoolboy where the case was argued intelligently and reasonably. There were voices that asked for Mahathir to be stripped of his citizenship but these were retrogressive as the people backed Mahathir then. On all these counts when individuals defied royalty, they had good reason to do so and they did it without denying their Royal Highnesses their dignity.

Nizar, to my mind, has acted with utmost courtesy to HRH the Sultan of Perak. He said that he does not intend to name the sultan as a defendant in the impending lawsuit. Surely, he has a right to defend his government in the Malaysian courts. In almost all instances of a constitutional crisis of this nature, the deposed have had a right to legal recourse. Stripping Nizar of his citizenship denies him that right.

It is not my place to give advice to a senior lawyer of Karpal Singh's stature and reputation. Indeed, I remember his son in St. Xavier's Institution in Penang. However, Karpal Singh might want to take a leaf from Tunku Abdul Rahman's book. Humility is what wins the day, especially when dealing with royalty. It wins you support from the rakyat whilst preserving the dignity of HRH.

It is imperative in a constitutional monarchy that the dignity of their Highnesses do not get tarnished otherwise they can no longer carry out their duties as protectors of the constitution. The very document that prevents Malaysians from losing their citizenship for speaking the truth.

(First published on: Feb 13, 09 1:19pm)

On 11 May 2008, the Malaysian High Court declared Dato' Seri Mohd Nizar as the rightful Menteri Besar of Perak. The case is now at the Court of Appeals.

[See http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=410311]

What options are open to the BN in Perak?

The most effective way to exercise power is to rule by legitimacy. Hanging on to power by creating ethnic strife, taking advantage of ethnic prejudices, or drawing upon the primordial loyalties is a spent strategy. To cling to power by force is seldom successful. In the long run, without legitimacy, one cannot rule effectively.

Even a military and economic super-power like the US cannot hold on to Iraq because its decision to invade lacks legitimacy. The US is now running out of resources. Without legitimacy, the US has lost a lot of goodwill from the international community and its influence in global politics is much diminished because of its short-sighted adventurism.

Similarly, the BN’s wrangle in Perak has created a government that suffers from a lack of legitimacy. The way civil servants and the police are aiding BN to maintain its fragile grip may be a demonstration of power but it is quickly losing the coalition nationwide respect.

There may be more than one menteri besar in Perak but there is little doubt that there is only one speaker. Under the Perak state constitution, the speaker has wide powers and the state assembly secretary is a servant of the speaker.

Does the speaker need the sultan's consent to convene a state assembly? Yes, if it is a new sitting but no if the previous sitting was merely adjourned. Thus, whilst the courts are deliberating the legitimacy of the BN Perak state government, BN is fast losing in the court of public opinion. This is one reason why the BN will fight tooth and nail to avoid state elections.

In this situation, there are several ways to maintain power. If history is anything to go by, a state of emergency will be declared whereby the federal government takes over the effective administration of the state. In such a situation, the question of legitimacy is thrown out of the window.

The problem with this strategy is that it has been used once too often. Ultimately, the BN has to win over the hearts and minds of not only the people of Perak but all Malaysians. In this matter, state assembly persons were voted into office by the people and if they are set aside, the repercussions will felt nationwide.

Another strategy might be to arrest selected opposition leaders under the ISA. This will immediately earn the BN opprobrium but may buy time to change the minds of Malaysians.

This might work in 1988 or even 1999 but today for every one opposition leader thrown in jail, 500 take their place. Hindraf is a case in point and there is nothing holding back the masses from rising up against an ‘illegitimate’ government.

A third scenario may be the idea of a nationwide suspension of parliamentary democracy. Wipe the slate clean and re-introduce programmes that will convince Malaysians to see BN-style reason.

The problem with that strategy is that, unlike 1969, the nation today is very different. It is much more educated and more connected. As the 18th largest trading nation in the world, Malaysia is too integrated to risk a pariah status.

Moreover, once the military and security forces have had a taste of power, they will not be too bothered with civilian leaders, Umno included.

At the end of the day, the problem with the exercise of power without legitimacy is that it creates resistance, often very strong resistance made up of committed individuals.

Like it or not, Umno, which controls BN, has to win the hearts and minds of Malaysians by abandoning its radical fringe. It must demonstrate a willingness to trust the people and empower local communities.

It must make the ultimate sacrifice by setting aside ethnicity and embrace a hybrid Malaysian nationalism. If not, chances are that it will lose more than just Perak.

(First Published on: Mar 3, 09 4:14pm)

Voters are not Stupid!

We have had the weekend to think about what happened in Perak and to aid us on our way, three Hindraf leaders were released from ISA detention.Scores of protesters were also freed, so was the man who asked us to wear black.

The other weekend bonanza was the audit report of the Port Klang "scandal" that is still not ready for public release.If, as reported, the price-tag has ballooned to RM12 billion, this is a monumental waste of public funds.Thinking of the schools, bridges, hospitals, low-cost housing that could have been built wiped away the good feelings the government generated by "freeing" of ISA detainees, political activists and a very politically-aware fashion guru.

Basically both the Perak and Port Klang "scandals" are merely symptoms of a wider problem.They point to the growing anxiety of the middle ground. It is an uneasy feeling generated by some government politicians who continue to ignore public aspiration for a freer, more efficient and fairer administration.Why are Malaysians suddenly concerned about their rights? Why would they wear black to mourn the "demise" of democracy?

When a country reaches a certain level of development, like a person of a certain age, the people begin to face existentialist problems. This is basically "why" questions: "why are we here", "what is the meaning of life"?

In short, Malaysians are asking those questions about their country. Their eyes are fixed on the future.Can we achieve equitable growth with our economy intact? Can I tell my children that this is a good place to grow up and live in? Is the government competent? Do we have impartial judges? Do politicians understand the rule of law? Do civil servants know that their loyalty is to the government of the day?Is royalty really above politics? Will I go to jail for having these thoughts?Is development the answer?

For those trapped in the old paradigm, who still read the mainstream media as gospel truth, the answer lies in development.Give them some land, clear it of jungle, call it Felda and they should be happy.Free Uthayakumar, the Indians will come back to the MIC and we can go back into the ethnic silo. Build some Tamil schools and the Indians will be happy.For the rest, make sure the economic pie becomes bigger, let them have their private colleges and they will vote the government back into power.No doubt, the BN has delivered a lot and many still gratefully vote BN at every election.

But the trend is also changing especially now that government no longer has a monopoly over information; when its delivery-system in low gear; and development projects suffer from financial leakage through incompetence, mismanagement and corruption. All this translates into a lower quality of life.To make things worse, the electorate now has high expectations, with many expecting their politicians to be as quick witted as Barack Obama.

Malaysians are also consumerists par-excellence. Their mantra in life is "instant gratification".In short, there is a disconnect between mass high expectations and low quality services. The result - massive loss of votes for whoever is the ruling party.

Of course, as March 2008 and the various by-elections since has shown, there is also a new type of electorate around.They are mostly young, driven by something more than merely bread and butter and they know how to use their votes. Some are even driven by ideology, whether that be Islam, equality or justice. They have access to new technology and they are making an impact.

Some politicians believe that this new type of voter is an ingrate. The best thing is a demonstration of naked power and we can cow him or her.Catch up with the votersIn Perak, so the story goes, the BN has 28 state assemblypersons and 3 friendly-independents on their side.

Even a school boy can do the maths. Simple majority, forget about procedure, forget about the groundswell, just call in the boys and remove the speaker. We are back in business, with a budget bursting at the seams. Three months from now nobody will even remember that we had a change of government in Perak.

The cynical politician may be right when he/she says that most Malaysians are not even aware of politics. But they make a potentially fatal mistake when they suggest that this means Malaysians do not want better government. Certainly, being more educated, they also want more say in how things are done.

Seeing the Perak state assembly speaker dragged out of the hall and rushed into a room where he was held against his will is not something inspiring. In fact, it was downright shameful.The task ahead for the BN is quite heavy. It must maintain cohesiveness without Umno appearing to dominate and this means giving more space for the component parties to disagree.

Secondly, it must keep from bleeding supporters through tangible economic uplifting, the type of earth-shattering improvement in quality of life seen in the years of Razak's regime.Thirdly, it must win over the minds of Malaysians who are in the middle-ground, one that is quickly tilting towards the opposition because they cannot accept scandals like Port Klang and the Perak power grab. Finally, the BN needs to come up with a better creed, one that caters to the aspirations of a new generation of Malaysian voters.

It cannot rule effectively if it cannot hang on to the urban areas, especially in a country where the majority of people live in cities and towns.As the Perak power grab unfolded on the Internet and twitter, sympathy for the opposition has increased exponentially amongst the young.

New voters and soon-to-be voters know of the "cascade" of illegalities that the BN got itself into, they read the minute-by-minute account of the incident. Some, as the blogs reveal, are angry for being treated like fools.It does not help that some newspapers continue to rub the simple BN majority in our faces, or that politicians cry "tyranny of the minority".

The BN public relations machinery has to learn to be more sophisticated. Believe it or not, but some of us can read and understand the constitution.It is about time, BN politicians and their reporters in the mainstream press catch up with their electorate. The consequences of not doing so will cost them many future elections.

(First Published on: May 11, 09 12:00pm)

Does government really know best?

Three issues are slowly coming to head. The Perak state assembly will sit on Thursday. The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) and the Finance Ministry are meeting to decide the master-plan for the Malaysian economy. Five cabinet ministers have met to resolve the long-standing issue of religious conversion but their decision has not received universal approval.

All three issues share some common factors: they each involve fundamental rights of Malaysians, they involve institutions and they need a wider consensus if they are to achieve tangible results.

Many qualified individuals have had their say about the Perak issue, which has yet to resolve itself in the courts. To most people, the best way out is to dissolve the state assembly and return the vote to the people. The BN is not in favour of this and has the power to stay the course even though it might be ultimately pyrrhic. They still have to meet the electorate some time before March 2013.

The debate about Malaysia’s need to be a high-income country is healthy. It is good that we are finally discussing our future. But ultimately, do our views count when the EPU and the Finance Ministry meet?

The PM said the era of ‘government knows best’ is over but his cabinet has yet to learn how to build consensus.We also have the problem of divorce, which is being read as a conversion issue. The reality is that it is a problem of the breakdown of marriages. Emotions are very strong here because the break-up of a marriage is often messy. But when this messy situation is then coupled with religion, it is potentially explosive. It seems the whole nation is being asked to divorce each other on religious sectarian grounds.

All three issues can only be resolved if those in power and those in opposition are willing to sit down and thrash things out. The BN must recognise the reality that its bid for Perak is unpopular. At best, it is a demonstration of naked power. It impresses only BN foot-soldiers but is turning away potential voters.

It will be ammunition for the opposition in the next general election no matter how well Perak is administered.More importantly, two important institutions have been damaged by this power grab. The monarchy and the judiciary are seen by many as instruments of the government. A retired judge has even published well-argued criticism.

How can the BN state government hope to function when its candidate for speaker was someone that the electorate rejected? Better to dissolve the state assembly and take your chances with the electorate now rather than four years later when this will be fodder for a nationwide rejection.

The economy is also integral to how the BN will fare in future elections. Whilst we recognise the need to be a high-income economy, two things have not been made clear. Firstly, how are we going to achieve this? Secondly, what about issues of social inclusion? The government must remember that we have one of the worst income disparities in Asia, how are we to reduce the income gap whilst move up the ‘value chain’?

In the age of the Internet, it might be wise for the Information Ministry to start a campaign to collect diverse views. Here is an opportunity to explain how we ‘developed’ into an open and export-driven economy. But more importantly, it can help the government discover what Malaysians want for the future.

If the government feels that it represents the voices of the economically marginalised, it must first admit openly that past policies had their weaknesses. No one is perfect and voters will understand. But to pretend to ‘know best’ is hubris. In Malay, this is called bodoh sombong.

The government can ask Malaysians how the country can achieve economic sustainability. Of course, expert opinions will eventually determine our future economic path but the government needs to build consensus. Without the public taking ownership of the policies, “performance now” will be doubtful.

Demonstrate good faith

The building of a sense of responsibility is very important if we are to restore the integrity of the legislature, monarchy and judiciary. It is also important if we want people to support our economic policies.

If education is the corner-stone of going up the value chain because talent will be crucial, we need to convince Malaysian parents to start setting aside a sizeable chunk of their disposable income to educate their children. Malaysians also need to be assured that a merit-based education system will be in place otherwise they will keep sending their children abroad and talent will flow out.

In short, the government needs to demonstrate good faith by trusting that Malaysians want to live and contribute to Malaysia. It is precisely this good faith that is required when faced with the issue of conversions. The issue will never be solved if Malaysians do not trust each other, the courts and the government. For a person of faith, his conversion to a religion is absolute. It should follow that he wants his wife and children to also share in his faith. But what happens when his faith is not shared by his spouse?

In some societies, couples of mixed religions are allowed to come to an amicable solution. This is not alien in Malaysia except and many mixed-religious couples happen, say, between Buddhists and Christians; Hindus and Buddhists.Notwitstanding that, the issue at hand is very complicated when a spouse becomes a Muslim owing to the bifurcation of our legal system. This is a very complicated issue that involves civil law, Syariah law, the question of faith, the rights of the individual and the complex web of religious doctrines. How then can five ministers decide for the whole nation in less than two weeks?

Whilst we want “performance now”, in this issue, we need to achieve as wide a consensus as possible. That takes time.It does not help that some political parties try to score points on this issue. It shows that these parties do not have the nation at heart and just want to profit from the misery of others. In short,there are some issues that need to be well-thought out; that require the rigour of opposing views; and that needs to achieve a meeting of minds.

Political parties aside, we all need sit down to iron out these issues. Our institutions, economic well-being and social harmony cannot be decided by a government that ‘knows best’.

(First Published on: May 5, 09 11:10am)

Responsible Government

To some Malaysians, the present government is not strong. They have come to this conclusion because the Barisan Nasional does not enjoy its usual two thirds majority.But, as we pass the one year mark after March 8, the government has been able to function without much difficulty.

Federal agencies still maintain their strangle-hold over the various state governments. In fact, Pakatan Rakyat state governments can testify to the strength of the federal government.Few understand the concept of a centralised and unitary state that is Malaysia. But everyone who lives in the Klang Valley knows that there is a buzz in the air. It is here that decisions are made and instructions channelled to the outlaying cities, towns and districts.

So, if strong government is equated with the wielding of administrative and fiscal power, the BN federal government is still quite a giant.When the BN lost its two thirds majority, it lost the power to arbitrarily amend the constitution. Basically, this meant that it could not, for example, amend the constitution in such a way as to justify the Perak takeover. This is bad if one presumes to think of our members of parliament as mere rubber stamps.

Over the years, MPs have been brought so low that too many think of them as the people we go to to complain about clogged drains, potholes, noise pollution, business deals that have gone sour and all sorts of things that are totally unrelated to why they were elected.

Members of parliament were elected as legislators. Their job is to make sure that the laws of the land continually benefit the people. They are in parliament to represent the aspirations of their constituents.But the result of 52 years of governmental two thirds majority is that we have no memory of parliamentary democracy.

Legislators themselves are no longer able to distinguish between their roles from that which is expected of them by the chief whip.If the expression "whip" scares, it is because it is meant to. It is a threat that hangs over the heads of every party member to toe the party line.

Why Umno is courting PAS?

In mature democracies, MPs are at times allowed to break ranks and vote according to their conscience. This is because the government knows that the legislation MPs have been asked to support is not something that the electorate wants.This is why the Britain's Labour Party did not get the full support of Labour MPs when deciding to invade Iraq. But Britain went ahead because the Prime Minister of the day had the support of the opposition Conservative party. Consequently, Britain invaded Iraq, and quite possibly, entered an illegal war.

Today, the BN government has a fairly large majority although it has only about 51 percent of the votes of cast in March 8, 2008. In Peninsular Malaysia, it lost its majority of the popular vote and five state governments. Despite this setback, the BN's dominance of parliament and of federal agencies remains. The silver-lining here is that a strong opposition means that the BN is not left unchecked hence the revision of toll and water supply agreements with BN-appointed concessionaires.

So, why define a strong government as one that needs two thirds majority? Why entice only PAS to form a unity government? Why not court the DAP or the PKR? The reason is fairly obvious if we were to look at how the BN defines the nation.

To a race-based party, the nation is defined in genealogical ethnic terms. To say it in simple English such people see the nation as defined by memories specific to a particular ethnic group and made up of cultural symbols associated with the "original" peoples.

After 52 years of BN rule, Malaysia resembles a composite of many "ethnic-nation states" all cohabiting within a single geographical space. If nations can be "imagined", many are imagining different things. Under the BN, the basis of Malaysia include myths, history, language, religion and cultural emblems that they associate and define as "Malay". That is why Umno is now carrying the cudgels on behalf of the royals, their one-time rivals. That is also why so many Malay NGOs are lodging police reports about blogs, letter writers etc.

Wanting a strong ethnic state again

But what exactly happened on March 8 that gave rise to this sense of insecurity? Did we suddenly have less rice to eat? Did we loose so many jobs as to warrant a panic? Even when the BN lost five states, the people in those states, including those who voted for the BN, were not driven out of their businesses or their homes.The real problem is the rise of PKR or to be particular, political parties that support the idea of the "civic territorial nation", to quote a local political scientist.

Today, these parties call themselves Pakatan Rakyat. Their platform is to put the "people" ahead of ethnicity and religion. This strikes at the heart of the BN's ethnic-nationalist state.The BN also has component parties who are responding to the change of mindset amongst the electorate. In urban centres, political parties that perform well are those that champion the civic territorial state.This is why the call for Umno members to 'join' the NGO movement. But this may ultimately backfire on the race-based party. Most of the credible NGOs are non-sectarian in nature.

But Umno knows that it must take the risk. It cannot roll-back into its ethno-nationalist stance and must be more than a party for the Malays. Its latest slogan is Umno for all Malaysians.This is not sitting well with the party's right wing elements. Many are veterans of the days of a strong Umno, when the party had undisputed control over parliament. They want to see the ethnic state strong again.By proposing a union with PAS, the veterans are hoping to strengthen the Malay voice in government. No more pandering to the non-Malay voters especially now that their votes are solidly with the Opposition.

Some in PAS are also uncomfortable with the prospect of a strong civic territorial state. They want to set up a theocracy. These people believe that a faith-based nation will bring stability, justice and equality.

Umno is feeling weak

There are also an ethno-nationalist dimension here, particularly from those party members who live in predominantly Malay-Muslim states. But the last one year of working together under Pakatan and the solid non-Malay support for their candidates in two by-elections have made even the most ethno-nationalist PAS member a bit ambivalent.

If the Umno ship is to sink, PAS' best hope of influencing the direction of Malaysia's political evolution would be to win over the bulk of the Malay-Muslim vote. Of course, it can come to power by way of joining the BN now but it cannot hope to maintain power from within the BN. More importantly, it would mean setting aside the Islamic agenda for the ethno-nationalist state.

For Tok Guru Nik Aziz PAS will be used to smash the Pakatan Rakyat and then be spat out once Umnno regains its strength. He has experienced it himself in the 1970s. Today, PAS and Umno may have some common interest but there can only be one proverbial tiger on the Malay hill.

At the end of the day, politics is about power. The power to influence, define and implement ideas. That is fundamentally why we have members of parliament and in that parliament the BN is still very strong.

But Umno feels weak because it has to depend on its coalition partners and they are not used to sharing power. Thus it is Umno that needs the two thirds majority.

On the other hand, Malaysia needs members of parliament who are aware of their roles. This is the best of times for parliamentary democracy because MPs can finally find their voice again.We did not make a mistake on March 8, and the road towards a responsible government, one that looks after the interests of all, is finally taking shape.

(First Published on: May 1, 09 12:51pm)

Constructive Criticism

In his blog postings about the stock market and financial institutions, Dr Mahathir Mohamad is giving us a very good lesson in economics. More importantly, he is doing what the Barisan Nasional and the opposition are not able to: re-focus the national lens on economics and the well-being of the country.

In late 2007, upon returning from the United Kingdom, I realised that the cost of living in Malaysia had gone up quite dramatically. By March 2008, Malaysians have all effectively become poorer due to inflationary forces.

But what was worse, the working class and even the lower middle class (people with income less than RM2,000 per-month and living in urban areas) were badly effected. The government was, however, too reliant on feel-good facts and figures. In the end, I am quite sure that many decided to vote opposition because their quality of life had deteriorated.It is now more than a year after that watershed political event.

Though unseen but felt acutely, the insidious economic tsunami is pushing many Malaysians onto the edge of financial ruin. Car loans, housing loans, credit card debts; all need to be serviced based on shrinking incomes. Whether or not we realise it, our economy is very much export-driven. Malaysia ranks third in Asia behind Singapore and Hong Kong on the export dependence indicator. This exports measured against the overall size of the economy.

Petroleum, palm oil, rubber, electronics and electrical products are our mainstay. For many years, the government has tried to develop the services sector: banking, healthcare, education, information technology and tourism-related products.

Unlike mono-ethnic states, Malaysia has to achieve development whilst playing a fine ethnic-balancing act. But, most Malaysians agree that development should not result in the alienation of anyone.

Intra-ethnic problem

However, the reality is that we are also one of the most unequal societies in Asia and governmental policies have inadvertently made that gap an intra-ethnic problem, especially amongst bumiputeras.The nature of competition is such that talent is concentrated in particular segments of society sustained by wealth and education. By this I mean, the wealthy have access to capital and better education.

To remedy this, the BN-led government decided to provide, what in golfing terms, are called handicaps; which is an amateur's playing ability. Ethnic-based policies means the handicap was applied across the board but we know now that it ended up handicapping whole ethnic communities whilst building up resentment in others.

For Indian Malaysians, the pit was even deeper with a staggering 40 percent of crime in Selangor allegedly committed by this vulnerable group. Malaysia's tired social and economic engineering programmes now need revision although for a time, they were successful. Put the hardware in and some level of progress can be achieved. But in the process, freeloaders have gotten used to easy contracts. As a bumiputera friend said to me, "the Chinese are stupid. Why work when you can freeload, get commission and sub-contract the work to the others?"

One of the reasons why a governmental ombudsman was recommended by the first National Consultative Council in 1971 was to monitor the implementation of the NEP. The ombudsman is responsible directly to parliament and would have acted as the eyes and ears of the NEP. Why the government did not set-up such an institution is a question for those former prime ministers to answer.

It is easy to say all these things with the advantage of hindsight. Few would have been able to fore-tell the negative impacts of privatisation. Despite his critical comments about western financial institutions, Mahathir’s government also attempted to profit by indulging in forex trading with less than happy ends. But there is no point in crying over spilt milk and Mahathir is correct to emphasise what he has learned from past policies and mistakes.

For a long time, non-governmental organisations in Penang, for example, have warned against over-dependence on exports and foreign direct investments.They put forward the idea that development should be sustainable. In the past, the strategy, to put it crudely, was to throw money at a problem. Today, we have to pay more attention to quality interventions.

Class F contractors

Lets take the case of Class F contractors. Government contracts are often given to bumiputera companies to help them gain capital. This, theoretically, will help them build capacity in management and the procurement of talent to do the work. A long-term strategy, these contractors will then move up the value chain ultimately becoming a YTL etc.

But the reality is that no capacity-building is happening because they sub-contract out the work to non-bumiputeras.Instead of giving contracts to bumiputera companies, what the government should do is to require these companies to have genuine working relationships with their non-bumiputera partners.

The onus should be on the bumiputera companies to find expertise outside theirown “gene” pool and thus create a sustainable business model. Non-bumiputeras would also be more willing to establish genuine partnerships if they feel assured that their bumi partners will not only get the contract but also contribute qualitatively to the partnership. It is also important to make sure that we have only a certain number of contractors.

This will encourage other bumiputeras to aspire to other types of professions that are less dependent on government contracts. In the education sector, meritocracy must be practiced relentlessly. This is simply because Malaysians cannot be short-changed by having half-baked teachers at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Moreover, if we are to be a supplier of educational services, we need to have the best teaching at private colleges, public universities and our think tanks.

Some will cry foul but they should crawl out of their time-warps. This is not 1971 or even 1985. Most of the members of Gapena, for example, have sent their children to overseas universities and they have all done very well. It is time, that the same opportunities be given to poorer Malaysians in the rural areas. This means investing more in education by raising the salaries of quality teachers.

As we make ourselves less dependent on exports, we need to offer the world better services. But unlike the policies of the past, let us put Malaysians first. If our health, education and tourism products are so good that Malaysians feel proud of them, then it should be quite natural that they will be good enough for regional and international investors and customers.

It is therefore time to put into practice the ethnically neutral aspects of the NEP so that we can build a strong and sustainable nation. On this point, the constructive criticisms and observations of Mahathir should be heeded.

(First Published on: Apr 28, 09 2:22pm)

BN must take Penanti-bull by the Horns

While the Election Commission (EC) takes its time to discover whether there is really a vacancy for the Penanti state seat, both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional (BN) are preparing for another face-off.Contesting the by-election will be an uphill battle for the BN. Perhaps, fearing another electoral defeat in Peninsular Malaysia, premier and BN chairman Najib Abdul Razak floated the idea of the ruling coalition not contesting.

MCA president Ong Tee Keat said that it is the BN's democratic right not to participate and Gerakan president Koh Tsu Koon agreed that the time is not right for another diversionary by-election.The mainstream media is already echoing the voices of the BN’s component party leaders. One newspaper even provided the financial costs of previous by-elections: the implication being thatby-elections are a waste of time and money.

Like what is happening in Perak, these views seem to brush aside the idea of ‘individual responsibility’. This, Pakatan claims, is what motivated the Penanti assemblyperson to resign. Of course, a hop and skip would have been easier, but the fallout from such leap-frogging in Perak would be even more damaging for the BN.

Then there is the issue of the democratic rights of the people in Penanti. The EC cannot mediate between the BN and Pakatan and convince both parties not to have a by-election. What about the right of possible independent candidates? That was why the framers of our constitution left it to the speaker of the state legislature and not the EC director to decide on the vacancy of state seats.The reality is that not facing-off is not an option for the BN. Even if the odds are stacked against one, risks have to be taken.

The only problem is that BN’s component party leaders, except perhaps S Samy Vellu, are not natural-born fighters. Many of them have gotten up the greasy pole by avoiding direct confrontations.When accepting his nomination as Umno president, Najib stressed the fact that he got up to the top position through patience and never once did he confront anyone. In short, the BN is led by people who are averse to risk.

Former premier and Umno president Dr Mahathir Mohamad, on the other hand, is not risk averse. At one Umno AGM when the pro-Anwar Ibrahim tide was riding high and there were rumours of Anwar taking on Mahathir for the presidency, Mahathir said it did not matter if he was challenged and defeated. He had been president for a long time and if he lost his post, he would gladly give up the premiership. The case was totally different for Anwar, then his deputy - if he lost in the challenge, he would face political oblivion.

Ironically, Anwar is once again riding the high tide of popularity and at Penanti, he might just meet Mahathir again. For by-election junkies, this would be the ultimate proxy face-off. Mahathir, the most powerful ex-Umno president, would once again take on his protégé. It will be the ultimate bonfire of the vanities.

Issues at hand

As exciting as the prospect of age-old enemies slugging it out might be, voters in Penanti must remember the issues at hand. Firstly, the seat was won by PKR and then for reasons better known to them, its elected representative resigned. So long as the anti-graft agency fails to act against Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin, he can be presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. But to be on the safe side, PKR and Lim Guan Eng’s Penang government have decided that they need to return to the people for a fresh mandate.

Secondly, the resignation of Mohammad Fairus, who was also Deputy Chief Minister 1 of Penang, is indicative of a new type of politics. Pakatan is putting into practice ‘individual executive responsibility’. Even a whiff of corruption cannot be tolerated. New standards for elected representatives have been set. Perhaps, Pakatan has learnt its lesson from Perak. In this matter, Mohammad Fairus is to be commended for his decision to step down.

All is not lost for the BN. It must now take this opportunity to compare not only their developmental plans but also their moral standards with Pakatan. Najib must not forget that Malaysians still remember the “close one-eye” MP, and even Mahathir wants his son Mukhriz to help solve the Approved Permits issue.

In the end, these will be the issues that will be debated in the Penanti by-election.If the BN really decides to stay away from the polls, it means that it is giving up on its supporters in Penanti. This has never happened in the history of Malaysia as far as the ruling coalition is concerned. Najib and those who support this line of thought use the economy as an excuse. The reality is that by-elections should not distract the attention of the entire governmental machinery.

The premier, his deputy, the cabinet ministers and a substantial number of the police force need not give up their responsibilities to march into Penanti in full force.Of course, some of Najib’s advisers may think it clever to suggest the BN should back an Independent to take on the PKR - let the candidate win, and this should sink the PKR. The reality of Bukit Selambau should put such ideas to rest.

One cannot win against an ideological movement, which is what Pakatan is slowly but surely becoming. This movement will only become stronger if the BN refuses to take the bull by the horns.

(First Published on: Apr 21, 09 10:53am)

Not Wise to Scapegoat the Non-Malays

Instead of analysing the reasons for their defeat in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau, the BN has decided to point fingers at each other.

More depressingly, some in Umno and their mouthpiece, Utusan Malaysia, have come to the conclusion that non-Malay voters are “ungrateful” for all they have got in the two constituencies and by extension, in Malaysia.It is truly simplistic to scapegoat the non-Malays.

There is also a hint of desperation when these newspapers try to divide Malaysians by suggesting that the Chinese are good at manipulating a divided Malay community.It is true that non-Malay voters decided to give their votes to the opposition in the recent by-elections. It is the right of these voters to give their support to PAS and PKR.

But as Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, these opposition parties could not have won without a significant number of Malays voting for them. In Bukit Gantang, an Umno stronghold, up to 43% of Malay voters backed the opposition on a Tuesday when most younger voters could not come home to vote!

Despite Mahathir's urging for self-examination, some Umno leaders cannot accept the reality that not all Malays support them. Their claim to be the sole political representative of the Malay community is at best self-delusion. Even in the 1955 general election, the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PMIP), the precursor to PAS, won one seat.

Why is the party of Merdeka so reviled? Before the British clamped down on “radical” political movements in 1948 and put an end to the Malay Nationalist Party, Umno’s hold on the Malays was even more tenuous.In the run-up to the 1955 elections, there was Independence of Malaya Party (IMP), led by Onn Jaafar and later, Parti Negara.

In 1957, the Labour Party and the Malay-led People’s Party (Party Rakyat) combined to form the Socialist Front. They managed to attract Malay leadership as well. In short, Umno never had a total monopoly of Malay voters and has managed to maintain political power because of its middle-road policies. It was willing to share seats and power with non-Malay political parties. At that time, the gulf between the ethnic groups was very wide. The majority of Malaysians were poorly educated. So a multi-ethnic party like the IMP was truly ahead of time.

One reason why BN is not able to win over voters is its inability to reclaim the middle-ground. Today, the BN is seen as Umno-dominated. It is a flank party, the party of Malay nationalists, who is courting the likes of Ibrahim Ali.To the minds of younger Malaysians, the BN, whose origins are based on the Alliance model of political cohabitation, is outdated. If it cannot win votes, its days are numbered.

This was why Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said that it must win the next by-election, probably in Bukit Lanjan, Selangor. BN leaders need to try to understand why voters, particularly young Malaysians are staying away from it. How come the party of Merdeka is so reviled?Why 40% of Malays are willing to turn away from Umno, the party that was set up to protect their rights? How come 85% of Chinese voters in Bukit Gantang would rather vote for PAS?

Simply blaming the electorate is to assure the BN losing more seats in the near future.The answers lie in the emergence of an informed, financially-independent middle-class. Here is a group that does not benefit directly from all the “instant noodle projects” dished out during by-elections. They do not feel grateful for “development” but see it as the responsibility of the government of the day to deliver a constantly improving standard of living.

There is even a small group who expect Muslim leaders to live up to their religious obligations. Youth leaders driving sports cars and wives of ministers in Mercedes Benz will not draw in the votes. This time round, it is the BN who must heed its own advice: crowds do not translate into votes.BN cannot live up to Najib’s 1MalaysiaBy standing up to Umno, MCA and Gerakan hope to show the electorate that they are fighting for non-Malay rights. Instead, they are demonstrating the inability of the BN system to forge a united nation. If BN parties are fighting amongst themselves because each needs to champion the rights of their individual ethnic group, how can 1Malaysia come about?

More curiously, the MIC wants more cabinet representation to better “defend” the rights of the Indians. Samy Vellu also wants all Indians to stand under the MIC banner as a united Indian community is a stronger one. Presumably, he means a united Indian community will help the MIC apply greater pressure on the PM to give the party a more senior cabinet post.

There is a popular saying, “Fool me once, shame on you but fool me twice, shame on me!” The people are not about to be fooled a second time by the MIC or any other BN component party.The best way for the BN to win back votes is to behave reasonably. Put aside the blame game. Get down to work as the clock is already ticking.

Malaysians are waiting for a comprehensive economic plan that will not only see us through this global recession but also create sustainable growth. The BN must remember that the opposition does not run the federal government. It can afford to indulge in endless politicking. But even Pakatan is now establishing a shadow cabinet whilst the BN is fighting its own shadow.

(First published on: Apr 14, 09 12:39pm)

Voting for the Future

Observers say that it is status quo after the triple by-elections and this is how the mainstream media will sing the tune - that BN did not hold the seats in the two Bukits and therefore all is okay despite the loss. It retained Batang Ai and got an even bigger majority, so support actually increased in east Malaysia.But the very opposite is true.

The results show irrefutably that despite all the disadvantages that the opposition faced, it still won. It not only won but increased its majority. PAS won with a majority near 3,000 votes and PKR with nearly 2,400 votes.

In Batang Ai, as many commentators predicted, the situation favoured the government. The opposition simply did not have the resources to stretch across the South China Sea. But an impression of their commitment was made. Sarawak can wait till the next state elections due rather soon.

Opposition victory in Kedah and Perak are indicative of three facts. First, the mood of the people against the BN is now entrenched. Raising the titan Dr Mahathir Mohamad did nothing for the BN in Kedah. In fact, it galvanised the opposition and voters were reminded of the bad old days.The mantra of development when uttered in the same breath with Mahathir is inextricably linked to cronyism, corruption and the ruin of governmental institutions. Plus the Twin Towers are in KL and not near enough to awe Kedahans, who remained largely poor despite his many years as PM.

No doubt, Mahathir can give us invaluable advice about how to handle our economy but he should, from now on, give constructive criticism. Speaking from both side of his mouth did not help the BN. Second, the non-Malay votes remain strongly with the opposition. This is not too surprising despite a lot of economic pain here. Non-Malay commitment to the objectives of March 2008, which is change towards a more equitable Malaysia, remains solid.In both these constituencies, the non-Malays voted overwhelmingly for the future although that meant giving up present “instant noodles”.

In Sarawak, the dynamics being different, support remained for the resource-rich BN.Be worried, BNNonetheless, the BN should be very worried. Commitment to a cause in politics is a powerful weapon. As with the rejection of Mahathir’s style of politics, the era of the strongman is over. Already, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is smelling so much better than his predecessor.In the case of the MIC, the party must realise that with a tainted leader like S Samy Vellu, it cannot hope to win any election in Peninsular Malaysia. How Najib handles the MIC leader will be interesting.

But more ominously for the BN, the consistent and continued shift of support of the non-Malay voters to the opposition spells the technical demise of BN’s component parties. The lacklustre Gerakan, a party that so far has not been able to demonstrate thought-leadership at any level, will be the first to be wiped out. The MCA and MIC should follow suit if the trend continues.

Ultimately, the continued support of the Malays for PKR and PAS has created a credible alternative called Pakatan Rakyat. It has won all four by-elections in the peninsula since Sept 8, 2008.

The alternative party is more solid than ever because voices in PAS urging a unity government with Umno - on the grounds of creating a super-ethno-nationalist Malay-Muslim party - will now be drowned out by the very real prospect of coming into power through the ballot box.If there is one lesson we can draw from the two Bukits is that coming to power through the ballot box is not only sweeter but legitimate. If, as the BN claimed during its campaign, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is a traitor, his victory in Bukit Gantang is rejection of Umno’s power grab. This despite Mahathir changing his mind.

As for the Perak government take-over, the courts have yet to decide on various issues. But if snap elections were held today, the BN would surely lose the state.Mohd Nizar has shown himself to be an astute, reasonable and popular menteri besar. All of Umno’s rhetoric about derhaka (treason) has come to nought.

A solid Pakatan Rakyat must now move into the next stage of its evolution. It must begin to assume the mantle of government. In the meantime, the BN has to do real soul-searching and some hard thinking. It is not winning hearts, minds or votes.

(First Published on Apr 8, 09 11:19am)

Finally, we have lost track of Vision 2020

(First published: Mar 27, 09 4:58pm)

Now, on the eve of a new administration, it is time to buck the trend. Let us not dwell too much on opportunities missed but rather the continuities and discontinuities that have shaped the Abdullah administration. This process of looking back is necessary if we are to face the challenge of change as a nation and a people.

Any attempt to divorce the last five years with the preceding 22 years or the last 45 is clearly illusory. The BN did not just lose public support because of a transition in leadership or even the lacklustre performance of the last cabinet. After all, many in the Mahathir cabinet continued to serve in the Abdullah cabinet; and surely some of them will continue in the coming cabinet. This is continuity that very often guarantees political stability.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad benefitted when many of the policies laid down by his predecessor, Hussein Onn, began to bear fruits in the early 1980s. It was after all under Hussein that NEP targets were well met. Sometimes, leaders are lucky because what they have in mind meet with the spirit of the times.

Mahathir’s own brand of Malaysian Incorporated, for example, was possible because of the worldwide adulation of liberal capitalism. Privatisation, ‘Look East’, mega-projects; all were initiated by the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan in the West. If one cares
to read Margaret Thatcher’s autobiography, she considers Mahathir a kindred spirit. ‘Made him host CHOGM and he never looked back’, in reference to Mahathir’s decision to abandon the ‘Buy British Last’ policy.

Similarly, the so-called ‘open space’ and liberalising of the Malaysian public sphere was not Abdullah’s doing alone. The Multimedia Act was pushed through by Mahathir. All of us, these leaders included, were overwhelmed by the Internet revolution. It was impossible to control the Net without seeming to align oneself with repressive regimes like Myanmar or China.
As such, we all hoped that the middle class, with their preoccupation with material pursuits, would take to the Net peacefully.

To a certain extent, this is quite correct and most of the blogs are quite harmless. Blogsphere has a way of neutralising heated or unwarranted comments. Read the comments section here for evidence of a moderating effect of open dialogue.

But the Abdullah cabinet did not handle cyber-discussions as well as Mahathir might have hoped. Too many ministers were out of touch with technology. They were not used to being challenged intellectually and many just shut out the digital world. But Mahathir has proven that age is no barrier.

To be fair, in the early days, Hishamuddin Hussien actually answered questions and handled himself pretty well. But at some point, he changed his mind and the collective decision to treat the Net as not serious was a mistake that cascaded into a terrible missed opportunity for dialogue with the middle class.

The second discontinuity in policy has to do with educational reform. In the last five years, we should have designed a new educational policy to prepare Malaysia for the post-industrial age. Manufacturing will still be prominent but not beyond the next decade. We will soon be a net importer of petroleum, so the cushion that has afforded us a comfort zone on education is quickly running out of air.

At first, there seemed to be a paradigm shift. Abdullah promised a new way of thinking. We were to invest in the ‘software’. Here, Mahathir already showed the way - the teaching of maths and science in English and by asserting the importance of meritocracy in academia. Both these doors, so well-guarded by conservative ‘educationists’ of all stripes, were left flying the in the wind.
Abdullah could have introduced radical policies to create a single education system based upon meritocracy especially after his landslide victory in 2004.

Today, the issue is not what will happen in the next year as the world economy degenerates further, but what will the new economic landscape be like? Will we have the right workforce to help transition into a post- industrial economy?

Instead, we are stuck because of political grandstanding over education. Without the best people teaching our students, all ethnic groups are losers. We are also losing talent to countries like Singapore, Australia, the US and Britain. Factories will eventually re-locate to China, India and Vietnam.

Our local talent base is too small to attract investments in higher quality work, yet we have an antiquated education policy that does not fit the needs of nation or national economy. We restrict the flow of foreign talent thus making sure our local manufacturing companies cannot move up the value chain. It seems that we have screwed up badly here.

The biggest departure from the Mahathir regime involves the reforms that Abdullah said he would implement to improve the civil service, the judiciary and the police. The government’s very own royal commission recommended that we establish a tribunal to monitor the police force. For too long, the executive have relied on the police and the courts to keep them in power.
All three parties have forgotten that they have alienated Malaysians in the process. Now, we have government establishments that do not inspire confidence. It remains to be seen if we need a regime change to implement these much needed reforms.

Finally, we have lost track of Vision 2020. The BN had a great opportunity during the 50th Merdeka celebrations. What could have been a great celebration of nation or bangsa was allowed to be hijacked by ethnic nationalism. Now, we are a nation divided by political rhetoric. Political awareness has increased but so has disaffection for politicians.

Recently, Mahathir claimed that Malays are being insulted, their rights challenged and their institutions rubbish-ed. Abdullah believes that he has been too liberal and this gave rise to all these challenges. The reality is quite different. Gone was the spirit of give and take that characterised the first two decades of Malaysia as a nation. Under Mahathir and Abdullah, Umno became paramount. It is still throwing its weight around. The courts felt it in 1988, the Malay sultans in 1993, the rest of us between 2004 and today.

It is sad that Umno and the BN have voluntarily abandoned the middle ground. Abdullah did not manage to move the nation forward toward ‘Bangsa Malaysia’, an objective the BN set for itself.
It remains to be seen if the next cabinet led by Najib Razak will be able to unite the country, initiate much needed reform in the Malaysian educational policy based on practical aims rather than ethnic ones; and chart a future path for the nation beyond 2020.

All Malaysians must realise that we are living in a much more difficult times involving a world economy in shambles and a fractured political landscape; Umno especially must realise that the fight is no longer for the survival of the Malays alone. The future for Malaysia is bleak indeed.

Committee's decision - more questions than answers

We all know that by convention the deputy president of Umno is normally also the deputy prime minister of the country. As such, it becomes a matter of national importance who becomes Umno deputy president. Never mind if this is unfair but such is the fact of life so long as the BN remains in power.

Umno tends to agree that party elections are of national importance hence the very open nature of party dealings. Outsiders, including ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, are keenly observing how the party conducts its affairs.Perception is king in politics. The reason that the Umno disciplinary committee held a press conference to announce its findings is to give the public some knowledge about what is going on in Umno. The party believes that it needs to shake-off its image as a corrupt organisation to better its chances of winning elections.

Hence, this ‘clean-up’ exercise before the three by-elections, two in Perak (which are directly relevant to Umno's leadership position in the BN) and one in Sarawak (which is a gauge for the entire coalition's popularity).The decision to bar Mohd Ali Rustam from running for the deputy president's position because he was found guilty of money politics, or rather his agent was found guilty, is a mystery to many. Who is actually guilty?

How come when Mohd Isa Samad was found guilty, he was stripped of his governmental positions but Ali Rustam is merely stopped from contesting the deputy president's position? Can guilt be measured in different degrees or is there a different set of rules for Ali Rustam? In short, the disciplinary committee's decision raises more questions than answers.Reputations have been sullied.

This is why Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the de facto law minister and a senior member of Umno, said in an interview that Umno members are frustrated and have lodged reports directly with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).Umno members are right and the MACC is the more appropriate organisation to investigate the issue of money politics.

Umno cannot gain any credibility if the MACC is not brought into the picture. The only problem is that anyone found guilty by the MACC loses more than just his party or governmental positions. He or she might be sent to jail.Stranger still is the disciplinary committee's decision about Khairy Jamaluddin. Is he guilty or not? If he is guilty, he is obviously not as guilty as Ali Rustam? Or did the committee measure their respective levels of guilt according to the actions of their respective ‘agents’? How did the committee measure the level of Ali Rustam or Khairy's complicity?

Anyone can claim to be an agent to smear the good names of these two men. Is there a money trail to link the agents to their bosses? If so, should not the evidence be turned over to the MACC as this is a clear case of corruption?It is unfair to both Ali Rustam and Khairy that their reputations have been sullied without a shred of evidence or the process of finding out their guilt made public.

Umno must remember that both these individuals hold public office and that one of them is even a chief minister. How is Ali Rustam able to carry out his duties with this ‘scandal’ trailing after him? Is it fair to Khairy to carry the burden of being a marked man in the upcoming Umno Youth chief elections? Okay, he is the best looking of the lot, so is this some strange way of levelling the playing field?Whilst not many are willing to give Umno the benefit of the doubt that it is trying very hard to root out money politics, the limited revelations by the disciplinary committee are not helping the party very much.

The message that Umno is sending to Malaysians now stand as - ‘There are degrees of guilt and that the party tolerates money politics to a certain degree’. Perhaps, the degree of guilt is measured according to the amount of money that changed hands? One million, you get barred, lose government position, between RM500,000 to one million, you get barred but remain in government, less that RM500,000 you get off with a warning?Either there is guilt or there isn't.

But more damaging is the tacit admittance that there are two sets of laws, one for Umno and one for the rest of us. So, if you are Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and a member of the opposition, the MACC will prosecute you with a sledgehammer. But if you are an Umno member and have been found guilty of money politics by your own party, you just get barred but can still serve as chief minister.The public should not be too hasty to pass judgement on Umno.

The MACC claims that it has yet to receive a report from the Umno disciplinary committee. But senior Umno member Kadar Shah Sulaiman said that many complaints were lodged with the MACC. The MACC must now apply the same standards to Ali Rustam and Khairy that it did with supreme council contestant Norza Zakaria. The Umno disciplinary committee should also make up its mind.

How can these be ‘crimes of ethics’ if ‘cold hard cash’ had changed hands? Nazri is correct when he suggested that the MACC should be the main investigative body as corruption has gone ‘underground’. Surprisingly, the disciplinary committee, having gone deep underground, has surfaced with incriminating evidence. But these findings put Umno into a new conundrum.

What happens if the MACC clears both Ali Rustam and Khairy? Has the disciplinary committee damaged the careers and good names of the two for nothing? On the other hand, if the MACC finds them guilty according to the Umno disciplinary committee’s own set of evidence, then they might both go to jail. Can Ali Rustam continue being chief minister from jail?Umno has to rectify the situation quickly.

Either there is guilt or there isn't. If there is guilt then let the law take its course. All this will be painful for the party and its members but if Umno is half-hearted about doing things, the growing perception will be that Umno is corrupt to the core, tolerates corrupt leaders and practices double standards.All this does not inspire much confidence for the future of the party of Merdeka.

My Letters to Malaysiakini

Some of my friends have been asking me to publish my letters and comments making them more accessible. I wrote these comments for public consumption hoping that we might be able to better understand the political goings-on.

I will use this blog as an archival site for my political commentary. But this is not a blog where one can leave comments as I do not have the time to manage such a blog. Those who need to leave comments can write to me directly.