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)