What Is This Country Coming To?

by
Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysian Digest

01 July 2011

WHAT is this country coming to? Many Malaysians are asking this question in view of the numerous actions taken by the police over the past week.

First, they arrested 30 Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) members, including MP for Sungai Siput Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, and are now investigating them for resurrecting Communism and waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. While on their way to a Bersih roadshow in Penang, they were arrested in Kepala Batas and found to have in their possession T-shirts bearing faces of Chin Peng and Rashid Maidin. They have been remanded for seven days.

Communism? That’s crazy talk.
The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) is long dead and gone. Chin Peng is a geriatric and Rashid Maidin is dead. The party disbanded in 1989 after signing a peace treaty with the Malaysian Government, and its members were allowed to reside in Malaysia if they chose to do so. After 22 years of its being defunct and virtually forgotten, why is Communism still a threat today?

 And if it were – by some stretch of the imagination – are we to believe that this threat is manifest in these 30 PSM members among whom 14 are women, the oldest aged 64?

 A friend of mine who was at the court in Penang when the 30 were brought in told me they were just “a motley crew” of people who didn’t look like they would carry a stick to fight, much less wage war against the Agong. “When I saw that, my faith in the system hit rock-bottom,” he said.

“And to see Jeyakumar in handcuffs was too much,” he added. “He alone is worth many of our people in power put together. Top scorer in exams, a doctor, a man who has dedicated his life to helping poor people – he doesn’t deserve this.”

Like my friend, I too knew Jeyakumar while at school. He was one year my junior at the Penang Free School, and I remember him well as a thoughtful, gentle person. He was soft-spoken, cerebral, and humble despite his well-to-do background.

I find it hard to believe that someone like him would wage war against the Agong. Only someone stupid or deranged would consider doing that. He might be a socialist, but that’s a far cry from being a Communist. Don’t the police and the Government know the difference? To all intents and purposes, he is probably someone who transcends labels and merely cares for the poor.

 And why remand him and the others for a week? The High Court has since upheld this decision and said it is correct. Justice Zamani A Rahim said the case was serious. “It involves the security of the country, of everyone – you and me and our children.” These 30 people are so dangerous that they are a threat to us and our children?

Case number 2: Sasterawan Negara (National Laureate) A Samad Said was called in by the police and told he was being investigated for sedition because he had read part of a poem at the Bersih launch on June 19.

When has reading a poem been seditious? In any case, did it provoke an uprising afterwards?

 Look at the poem. Can it threaten national security?

Unggun-bersih

 Semakin lara kita didera bara –

kita laungkan juga pesan merdeka:

 Demokrasi sebenderang mentari

 sehasrat hajat semurni harga diri.

 Lama resah kita – demokrasi luka;

 lama duka kita – demokrasi lara.

 Demokrasi yang angkuh, kita cemuhi;

 suara bebas yang utuh, kita idami!

 Dua abad lalu Sam Adams berseru

 (di Boston dijirus teh ke laut biru):

 Tak diperlu gempita sorak yang gebu,

 diperlu hanya unggun api yang syahdu.

 Kini menyalalah unggun sakti itu;

 kini merebaklah nyala unggun itu.

Translation:

Cleansing Fire

Even as we are lashed by the sickening fire,

 we still shout out the message of Merdeka:

 Democracy as brilliant as the sun,

 united in purpose as pure as self-worth.

 Long have we been restless – democracy is wounded;

 Long have we been sad – democracy is ill.

 Democracy that is arrogant disgusts us;

 We dream of a free voice that is full and strong!

 Two centuries ago Sam Adams declared

 (in Boston while tea was being poured into the blue sea):

 No need for noisy, trivial cheering,

 all that’s needed is a serene bonfire.

 Light now that magic fire;

 illuminate to others the flame of that fire.

Samad Said was prompted to say to the media afterwards that instead of intimidating writers, the action the police had taken against him could spur fellow writers to use the power of literature to state their views openly.

 Indeed, it is time for Malaysian writers to come forward and defend what is right. All those who have been conferred the Sasterawan Negara award, like Shahnon Ahmad, Abdullah Hussain, Muhammad Haji Salleh, Noordin Hassan, Anwar Ridhwan and the newly installed Kemala should use their pen to “menyala unggun sakti” and “merebak nyalanya”.

Case number 3: More than a hundred people have been arrested for wearing Bersih T-shirts. Eight of them were among 14 people giving out the national flag at a wet market in Sungai Siput. All 14 were arrested.

But what is the offence? Which part of the law says it is an offence to wear Bersih T-shirts in public?

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein has come up with the justification. “If the Bersih T-shirt is related to an illegal activity, then wearing it is illegal,” he said. Is that logical? What “illegal activity”? The Bersih rally hasn’t happened yet. Until the rally is carried out, no illegal activity has been performed yet. So how could he declare it illegal? On that score, why should it be illegal to wear a Bersih T-shirt?

As an analogy, if I were to express an intent to do something illegal, like smoking marijuana openly in public, but I haven’t done it yet, would it make sense for the police to arrest me? If they should do so, the case would be thrown out of court straight away. Doesn’t Hishammuddin, who is a lawyer himself, know that?

 Case number 4: The police raided the Bersih secretariat and detained its staff members. According to Bersih, the cops did not produce a search warrant. They confiscated Bersih T-shirts, leaflets and other paraphernalia.

Why raid only the Bersih secretariat? Why not raid those of Perkasa and Umno Youth as well since they will also be holding rallies? And why did the cops not produce a search warrant but instead threaten to break open the gates?

 Later that day, the announcement came from the Inspector-General of Police, Ismail Omar, that the police would not only arrest those wearing Bersih T-shirts but also those using any medium to promote the Bersih rally. “Not just T-shirts but shoes, cars, buses. If these are the tools used to encourage people to gather (illegally), this amounts to sedition,” he said.

 Shoes too? Sedition? For dressing as one likes? Aren’t Malaysians allowed the freedom to dress as they like? Are there new laws that have come into place without our knowing?

 Gopeng MP Lee Boon Chye was arrested for wearing a yellow T-shirt the next day. It did not even have “Bersih” printed on it, it was just a plain yellow collared T-shirt. The police told him he was arrested for illegal assembly as he was with three other people at a wet market. Two of them wore Bersih T-shirts and the third a white shirt. Ipoh OCPD Asst Comm Azisman Alias said, “The shirts are evidence that they are trying to get people to take part in the illegal rally.” Is that all it takes?

 What is happening to our beloved country? Is it all turning into a farce? Do we laugh or cry?

My friend in Penang was full of admiration for the 30 PSM members arrested in Kepala Batas. He said when they were marched out to face the music, they were not cowed by it. “I tell you, I never thought I would have lived to see this. Despite the situation they were in, they were shouting, ‘Hidup rakyat! Hidup rakyat!’,” he said. “I’ll never be able to forget that.”

Now the question is, will the rakyat be able to survive the power of the police? And also that of the State?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 July 2011, 6:55 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
,
Kee Thuan Chye
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 2.0 is Najib’s biggest challenge

By
Ooi Kee Beng

July 04, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

JULY 4 — As July 9 looms closer, the administration of Malaysia’s Premier Najib Abdul Razak feels itself more and more pushed into a corner.

This coming Saturday threatens to be a day of reckoning for his administration, which from the beginning preferred tweaking the system to reforming the system. Now, two years after he took power from Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, another leader who failed to live up to his own reformist image, he is running out of options.

At the same time, many of his countrymen have run out of patience. Even those sitting on the fence had been hoping against hope that the Barisan Nasional would be able to somehow reverse the degradation of governance that the country has suffered since the days of Dr Mahathir Mohamed.

A non-government organisation calling itself Bersih 2.0 is arranging a huge demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on July 9 to demand electoral reform. The first time such a rally happened was on November 10, 2007. That had amazing results. An estimated 40,000 people took to the streets wearing yellow to symbolise loyalty to the King, not the government.

A huge Hindu rights rally followed a few weeks later and the impetus from these protests almost floored the Barisan Nasional government in the general election that followed soon after.

Now with the many deliberate signals sent by Prime Minister Najib recently that fresh elections might be around the corner, there is reason to believe this second Bersih rally will hold great consequences for the country’s democratic development. The government certainly believes so and has been making arrests for offences such as wearing yellow T-shirts and even the “hidden” wearing of the apparently seditious apparel.

Solidarity rallies in support of Bersih 2.0 are planned in Seoul, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Osaka, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York and perhaps other places as well. In Kuala Lumpur, at least twice the number of participants as before is expected to march for fairer elections.

As before, a memorandum with eight demands will be handed to the King. No demonstration permit has officially been sought by Bersih 2.0 or Perkasa, the right-wing Umno-supported group that will be carrying out a counter demonstration.

Umno Youth, which under Mr Khairy Jamaluddin will also hold its own march on that day, has formally applied for a permit.

In what seems like a bad overreaction, Home Affairs Minister Hishammuddin Hussein has banned Bersih and arrested members of the Parti Socialis Malaysia while taking no action against Umno Youth and Perkasa, despite threats of racial violence from the latter.

Perkasa’s eccentric leader, Mr Ibrahim Ali, has been issuing warnings to Chinese about taking part in the demonstration. This makes little sense since a large majority of the marchers are expected to be followers of Parti Islam SeMalaysia.

In truth, the government’s unwillingness in recent months to charge Mr Ibrahim with sedition or take the Umno newspaper Utusan Melayu to task for making statements of this kind, has been a source of anger for many.

Electoral fairness

To be sure, demanding electoral reforms has shown itself to be a cogent way of mobilising Malaysians and increasing their political involvement. There are different reasons for this.

First, a democracy’s credibility and efficacy depends on the perceived fairness of the electoral system and Malaysia’s has not met that for a long time now. This point is intuitively understood by the common man and woman.

Second, electoral fairness is an issue that does not turn racial easily and has therefore functioned well as a lightning rod for general discontent.

Third, there have been many by-elections in Malaysia and these cannot help but showcase official disregard for clean and fair elections.

What Prime Minister Najib should be learning from this is that his barrage of reform terms — 1Malaysia, New Economic Model, Economic Transformation Program or Government Transformation Program — suffers a serious credibility problem. His coalition may not have lost much ground but it has not gained any either, as the recent Sarawak state election showed. Now in his third year as prime minister, his failure to be decisive on reform is perceived as conscious policy, and not the result of inexperience or bad advice.

His nemesis — Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition — has survived three impressive years and more and more Malaysians now believe that elections can lead to change even when the dice are loaded in the government’s favour. Should the demanded reforms be carried out, the ruling Barisan Nasional would lose more ground in the next elections.

To conclude, the fourth and most important reason for civil society to call for electoral reforms is that the demands are clearly sensible.

The fact that things are now coming to a head and the police are making arrests with no credible legal grounds, shows the inefficacy of parliamentary debate in Malaysia today and the government’s inability to reverse the wave of dissension that has been growing since before the first Bersih demonstration in 2007. —
Today

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 10:39 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Election
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih rally: Let sanity, common sense prevail

By
AB Sulaiman
 | Jul 4, 11

Malaysiakini

So this week is the last stretch to the much anticipated Bersih 2.0 rally slated for this Saturday.

On the part of the organisers, they say that this is a people-inspired movement, asking for nothing more than free and fair elections, and the ridding of rampant corruption.

That’s not how the government sees it. To it this a movement full of many hidden agendas, like wishing to resurrect Communism, toppling the monarchy, ‘puppetering’ by foreign agents, Christians about to overrun the Muslim government, and the Opposition’s vehicle for marching towards Putrajaya!

So, the government has made it more than just difficult for the organisers to go ahead with the rally. It even has declared it illegal.

It’s an extreme case of the glass seen as half full by one faction and the other seeing it as half empty. As PM Najib Abdul Razak says, it’s a matter of perception.

Indeed many people have been rounded up by the police with their statements taken, yellow has been declared as an illegal colour, and the Bersih 2.0 acronym likewise banned.

Today if you wear a yellow T-shirt with Bersih 2.0 written on it you might find yourself locked up in a police station.

And the rally has not yet taken place!

Surely something is wrong somewhere. Here we see well-meaning people panting for breath living in unhealthy, man-made conditions, created by unhealthy public policies, social policies infected by racist and religious extremism, a comparatively stagnant economy, broken public institutions, fleeing domestic investment, scarce foreign investment, fleeing talent, and yes, rampant corruption and an election environment laced with gerrymandering, phantom votes, and money politics.

They just say enough is enough, the country is going downhill and something must be done to stop the rot.

On the other side we see the government assuring the people that the economy is in robust shape, the people are happy, the public institutions are healthy, that the election process is second to none, and as for corruption, what corruption?

Blanket denial

It’s a case of blanket denial on the part of the government.

Denial has been its strategy applied by the government in the past 30 years or so.

During this time the people were not yet mature enough and their awareness of democracy and their rights were equally nascent.

So during this time, the government had always been seen to be in a favourable light by the people. ‘The government knows best’ and ‘do as I say not what I do’ seemed to be the twin keynotes in its leadership philosophy, suitably nurtured by a suitably controlled mass media – the newspapers, radio and television.

But something happened in the last decade or so ago. It’s the appearance of the computer and the Internet, of faster and easier travel, of better education, among other factors) that has changed the scenario.

Denial is no longer an omnibus answer to the country’s problems.

Suddenly people are getting more aware of their rights, their worth as individuals. They communicate more, travel more, read more, garner more experience.

The people want more rights, freedom, a fair and equitable government, to say the least. They want more responsibility and accountability on the part of the rulers. They say that corruption has brought the country to its knees.

Suddenly ‘the government knows best,’ and ‘do as I say not as what I do’ style of governing has become archaic, irrelevant, even redundant and pungent.

Sadly the government on its part doesn’t seem to be aware of the changing times and the changing psychology and expectations of the people.

The going has been so good in the past that leaders find it difficult to fathom the new scenario. They have remained in a time warp. They say that they have been leading the country for over 50 years and have developed it into the heaven it is today, so what’s the fuss?

It’s a case of the government incapable of coping with a changing environment, of having to tell lies to placate a demanding and emancipated population.

And there is one thing about lies that any wise person can tell – that once you lie you have to follow it with another and another. At the end of the day you create a long list of lies each worse than the other, each trying to justify, substantiate and support the other.

In the end the lie will consume and destroy the liar.

Translated into politics it’s a case of riding on the back of a tiger. The leaders would find it difficult to get off it for the tiger would maul them.

Credence and credibility

So where do I stand in these shenanigans? I am just miffed by the goings on.

Najib the worthy PM coined the catchy slogan 1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now, or something to that effect.

He should provide credence and credibility to his choice motto. And to me the Bersih rally appears to actually reflect the proud ‘1Malaysia’ concept as the leaders and probable participants appear to be multi-racial.

It is the voice of the people, thus adhering to the ‘People First’ claim. And human history has also shown that economic productivity develops in a condition of democracy; thus ‘Performance Now’.

In my reckoning he should therefore be enthusiastic in lending support to Bersih 2.0. If the various people in the country are to be united, that he must go all out to protect the people in their thrust and march towards unity, by way of high productivity and economic progress.

But he turns out to be the foremost critic of his slogan. By obstructing the rally he appears to be very un-1Malaysia, un-People First, and un-Performance Now.

It’s not too late yet for him to salvage his credibility. How about him allowing Bersih 2.0 to proceed, while also allowing Perkasa and Umno Youth to have their equivalent counter-rallies. Just ask the police to define the routes each of them should take so that they don’t clash.

Then when the entire mayhem is over, call everybody involved, have a talk. I do believe Najib will earn a lot of goodwill should he adopt this pragmatic approach.

As to what happens the day after that, only God can tell. But by adopting this pragmatic alternative he can at least salvage a bit of sanity, common sense and reputation.

Let’s all see what’s going to happen come Saturday.

——–

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 4:16 pm and is filed under
Bersih
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Debunking the Bersih 2.0 critics

By Pak Sako

Centre for Policy Initiatives

4th July 2011

A number of political commentators have criticised Bersih 2.0 in the news media and blogs. Among these critics are Chandra Muzaffar, Anas Zubedy, Ahirudin Atan (Rocky’s Bru) and Mahathir Mohamad.

Their comments would have been welcome if they were honest and holistic assessments of Bersih 2.0. It would have been nice to see the use of sound reasoning. Instead we have faulty argument upon faulty argument, in article upon article.

This is regrettable not just for the dubious ethics with which personal political interests are advanced. It is also unfortunate because the trusting reader becomes confused as to what is true or false and becomes prone to accepting questionable statements and conclusions as truthful.

Misleading arguments and suggestions should not be left standing without a challenge. Here I show seven types of faulty arguments that have been made against Bersih 2.0 and comment on specific examples. It is hoped that the reader would be able to identify them on his own in the future, and be inspired to debate the critic to discover the truth or the best way forward for a given policy.

A. The middle ground

In dealing with what they see as a problem, the critics usually begin with an appeal to the middle path or ‘third way’. This is in spite of the fact that a middle ground might fly in the face of logic. They propose a fallacious kind of give-and-take — sacrifice a wheel or two here so as to keep a radiator or fan belt running there. This makes no sense when, for a policy choice or reformist action to truly work or have its intended effect, like a car you need to retain all of its necessary parts. Have yourself a very effective Bersih 2.0 rally, says one commentator, but do it in the pits of Putrajaya where no one hears you (Anas Zubedy in ‘Bersih 2.0 — is there a third alternative?’, The Malaysian Insider, 23 June). Why rally, asks another commentator, when you can have dialogue with the Election Commission and national government — the very same parties that had four years since the first Bersih rally of 2007 to improve the electoral system but did very little (Chandra Muzaffar in ‘Understanding the context’, The Star, 3 July).

The progressive option is not about having Bersih 2.0 or not having it. The progressive option is to reach an immediate agreement for commencing the reform of electoral processes, failing which a Bersih 2.0 march would proceed to inspire change through other mechanisms such as the ballot box. The Agong’s call for negotiations should be seen in this positive light. The government should take this as a golden opportunity to wrest the advantage. There is still time for half a week of intensive dialogue between Bersih, the Election Commission and the government to reach an agreement on reform action before 9 July.

B. Exaggeration

The critics also commonly play up unsubstantiated dangers and costs (e.g., by appeal to threat) and play down benefits and mitigating facts (the ignorance of counterevidence). Consider the following commentators’ statements pertaining to physical injury and business cost.

“In the first Bersih demonstration on November 10 2007, a number of people were injured. There were similar casualties in the Hindraf demonstration… in the same year.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

He reports not how many people were injured (10, 100 or 1,000), what kind of injury was sustained (scratches and scrapes or bullet wounds) and why (whether due to Bersih or Hindraf demonstrators quarreling among themselves or they were hurt as a result of unnecessary, heavy-handed police action). There is also a failure to properly discuss the desirability of the freedom to express fair demands and upholding democratic principles given the risk of scrapes, bruises and such.

It is also difficult to ascertain whether the commentator is sincere in his concern for the marchers and others nearby. Assuming that the planned march goes ahead, he does not ask for the authorities to fully cooperate with the Bersih 2.0 organisers to ensure safety and order. He does not ask of the police to refrain from possibly hurting the marchers. He does not suggest to the authorities to control or remove potential troublemakers such as Perkasa and their ‘war general’ Ibrahim Ali who openly threatened chaos. The commentator did not even encourage a peaceful, celebratory atmosphere.

“Traders and taxi drivers in the affected areas will inevitably suffer a loss of income. Here again, the past is a good teacher. In previous demonstration in Kuala Lumpur, people in various walks of life had to pay the price.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

“Merchants and business organisations need sales during the weekends to survive and make a profit to continue providing employment to the thousands under their care. We cannot afford to lose millions of ringgit every time the rakyat gather to voice concerns.” (Anas Zubedy).

Certain traders and taxi drivers might lose their regular daily income for that day fully or partially, but others at slightly different locations in Kuala Lumpur could benefit. The above two commentators refuse to see that benefits could also accrue to the shuttle-bus, energy, merchandise and food and beverages businesses as a result of there being a mass concentration of consumers about town.

There are also those benefits that are unquantifiable in monetary terms: the camaraderie between participants of different races and beliefs; the greatly broadened public awareness about the importance and urgency of electoral reforms; and the sense of empowerment people feel about being able to shape their collective destiny in pressuring reluctant national institutions to peacefully push through needed electoral improvements.

To be complete about it, there are other costs in the form of inconveniences to the public as a result of congestion. But these are not different to the price that Malaysians pay day in and day out when trapped in traffic jams and when having to shove about to board infrequent, jam-packed commuter trains.

It is difficult to imagine the catastrophic net business costs assumed by the second commentator as a result of a couple of hours of orderly marches (endangerment to “thousands” of jobs and losses running “in the millions”). Businesses have ample time to plan and prepare for contingencies, if any (Bersih announced the march many weeks ago). Businesses could also imagine that it is a public holiday. Would they complain so loudly about having to close shop if the sudden death of a monarch imposes an immediate one-day public holiday and road closures for processions?

C. Scaremongering

If middle-ground diplomacy and mild exaggeration do not compel the desired outcome, scare tactics might be used. Abusive ad hominems, straw-man attacks and deliberate omissions can be combined to make the following type of political statements:

“Anwar… [a] deeply flawed politician… the de facto leader of Bersih… wants to become prime minister… and will resort to any means to achieve his ambitions”; “PAS and DAP are also driven by the desire to gain power through the quickest route. For them also the end justifies the means.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

Observe the manipulation of emotion by using subjective statements such as “deeply flawed” and speculation (“will resort to any means”). There is little concern for providing evidence. We have also partial reporting; only opposition political parties are mentioned when all Malaysians, including the ruling Barisan Nasional supporters, were invited to join the Bersih march to advocate and demand for electoral reforms. The above commentator also ignores the fact that all rational political parties do seek power, and they do wish to attain it with the least possible cost or resistance, without recourse to violent acts or breaches of trust.

“If the stadium option had materialized, certain elements in Bersih, it is alleged, would have turned the stadium to a Tahrir Square, with demonstrators camping there day and night for weeks on end.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

Here we see the non-reporting of sources (“it is alleged”). Alleged by whom and upon what basis, we are not told. An honest commentator would just say he “fears” or “has a gut feeling that there might be” long-standing protests. Moreover, asserting a Tahrir Square scenario is, on its own, a domino fallacy (i.e., the unproven assumption that a particular event is the first in a series of steps that will inevitably lead to some specific, undesirable consequence).

D. Dishonest or incomplete assessment

The critics refrain from thoroughly evaluating the worthiness of the goals and possible impact of the Bersih 2.0 gathering. They stray to secondary issues such as the support of opposition parties for Bersih 2.0. These detractors do not discuss whether, in the first place, the Bersih principles are fair for all (given the condition that you do not know whether you will be on the winning or losing side) or whether the underlying goals of electoral reform will be more effectively galvanised this way or not. With regards to Bersih’s eight demands for electoral reforms, we see lazy dismissals such as this:

“The last three demands have nothing to do whatsoever with “clean and fair election”, which is what Bersih was supposed to be about.’6. Strengthen public institutions’, ‘7. Stop corruption’ and ‘8. Stop dirty politics’ are not within SPR’s job scope. A 6-yr old can tell you that.” (Ahirudin Attan/Rocky’s Bru, in his blog post entitled, ‘Anwar Ibrahim’s 8 demands to the Agong’).

What a 6-year old might tell this commentator is to read up the details. According to Bersih, ‘Strengthening public institutions’ is a call for the Election Commission to “perform its constitutional duty to act independently and impartially… [and that it] cannot continue to claim that [it has] no power to act, as the law provides for sufficient powers to institute a credible electoral system”. ‘Stopping corruption’ and ‘stopping dirty politics’ involves taking action against offences such as personating (the phantom voter problem) and making promises to “help you if you help me” — the offering of money or other concessions in exchange for votes. These offences are stated in the Election Offences Act 1954. They are perfectly within the purview of the Election Commission which is mandated to carry out this law. Perpetrators, however, still roam free.

Ahirudin Attan also snubs the demand to use indelible ink as a method for preventing voter fraud during elections. He pronounces instead his support for the use of biometry for this purpose. But he fails to discuss the relative merits of biometry and indelible ink (whether or not indelible ink would be a superior option given that it is highly effective and cheap, or whether those who have control over the electronics and data of biometry could manipulate it to perpetrate fraud without detection).

E. False comparison

Chandra Muzaffar alleges that Bersih intensifies the ‘polarisation’ of partisan politics, and compares the situation to the politics of Thailand. The title of Muzaffar’s article purports to give an ‘understanding of context’, but he overlooks the fact that the matter in Thailand itself involves a different context from that of Bersih 2.0. He uses the loaded word ‘polarisation’ when the more accurate term would be ‘differentiation’, that is, differentiated politics. He does not mention that having space for different political positions can be a healthy development in politics. For example, if the Germans had not flocked under Hitler but were differentiated in opinion due to a countervailing political bloc that was a force of reason against the Nazi party’s ideology, so much suffering could have been avoided.

The Malaysian people also have the fundamental right to choose. Preventing people from having political alternatives or choosing between political alternatives is, in one word, oppression, whatever the excuse proffered. Differentiation in politics has the benefit of deepening the value of political discourse. Differentiation encourages the comparison of policies that competing political groups offer. It encourages the questioning, as opposed to the blind acceptance, of what is foisted upon them. This would represent a desirable drift towards issues-based politics, away from purely racial or religious politics.

F. False association

“Its objective is to tarnish the government’s name and the police, and with that the opposition parties will win… It is an attack on the government because it is claiming that the government is not doing things… The purpose is political… precisely for PR (Pakatan Rakyat)… It is not about whether the election is clean or not… that is secondary… they want to paint the government black and therefore, although you are gray, you look more white.” (Mahathir Mohamad, ‘Dr. M: Bersih not seeking reforms but political tsunami’, The Malaysian Insider, 2 July).

It is true that a movement like Bersih would make a government that is unwilling to enact electoral reforms look bad. It is also true that any party that puts its weight behind electoral reforms will look better. These are all fair assumptions for which this commentator should be given credit. But he appears to erroneously convey the impression that governments are irreproachable, or even untouchable. Governments are, after all, for the people to criticise or replace when they do not perform satisfactorily or when they fail to uphold the principles that underlying their mandate, such as ensuring that democratic processes are not in a state of compromise. Love for the country and its people is patriotism. Love for the government is mere partisanship.

G. Biased citation of studies to support an argument

Chandra Muzaffar asserts that elections in Malaysia have been “largely fair and just — given that no electoral system in the world is totally devoid of flaws”. He cites only one source to justify his claim, Election Watch, a group to which he himself belonged. He does not cite peer-reviewed studies by local or foreign social scientists that give evidence to the contrary, that “the country’s record on free and fair elections has been abysmal” (see a review of the evidence by the Centre For Policy Initiatives, entitled ‘Academic consensus on unfair elections: reinforcing the case for Bersih’s march’). Muzaffar also commits the logical error of concluding that elections have been “large fair and just” based on an inferior and unacceptable criterion (that there are flaws in all electoral systems everywhere).

These are just a selection of numerous argumentative tactics employed by political commentators to safeguard or further their partisan interests. The Bersih 2.0 debate is only one of the many victims.

The public should be inoculated against such insidious tactics aimed at shaping public opinion and political outcomes. I would propose that the news media endeavour to solicit alternative viewpoints to debate about an issue rather than limiting themselves to publishing only one side of the story. This would curb the incentive to brazenly use faulty arguments and deceptive logic. Avenue for reply would also allow for quick rebuttal. It would bring out quality discussions. Online news media such as The Malaysian Insider should be commended for allowing space for opposing views and giving both equal prominence. The mainstream news media such as The Star have yet to show that they are capable of this higher level of discourse.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 2:01 pm and is filed under
Bersih
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M’s daughter slams crackdown

By
Syed Jaymal Zahiid
 | July 4, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

PETALING JAYA: Marina Mahathir, the daughter of former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad – who had little tolerance for dissenting voices – criticised the clampdown on Bersih 2.0 supporters.

Speaking on behalf of Sisters In Islam, one of the 62 NGOs that form the Bersih coalition, she said the action taken by the authorities was similar to that used by third-world dictators.

“Only those in fear would resort to such things… we are behaving like a third world country or less,” she told a packed press conference here, flanked by several representatives from Bersih.

More than 150 people were detained, mostly for wearing yellow T- shirts with the word “Bersih” in connection with the polls watchdog’s planned rally on July 9.

Opposition leaders, some of whom had been hauled up for questioning for backing Bersih’s call for a rally to demand electoral reforms, said the mass arrests was one of the harshest crackdowns in the country’s political history.

Marina said the government’s crackdown was not reflective of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s efforts to transform Malaysia into a developed country.

“We are a developing country, we should behave like one and rise above (all this) and have some faith in our people,” she said.

Marina also condemned the personal attacks on Bersih chairperson S Ambiga, whom she praised for having an excellent track record in fighting for human rights.

“The personal attacks are unwarranted. They should use better arguments to resolve the issue and not resort to personal attacks,” she said.

Najib had called Ambiga, the former Bar Council president, a stooge of Pakatan Rakyat.

Marina’s stand on this issue ran contrary to her father’s position. The latter had echoed Najib’s accusation that the planned rally was not to demand electoral reforms but to create another “political tsunami” to wrest power.

At the press conference today, Bersih representatives denied that the rally had any hidden political agendas and reiterated that it would be peaceful.

They also called on the authorities to find an amicable solution without calling off the rally.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 1:57 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


King’s concern most welcome – call on Najib to meet with Bersih organisers as the first positive government response to popular concerns for free and fair elections

The Yang di Pertuan Agong’s concern over the “binge of madness” in the country arising from the July 9 Bersih 2.0 peaceful rally for free, fair and clean general elections is most appropriate and welcome.

Lets not doubt the loyalty and patriotism of Malaysians who want to see free and fair general elections – which is the highest form of love, loyalty and patriotism to Malaysia.

As a first positive step in response to the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s concern and call that Malaysia must always conduct itself as “a civilised society” grounded on consultations with all stakeholders in the country, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should meet with Bersih organisers to address legitimate nation-wide concerns about free and fair elections which could be fully taken account  in the forthcoming 13th General Elections.

As a second positive step, the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin should lift the ban on Bersih 2.0 and release all persons, including the MP for Sungei Siput Dr. Michael Jayakumar, detained in the past week of high-handed  “madness” over the Bersih 2.0 rally.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 9:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #72

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Authoritative Versus Authoritarian Ulamas and Scholars

Then there are such irrelevant issues as who can and cannot partake in these debates. There are those ulamas and scholars who feel that only they are qualified enough to partake in such heavy issues. There rest need merely follow their dictates. They are not so much authoritative as much as authoritarian, to use Khalid El Fadl’s words.

            It reminds me of the bad old days of imperious doctors who behave like Gods; their utterances and decisions cannot be challenged, least of all by the laity. Thank God, those days are gone. Today physicians fully engage their patients and they in turn participate fully in decisions affecting themselves. The seeking of second and alternate opinions is now standard practice.

            Take the issue of Islamic scholars, another very contentious one. Much of the confusion and the ensuing controversies revolve around the different meanings of basic terms. I can best illustrate this by using the example of surgical scholars. In the academic department I was once associated with, among my colleagues were a veterinary doctor, a biochemist, and an engineer. In standing, pay and prestige, these professors of surgery were no different from the other “operating” professors of
surgery, the clinician surgeons. They taught medical students and would-be surgeons, and published in surgical journals. But if one were to have appendicitis, one would not ask these “non-operating” professors to operate. If someone were stupid enough to do so, he or she would be politely if not embarrassedly referred to the “real” surgeons in the department.

            Similarly there are Islamic scholars and there are ulama. One can learn a lot about Islam – both the discipline as well as the faith – from Islamic scholars; but in performing funeral rites or reciting the Surah Yaseeen (requiem), one needs the ulama. In medicine there are strict rules as to who can treat patients. Apart from specific training, he or she has to be properly licensed. Anyone not so licensed, no matter how competent, could be charged with fraud and criminal assault were they to practice as physicians. This is to protect the public.

            No such statutory delineations occur in the practice of Islam, and rightly so. Islam, unlike other religions, lacks a proscribed clergy class. In Islam it is we mortals and Allah, there being no need for an intermediary. There are no priests, bishops, or pope in Islam. Sure we have an imam, but to paraphrase an ancient saying, he is imam because we, the flock, call him so. His power and prestige are derived from and not imposed upon the congregation.

            The present heavily bureaucratized Islam, with ulama placed on salary schemes and acquiring all the other accouterments of the civil service, is purely a Malaysian phenomenon. No surprise then that these modern day ulama behave like their petty counterparts in the civil service – very conscious of their turf. Thus, instead of engaging in a scholarly fashion with those who disagree with them, these ulama treat new ideas as potential threats. Hence the ugly specter of the president of the Muslim Scholars Association filing a police report against writers he disagreed with, instead of publishing his own scholarly rebuttal!

            This is not a surprise considering the training these ulama had undergone. They are not so much being educated as being indoctrinated. The quality of their scholarship, certainly when viewed from the vantage point of Western scholarship adept at critical thinking and “deconstruction,” is severely wanting. Their training is akin to that of students of classical music. Classical musicians are trained not to interpret but simply to follow the path of their masters before them. Improvisations or novel interpretations are not expected or welcomed. If you do, you may end up playing for the local jazz band instead. Only when you have become a Glenn Gould could you establish your own style. Until then, no fancy incidental notes or flourishes in phrasing. Follow the score as it is written.

            Likewise the ulama; they are not expected to put forth any new thought or to question. Indeed such critical thinking and novel interpretations are viewed suspiciously as the devil’s machinations. Occasionally one may get an alim, who, having mastered the existing state of knowledge, goes on to make his own seminal contributions. There were many such outstanding individuals in the history of Islam. Some were successful in blazing new trails in the understanding of our faith, but most ended up being marginalized or worse, labeled as apostate –and treated accordingly.

            What is threatening the world of the traditional ulama today is not the “orientalist” secular Islamic scholars like Patricia Martinez and Farish Noor, rather the emergence of ulama trained in the traditional madrasah system who then went on to be exposed to the rigors of Western scholarship. In the past such scholar-ulama were denigrated back in their native lands, but with the heightened interest in Islam in the West, these individuals are now eagerly sought after by leading Western universities. From their vantage point there, with its superior supporting structures and generous funding, this new breed of scholar-ulama are spreading their views onto the wider Islamic world. With their madrasah credentials, they are as erudite and exquisite in their tajweed (rendition of the Qur’an) as the best of Al Azhar.

            The Islamic faith is invigorated with this new breed of scholar-ulama like UCLA’s Khaled Abou El Fadl and Duke University’s Ebrahim Moosa. These distinguished scholars, steeped in the traditional as well as Western scholarship and well versed in Arabic (the language of Islam) as well as English (the language of technology), will take Islam to greater heights. El Fadl is also remarkable in that he has a personal library of over 6,500 Islamic texts and manuscripts, some dating as far back as the 13th Century. More importantly, these enlightened scholars present a refreshing face of Islam to the modern world, a view more in consonant with the ideals of the faith as revealed to our prophet (pbuh) – a much-needed antidote to the rabble rousing and fatwa-issuing likes of Osama bin Ladin. These modern scholars spread the word of Islam not by issuing endless edicts but by the power of their intellect and the logic of their arguments. As the Iranian scholar Abdoolkarim Soroosh noted, the Qur’an is divine; its interpretation is human. The text of the scripture is silent; it is up to us to make it speak. These enlightened scholars have given a fresh voice to the Qur’an.

            Much of the present understanding of Islam comes from the works of dedicated scholars, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. All Muslims should value their contributions. They complement our ulama. Confusion arises only when scholars try to assume the trappings of an alim, or when ulama take on the pretensions of a scholar.

            For Malays, Islam is the central element of our culture; it also defines Malayness. Legally, a Malay is someone who regularly practices the Malay culture and professes Islam. Malays belong to the mainstream Sunni sect. But what is more important at the daily level is that Islam in Malaysia is what the government bureaucrats deem it to be. Anyone straying from this “straight path,” as defined by the government’s ulama, risks being branded as a subversive or “deviationist,” and will suffer the worldly consequences (like being incarcerated under the ISA).

            Islam arrived in the Malay world in the 15th Century by way of Muslim traders. It did not land on a cultural vacuum as Malays then were already steeped in Hindu beliefs and animist traditions. Many Malays today would want to deny this aspect of our past, to wipe the slate clean. This tendency to overlook what present-day Islamists view as less-than-pristine “unIslamic” past is not an affliction peculiar only to Malays. The Japanese have yet to come to terms with their role in World War II. Thus the preoccupation of Malays today in trying to “cleanse” and “purify” the faith, while misguided, is understandable. The difference between the Talibans blasting to smithereens the ancient Buddhist monuments and Malaysian Islamists desecrating Hindu temples is only a matter of degree.

            Sadly, much of the world today view Osama bin Ladin and his band of the Talibans as representing the essence of Islam. Unfortunately many Islamic leaders and scholars implicitly encourage this misconception by not condemning unequivocally the criminal activities of these extremist Muslims. As the late Sudanese reformist Mohamad Taha observed, religious fanaticism is inalienable from religious ignorance. It is out of ignorance of the basic tenets of Islam that these fanatics view this world as hostile, and not as God’s wonderful gift to mankind. The challenge is to enlighten Muslims especially those in Malaysia to the pristine message of Islam.

Next:   Shari’a in a Plural Society

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 9:32 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat leadership council emergency meeting on Wednesday on Bersih 2.0 rally and  current national political situation

The Pakatan Rakyat leadership council will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday on the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally for free, fair and clean elections and the current national political situation.

The PR leadership council will discuss the wise and commendable counsel of the Yang di Pertuan Agong.  I am most impressed by the advice of the King particularly when he said:

“I also urge the government to carry out everything that is entrusted to it by the people in a just and wise manner, and it is important that I, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, do not want to see this country with a plural society in a situation where there is animosity among them or a section of the people being enemies with the government, on whatever grounds.”

The Bersih 2.0 plan to have a peaceful rally on July 9 calling for free, fair and clean elections, which has the support of Malaysians transcending race, religion, class, gender and age, would be a celebration of the growing democratic spirit and culture in Malaysia and the best illustration of the 1Malaysia slogan of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The  Bersih 2.0 rally is never meant to be a threat to any race, religion, class, gender or age and a “just and wise” government would never have allowed the situation to degenerate and descend into a national hysteria with the Home Minister and the Police fighting imaginary enemies and non-issues, like the revival of communism, the creation of a Christian Malaysia or  funding and subversion by foreign powers.

Up to now some 200 arrests had been made based on the most implausible and unjustifiable grounds, like wearing Bersih 2.0 T-shirts and even for sporting yellow T-shirts.

The Yang di Pertuan Agong’s advice is most timely and appropriate to end this bout of “madness” which the nation and all the major protagonists have reason to be very ashamed about.

It is not Bersih 2.0 which threaten breach of peace but organisations like Perkasa and Umno Youth – yet it is Bersih 2.0 which is the target of the massive crackdown in the past week while Perkasa and Umno Youth enjoy immunity and impunity for their most incendiary, inflammatory and seditious threats and provocations.

It is sad and tragic that one of the greatest casualties of the recent “madness” is public confidence in the independence,  integrity, professionalism of the Police as impartial guardians of law and order – as the ordinary police rank-and-file had been forced to implement orders which every ordinary policeman knows is wrong and unjust, like arresting people for wearing Bersih 2.0 T shirts or even worse, for wearing yellow T shirts!

Is it possible for the Home Minister and the Police to convince Malaysians that they are “just and wise” to act even-handedly, especially acting against the recent culprits responsible for engineering “animosity” among Malaysians?

Reason and good sense must return and prevail!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 6:01 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


T-shirts: free and unfree

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 9:39 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Police
,
Zunar
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The follies of Umno and the EC

By
Mariam Mokhtar

Jul 4, 11 | MalaysiaKini

On Nov 10, 2007, around 40,000 protestors made their way towards Istana Negara in Bersih’s first march for clean and fair elections. Did it make a difference? Yes.

The rakyat experienced change. It galvanised them by reinforcing their belief that together they could prove a point – that Umno is not infallible. That Umno is not great. That Umno has an Achilles heel which will bring it down: Arrogance.

After 2007, the promises from both Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the prime minister at the time, and the Election Commission (EC) have all come to nought.

As a result of this, Bersih 2.0 was bound to happen. The rakyat half expected Umno and its loyal and obedient servant, the EC, to break whatever pledges they made. Five years on, have we seen any of the Bersih’s demands implemented?

In 2007, Abdullah said that the EC had acceded and would comply with many of the demands of Bersih.

“They wanted a transparent ballot box and the use of indelible ink to prevent multiple voting. The EC has agreed to that. Other than that, they can negotiate with the commission.”

The EC now says that ink is only for backward countries. They forget that we are as backward as any other banana republic.

What use is a transparent ballot box when it is alleged that boxes stuffed with BN-only votes are swapped with those from the actual polling station?

“The same body since independence’

In the 2007 report by Malaysiakini, Abdullah thought it incredulous that the opposition kept finding fault with the EC “despite the commission being the same body since independence”.

Umno/BN has also been in power since independence. Could this be significant?

Perhaps, Abdullah is unaware that something that has been around for aeons is no proof that it is sound, or reliable. All he need do is look at the deadwood in his civil service. They have been around for ages, perhaps all their working life and yet they can be the most unproductive and inefficient.

Abdullah also said, “Does that mean that in this country the opposition cannot win? Of course they can. In Kelantan, PAS has formed the government numerous times. Then they won in Terengganu.

“They can win. If we control everything, there is no way they can win. But that is not our way. We want the public to sincerely tell us what they want and we will respect the results of an election.”

Fast-forward to 2011 and various Umno supporters opine the same, when they claim that the EC is fair and that the opposition control of five states after the 2008 GE was proof enough.

Did they ever stop to consider that if there had been no gerrymandering, fraud, vote- buying and other malpractices, then the opposition might have had a clean sweep through most, if not all the states and not just the five?

If Umno and EC needed further reminders, the former European Commission envoy, Thierry Rommel, said that the use of the ISA and violent measures to prevent the 2007 Bersih rally from taking place, meant that Malaysia still lived under a state of emergency.

He cited the short election campaigning period, the media bias towards the ruling party and said, “It’s not a secret that elections are not fair.”

Many might recall Abdullah’s vow to suppress the rally which was also termed illegal and banned because “….there have never been peaceful gatherings.”

He instructed the PDRM to quell the march and to make arrests. Bersih organisers were termed “stubborn”, “defiant” and law-breakers.

He also said, “Tapi saya mesti kata saya pantang dicabar (Don’t dare to contradict anything I say).”

Infantile remarks

Perhaps Umno can recall more of their infantile remarks made after the Bersih 2007 rally.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz called the opposition names such as “pondan” (wimps) and that the “brains of opposition members do not function well.”

In an interview with Al-Jazeera, both Nazri and the Umno Youth deputy chief then, Khairy Jamaluddin, agreed that “there was nothing wrong with the system and that it worked well.”

Five years later, in the countdown towards the July 9 Walk for Democracy, similar tactics are being used to jeopardise the Bersih 2.0 march.

As before, the government has called the march illegal and using fear as its weapon, said that all protests would end in violence.

In 2007, state television was asked to endlessly repeat scenes of demonstrations around the world which portrayed violence. Today, the same is being asked of the media.

Anyone wearing the yellow Bersih T-shirt and other paraphernalia promoting the rally is arrested. Scores of people besides the NGOs, individuals and opposition politicians have been hounded by the police. There have been accusations of foreign interference to topple the Malaysian government.

In 2007, Abdullah said that the Bersih march would be “an inconvenience to the public as well as shop owners in the city”.

His childish effort to deflect attention from proper governance seems to be concentrated on shoppers’ comfort.

Today, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin joined the cabinet chorus and described the Berish rally as politically-motivated and a threat to national security as well as the country’s reputation.

The Communications, Information and Culture Minister, Rais Yatim (left), claimed that Bersih was going to topple the government and cause widespread unrest. He also claimed that the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) had links with communism, to cause chaos.

Umno and the EC have forgotten the original aims of the Bersih 2007 rally and none of the promises have been upheld. Neither Umno nor the EC have learned their lessons.

Why should we believe them when they say they will discuss electoral reform only if we stop marching for Bersih 2.0?

Remember what the Kuala Lumpur chief police officer Zulhasnan Najib Baharuddin said when he was asked about journalists being attacked by his policemen during the 2007 march?

He remarked, “Are there reports? It has not been brought to my attention.”

So it appears that Umno, the EC and the police have short memories, or are in denial or simply lie.

And they wonder why the rakyat desires Bersih 2.0?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 10:35 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Veto the Bersih ban, Mr PM

by
Thomas Lee Seng Hock

Malaysiakini

Jul 3, 11

COMMENT

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0) has been declared an illegal organisation effective 1 July 2011.

A statement issued by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) says that the declaration was made by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein (right) under Section 5 of the Societies Act 1966.

According to the ROS statement, Bersih is not a registered organisation.

The statement claims that Bersih has been actively creating confusion and causing anxiety among the people.

It says that Bersih has been distributing handbills containing propaganda aimed at toppling the BN federal government.

The ROS statement says that Bersih has undermined the nation’s sovereignty and disrupted the harmonious environment among the country’s multi-racial population, and also caused disrepute to the country’s image, and is a threat to public order, security, and economic development and prosperity.

Bersih had earlier announced plans to hold rallies in Kuala Lumpur, Sabah and Sarawak on July 9 to mobilise concerned citizens to demand for a clean, fair and transparent electoral process.

Unilateral decision

The home minister’s unilateral decision to ban Bersih is certainly something any right-thinking and fair-minded believer in democracy and the rule of law will not be able to accept as just and constitutionally valid.

The rights to freedom of expression and assembly are enshrined in our federal constitution, and embraced as essential fundamental divine rights of all peoples in all democratic nations of the world, and revered in the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations, of which Malaysia has been a proud member since it gained its independence on 31 August 1957.

The home minister’s action in declaring Bersih an illegal organisation is a direct violation of the human, civil and constitutional rights of the country’s citizens.

Human rights are the fundamental foundation upon which the total life, life-style and well-being of a human person is built and developed upon.

Human rights ensure that the spiritual, moral, intellectual, emotional, physical, social and cultural aspects of an individual’s existence is treated appropriately with value, dignity, honour, respect, and affection, and any violation of the basic human, civil and constitutional rights of any citizen of the nation should be regarded with contempt and condemnation.

Not a subversive movement

Bersih, which means “clean” in Bahasa Malaysia, is not a subversive movement out to create a violent revolution to overthrow the government of the day.

It is simply a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and certain political parties to seek and promote a legal reformation and transformation of the current very unsatisfactory and unacceptable electoral process in the country.

The allegations that Bersih is being funded by foreign sources, in particular by Christian interests, to destabilise the nation, and is a movement to bring about the resurgence of communism are uncalled for and unwarranted, and a real despicable attempt to create hatred and contempt among the various races.

Those who made such allegations should be the one arrested and charged for sedition, not the Bersih advocates.

Bersih has specifically demanded that several changes be instituted for the present election laws and practices to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair, just and transparent manner.

Among the reforms Bersih proposed are (1) a complete and thorough cleaning of the electoral rolls to remove entries that are no longer valid such as names of dead persons, (2) all political parties and their candidates be allowed and provided with equal access to the print and broadcast media, (3) the campaign period be extended to allow all parties and their candidates more time to reach out to the people to promote and explain their views. (4) abolish postal voting in view of the high probability that it is easily abused and manipulated, and (5) using permanent ink to ensure that each voter may only vote once.

Such proposals are not unreasonable or impractical, and any government professing to practise democracy and rule of the laws should surely has no genuine ground to reject them.

And the promotion of a fair, just and transparent electoral process should not be considered a subversive plot to overthrow the government of the day.

In fact, it is a joke to suggest that Bersih is out to grab political power by illegal means, especially the use of violence.

The mobilisation of concerned citizens in a peaceful assembly to exercise their rights to seek changes for the betterment of the nation is surely not a sin, not indivisible to the pursuit of a holistic, righteous, fair, just and dignified nation-building process.

It is the inherit divine right of a citizen to express his views vocally, visibly, and vividly, the government has no moral right to deprive and curb such rights.

Reformation of electoral process

The stated ultimate goal of Bersih is just the reformation of the nation’s electoral process to ensure that the human, civil and constitutional rights of the legitimate citizens are protected and respected, and not any evil political agenda as insinuated by the mercenary spin writers of the mainstream media, and certain former opposition politicians who had sold their souls, betrayed their constituents, and manoeuvred themselves into favoured and profitable positions in the establishment.

Such despicable persons should be dismissed with scorn, and their views discharged with disbelief and disparagement.

Meanwhile, the police force should consider the fact that all forms of peaceful expression and assembly by the people should be respected and allowed to take place without any enforced restraint and forceful intervention by them.

Bersih should be allowed to hold its civil rights assembly so long as no violence or chaotic disorder are intended.

The Bersih rally organisers have never attempted any incitement to riot and chaos, and the police should not take any unilateral action that may possibly cause confusion and provoke an unpredictable disorder with people scattering in various random directions.

The police should not use canes, tear gas or water cannons on the crowd, but should provide proper crowd and traffic control to ensure that no untoward and adverse situation could develop.

Any suspected trouble-maker should be stopped and detained, but no use of force should be made on the peaceful assembly.

The Bersih ban is surely a dark blot on the image of the nation, and I appeal to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to use his wisdom and good office to stop further damage to the country by vetoing the foolish action of the home minister, and also allow the peaceful assembly to take place as scheduled.

If he does that, I will salute him for his statesmanship.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 8:37 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
,
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why the sledgehammer?

July 04, 2011 |
Aliran

JULY 4 — It looks like if they don’t get you under one law, they will get you under another law. That seems to be the case as far as Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj and his colleagues are concerned. But this time they used a sledgehammer just to make sure that they get them.

During the seven days’ remand, the police did not unearth any incriminating evidence to justify their action against 30 Parti Sosialis activists for allegedly “waging war against the king”. That was the reason stated for remanding these people. Before that, there was talk they could be investigated for sedition.

On the seventh day of their remand, six of them were freed from the Kepala Batas police station. The implication of this action was very explicit: The police had actually cleared them of whatever they were originally suspected of being involved in.

In other words, there was no case against them, and therefore, there was no reason to seek a further remand order to continue with the police investigation or to charge them. It was the end of the case and the matter was closed to the satisfaction of the police.

But lo and behold, at the very moment Jeyakumar and his colleagues were freed, police personnel from Bukit Aman immediately re-arrested them! This time, they were being arrested under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. This time, they used the sledgehammer approach. This Ordinance doesn’t give you a chance to challenge the arrest and detention.

But this Ordinance is meant for suspected goons and gangsters and criminals who habitually indulge in crime and violence; suspected criminals who pose imminent danger to citizens and remain a constant threat to public order.

The activities of Jeyakumar and his colleagues come nowhere near to this conceived potential danger to the nation. Their activities were never violent or criminal. In fact, they are very concerned and compassionate people who only want to do good that will benefit the discarded and marginalised sectors of our community.

Jeyakumar is noted for devoting his entire life to the care of the less privileged and discriminated urban poor, the neglected estate communities and the largely ignored Orang Asli. His ways are gentle, his approach is gentlemanly. He has never advocated any violence in the pursuit of justice for the poor, the weak and the meek. It was always persuasion and reasoning that he deployed to seek justice.

Reasonable and rational Malaysians cannot accept any insinuation that he is a danger to public order. In their eyes Jeyakumar is a victim of gross injustice. Aliran has known Jeyakumar for many years. He is one of our loyal members committed to the aspirations of Aliran.

His concerns are exemplary and inspiring. He is a tireless worker for the good of the nation. We reject any allegation of criminal intent on his part. Detaining him under the EO is a terrible injustice to this man of peace.

Aliran calls upon the Barisan Nasional government to be fair and just, and to free Jeyakumar and his colleagues immediately. Their continued detention does not speak well of our notion of justice or our respect for the rule of law.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2011, 10:24 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 2.0 accepts stadium offer for rally

By
 Joseph Sipalan & Abdul Rahim Sabri

Jul 5, 11 | MalaysiaKini

Following a meeting with the Agong this afternoon, Bersih 2.0 chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan said the NGO coalition has agreed to hold its rally in a stadium.

Met outside the national palace after an audience with Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at Istana Negara, Ambiga said the coalition “will cooperate with the government and accept their offer to have the event in a stadium”.

“Therefore, the rally on the street will not take place.”

The movement does not yet know which stadium will be used. This will be announced at a later date.

“We are very grateful for the (audience with the Agong) and will accept the government offer,” Ambiga added.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had earlier proposed that Bersih holds its demonstration in a stadium rather than on the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

Asked whether the decision reflects a compromise on the part of Bersih, Ambiga said it was, given the circumstances.

Ambiga, Bersih 2.0 steering committee member Zaid Kamaruddin and national laurate A Samad Said had arrived at the Istana Negara gates about 1.55pm.

The trio had earlier refused comment when approached.

Yesterday, Bersih 2.0 submitted a formal request for an audience during which they intend to explain the movement’s position and seek the Agong’s advice on the rally.

Bersih 2.0 had requested for the audience because the Agong had issued a special statement on Sunday night.

The Agong had said that, while it is incumbent on the government to fulfill its responsibilities in a “just and wise manner”, street demonstrations would bring more harm than good, even if the original intention is good.

In an immediate response to the meeting between the King and the Bersih 2.0 leaders, inspector general of police Ismail Omar said the police will take the movement’s decision to hold the rally in a stadium under consideration.

In a faxed statement issued at 5.30pm today, Ismail said the police welcome the King’s decree regarding the cancellation of the street rally, and will wait for an official application from the rally organisers as required under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

“Whatever decision made in future will always be based on public order and the rakyat’s safety,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 4:28 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 2.0: Winners and losers

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 05, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, July 5 — So it is settled, after weeks of harassment and thuggish behaviour by the government, the people for free and fair elections will gather in a stadium on July 9.

This episode has once again demonstrated how fractious and divided Malaysia is with enlightened and liberal Malaysia on one side and almost facist powers on the other.

Some individuals emerge from this episode with reputations intact, others with image destroyed forever. The Malaysian Insider gives our take on the winners and losers.

Winners

•    The organisers of Bersih: let’s be honest, until a few weeks ago this was a movement at the periphery of most Malaysians. Okay, so some 100,000 people would have marched on the streets on KL. But thanks to the government’s blanket arrests, use of draconian laws and decision to behave like a repressive regime, Bersih became a buzzword. Much to the government’s chagrin, everyone has forgotten about Datuk T, all the wonderful projects under the ETP. Today, people remember Bersih as the people fighting for clean and fair elections, and the Barisan Nasional (BN) government as the people frightened of free and fair elections.

• Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan: She was called names by the prime minister and threatened with having her citizenship revoked by the Malacca chief minister and was under severe pressure from the police and security agencies. But the former Bar Council president did not lose her cool or become rabid like her detractors. She stayed the course and was always civil. Maybe our politicians should take a leaf out of her book.

• The Yang di-Pertuan Agong: his measured last-minute intervention gave the government and Bersih face-saving escape routes from confrontation. This is what Malaysians expect of the monarchy: for them to be honest brokers, not mouthpieces for the ruling party. In all likelihood he was asked by the government to issue the statement on Sunday but it does appear that he was unwilling to demonise Bersih.

• Malaysian public: in the wake of all this talk of riots and tension, the man in the street was unmoved and unconvinced by the fairytale stories of communist plots and Christian funding — a sure sign that the governed are more mature than the government.

Losers

• Datuk Seri Najib Razak: he has now agreed to meet Bersih leaders to discuss the venue for their rally. One has to ask why as the PM he did not engage the activists but instead he allowed them to be demonised by his Umno party. The mishandling of the issue also allowed Malaysia’s image to be tarnished and undid a lot of good work done by good men in the administration. He allowed the hardliners in government and his party to call the shots when he should have been leading from the front.

• Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein: where does one start with this major disappointment of a minister? He left many stumped by his illogical statements and his John Le Carre scenarios. He has ambitions of becoming the country’s prime minister. After this performance it is arguable whether he is the best person for the home ministry portfolio.

• Datuk Ibrahim Ali: he has been at the forefront of the attacks against Ambiga and Bersih. And he has also tried to turn the issue into one of race, to protect Malay rights. But it became abundantly clear that Bersih 2.0 had the support of many Malaysians from different races. It was not about race after all but the issue of free and fair elections.

• The PDRM: the police have made a mockery of the law by arresting people for wearing T-shirts. While it is arguable whether preventive action and detention should still be allowed, arresting people for wearing T-shirts was a ridiculous act. Continuing to detain people under the Emergency Ordinance over the rally is also a classic case of abusing the law. In the end the police should remember that if a permit was granted the rally would not have been illegal. The police must not act as if the country is under siege from its own citizens.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 11:47 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih: Grave concern over the deepening political crisis

Press statement by concerned academicians on the Bersih march (KUALA LUMPUR, 5 July 2011)

We, the undersigned academicians, wish to express our concern at the deepening political crisis in the country. It is unfortunate that such a crisis is emerging out of a legitimate campaign, initiated by a large number of non-governmental organizations, to institute reforms through their campaign, Bersih, to ensure the conduct of truly free and fair elections in Malaysia.  Since the pursuit of such a campaign is undeniably noble, and timely, we are extremely perturbed that the government has resorted to harsh measures and use of draconian legislation to prevent the organizers from mounting a public rally.

We see the need for the leaders of Bersih to persist with dialogue with the bodies responsible for overseeing free and fair elections.  However, we also appreciate the argument by the campaign’s leaders that such an assembly is necessary since discussions have long taken place, with little progress – thus the need for the government to take serious heed of the campaign’s recommendations for free and fair elections for which there is considerable support from the country’s citizenry.

We note too that public assemblies and marches in support of causes that have attracted widespread public concern are a common feature of all democratic systems.  They are a legitimate expression of the freedom and rights of the citizens of a country.  A government that uses the laws, institutions and resources of the state to suppress or repress such activities undermines its own credibility and claim to practicing democracy.  The actions of the Government to curb this Bersih campaign will only hurt public perception of the Government’s commitment to the freedoms enshrined in the Federal Constitution.  Further actions such as the use of the Emergency Ordinance on Bersih supporters will only result in the enhanced perception of a government that refuses to institute free and fair elections for fear of losing power, an impression we are certain the government does not want to create.

We urge the following steps to resolve the crisis and restore public confidence in the Government’s ability to govern the country fairly and justly.

1. Release all political activists held under the Emergency Ordinance.

2. Drop all charges against those arrested by the police for Bersih-related offences.

3. Permit Bersih the right to a peaceful march, if the organizers decide to do so. All other public marches should be allowed but with the timing and routes agreed to in advance to prevent any untoward consequences

4. Both Government and Opposition parties, as well as NGOs, to commit their supporters participating in marches and other public assemblies to a code of peaceful and civil conduct

5. Assurance by the relevant authorities that serious consideration is being given to ensure free and fair elections in the country.

Signatories

Associate Prof. Dr. Andrew Aeria

Associate Prof. Dr. Azmi Sharom

Dr. Christopher Chong

Associate Prof. Dr. Sharmani Gabriel

Prof. Terence Gomez

Prof. Lim Teck Ghee

Dr. Lee Hwok Aun

Prof. Francis Loh

Assoc Prof Dr Mustafa K Anuar

Dr. Ooi Kee Beng

Janet Pillai

Dr. Johan Saravanamuttu

Prof. Tan Sooi Beng

Associate Prof. Dr. Yeoh Seng Guan

Prof. Diana Wong

Prof. Zaharom Nain

Assoc Prof. Dr Mustafa K Annuar

Prof. Zaharom Nain

Distributed on behalf of the group by
CPI

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 12:41 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bouquets for Bersih

by
Martin Jalleh

Brilliant quotes related to the biggest and boldest march in Bolehland:

*
 “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, one of Founding Fathers of the USA
.(To those who are afraid, we understand, but please give a thought to the wisdom above!)

*
“I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”
 –Will Rogers,  an American cowboy, comedian, humorist, social commentator, vaudeville performer and actor and one of the best-known celebrities in the 1920s and 1930s
.(The above comment is specially dedicated to the One Malaysia Government that has become One Big Joke.)

*
 “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President (Prime Minister). Now I’m beginning to believe it.”
– Clarence S. Darrow (1857-1938) American lawyer
(This is especially true in the land where all things, including the most ridiculous, are possible!)

*
 “It’s not the voting that’s democracy; it’s the counting.”
~Tom Stoppard, Jumpers(Will the Election Commission of Malaysia be able to comprehend such a gem?)

*
 “Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don’t think.”
~Author Unknown
(The above through-provoking comment is specially dedicated to the Deputy PM of Malaysia and his cohorts in Government.)

*
 “Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
– Milton Friedman, a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The Economist described him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it.”.

*
 “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
–Milton Friedman
(Was Milton then thinking of the Government of Malaysia?)

*“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have…The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
 – Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the USA.

(Of course, Malaysia follows such a “course of history”!)

*
“Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
 — George Washington, 1st President of the USA

(Surely the Government of Malaysia has a lot of “irresponsible action” to boast of in the past few days?)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 8:17 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bring about a healthy democracy

By
Kee Thuan Chye

Jul 5, 11 | MalaysiaKini

The King has issued a statement on the developments surrounding the proposed Bersih 2.0 rally for free and fair elections. What do we make of it?

It is quite clear that he is not in favour of the rally proceeding on July 9, although he does say that the original intentions of street demonstrations can be good. This, read together with his acknowledgement of “the political fervour of a section of the people to bring about a healthy democracy (menyuburkan demokrasi) in our country”, indicates he is not condemning Bersih 2.0.

He is aware that the people are involved (even though it constitutes “a section”), and what they desire is something positive, i.e. menyuburkan demokrasi.

He is, however, concerned that “street demonstrations bring more bad than good” and he wants it ensured that the people’s democratic demand “does not bring destruction to the country”.

He advocates that whenever a problem arises, “we as a civilised society should (hendaklah) resolve it through consultations”.

What has been the effect of the King’s statement on the parties involved?

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s first reaction is to offer Bersih 2.0 the opportunity to protest in a stadium. This is the most accommodating posture he has struck since the controversy began. In doing so, Najib has now come to ‘legitimise’ Bersih without openly saying so, although only a few days ago, his Home Minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, had declared Bersih 2.0 an illegal organisation effective July 1.

Najib’s offer indicates he has lost the battle of wills against the movement for electoral reform and is now scrambling to save face by making this offer. But it’s not good enough. He has done too much damage; he has used an atom bomb to annihilate ants through his unreasonable, even maniacal arrests of people in the past week.

The worst is alleging that the 30 Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) members arrested in Kepala Batas were waging war against the King, and subjecting six of them to detention under the Emergency Ordinance.

The King has not, figuratively speaking, slapped Najib’s face, but he has tapped him on the shoulder by saying in his statement, “I also urge the Government to carry out everything that is entrusted to it by the people in a just and wise (bijaksana) manner”.

The words “just and wise” can be read as a reminder to the government that it has been using unfair and sometimes inane tactics over the past week. The most inane would be either alleging that the PSM 30 were resurrecting communism or declaring Bersih 2.0 illegal.

Najib is like the head prefect who has been caught out by the headmaster and is now being told to carry out his duties within the school rules.

It is noteworthy that the King uses the line, “entrusted to it by the people”. It issues a very important reminder to a government that has become arrogant and unmindful of the rule of law, which is evident in its arbitrary arrests of people over the past week, in one case for simply wearing a yellow T-shirt.

It is further significant that the King says he does “not want to see animosity develop between the communities in our plural society or a section of the people being enemies with the Government, on whatever grounds”.

This could be alluding generally to the racial drumming of Perkasa, Utusan Malaysia and even Dr Mahathir Mohamad that has contributed to racial tension of late, and specifically to Perkasa’s role in inflaming the Bersih 2.0 rally by wanting to counter it and issuing veiled threats of violence.

The reaction on the part of Bersih 2.0 is to seek an audience with the King. Opposition political parties have indicated that they want to be included, but on no account must Bersih 2.0 allow this. It has all this while maintained that it is a movement that is led and initiated by civil society; it should remain so.

If the King grants the audience, what Bersih 2.0 might request is for him to advise the prime minister to initiate negotiations with it and the Election Commission on carrying out electoral reform. If this is not forthcoming, Bersih 2.0 should still have the option of holding its rally on July 9.

But what if the King does not grant Bersih 2.0 an audience soon enough? This would then pose a quandary for the NGO. Should it then proceed with the rally on July 9? When it comes to that, Bersih 2.0 would have to answer the ultimate question: Does it listen to the King or to the rakyat?

Ours is a constitutional monarchy; on political matters, the King can offer advice but it is up to the listener to accept it or not. However, many Malaysians are still infected with a feudal mentality and to them, going against the King’s advice is tantamount to derhaka.

It is this that Bersih 2.0 will have to guard against, because if it were to be branded penderhaka, a fair part of the sympathy it has been getting so far through the government crackdown will be obliterated.

On the other hand, it could be comforted by the thought that Perkasa and Umno Youth have said that if Bersih 2.0 goes ahead with its rally, they would also go ahead with theirs. This would expose them to accusations of menderhaka as well, so Bersih 2.0 would not be alone.

However, the best course for everyone might well be negotiation, at which a timetable should be set for the electoral reform process to take place, before the next general election is held. But before going to the negotiating table, Bersih 2.0 should be given due recognition, which means Hishammuddin must revoke his order of illegalising it.

This is a prerequisite; otherwise it will make the government look silly negotiating with an “illegal” organisation. But even if Hishammuddin refuses to admit his high-handed mistake, Bersih 2.0 may have already been legitimised by the King’s call for “consultations”, and of course, by Najib’s offer of holding the rally in a stadium.

Furthermore, the six PSM detainees should be released immediately, and the charges against the other 24 PSM members dropped. As it is, charging them with associating with an illegal society does not seem right. Bersih 2.0 was declared illegal several days after they were arrested; how could they have looked into the future to predict it would become illegal?

The next few days will be interesting to watch. The clash of wills between Bersih 2.0 and the government (with Perkasa and Umno Youth as secondary players) may now be raised to a higher level.

Najib may not want to give in for fear of appearing weak, and Bersih 2.0 may feel it has right and the rakyat on its side.

It will take an impartial referee who has the country’s best interests at heart to arbitrate the matter and bring about a satisfying solution.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 11:05 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Election
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


History’s lessons

by
Karim Raslan

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 05, 2011

JULY 5 — Malaysian contemporary history has started to loop back on itself. Instead of going forward and progressing, we are going backwards, repeating the past: Sodomy 1 and Sodomy 2, Bersih 1 and Bersih 2.

There are those who would argue that the political missteps have little impact on our economy. I would disagree. In order for the Malaysian economy to grow further and move to the next level, we need a political transformation — we need an injection of transparency, accountability and the dynamism that comes from an open society.

Sadly, the forces of darkness are too powerful and entrenched. As such much of the flow of domestic capital and human resource overseas is directly attributable to the government’s determination to reject change.

When talk of Bersih 2.0 first surfaced a few weeks ago, I remember thinking it was a total waste of time. To my mind, the civil society agenda had been sidelined by widespread concerns over galloping inflation and rising prices.

However, instead of being forgotten Bersih 2.0 has become more and more prominent. This is not due to its promoters’ savviness. Indeed, the government is directly responsible for the escalation. The shrillness of the mainstream media’s coverage and the government’s hard-headedness has brought us to this impasse.

Over the past few weeks Bersih 2.0 has become a lightning rod for political change — dividing society. To my mind this is faintly ridiculous since the movement’s stated aims are simple enough for anyone to accept. How can we reject the call for clean and fair elections?

First off we need to bear in mind that Bersih 2.0 also raises a fundamental question: namely the Freedom of Assembly —which is guaranteed in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

However, since the race riots of 1969, the Malaysian government has essentially taken a view that this freedom should be curtailed for the fear of disruption. The fact that we are still fearful of racial violence some forty years on from May 13th is an indictment of feebleness of our achievements since 1969.

Wasn’t the New Economic Policy supposed to have redressed such imbalances and restructured Malaysian society towards a harmonious end? Have we failed to grow and/or mature since those race riots? Aren’t we stronger and more resilient as a nation?

There are three other points which I’d like to make here:

Firstly — and this is something I’ve been saying for many years now — is that the internet along with Facebook and Twitter have flattened traditional hierarchies and established structures.

As such, the mainstream media is no longer the sole source of information and opinion. This technological shift demands a similar shift in terms of mindset and strategy from political parties and indeed, governments.

Needless to say, I have seen little evidence of such a change amongst the Barisan Nasional and Umno leaders most of whom prefer to hide behind the laws rather than debate issues openly. Indeed, the BN’s political philosophy and record is much better than many realise.  I would argue that poorly informed and incompetent ministers are doing more to torpedo the government’s credibility amongst the Malaysian public than the opposition.

Secondly, in handling Bersih 2.0, the authorities have to realise that the key players are now from PAS. Anwar Ibrahim is a shadow of his former self. Ambiga Sreenevasan’s abrupt dismissal of his offer to stop the demonstrations reveals his diminished stature.

However, PAS’ ulama are not conventional politicians. Locking up and/or beating Tok Guru Hadi Awang would turn him into a political giant. Victimizing the ulama would outrage popular sentiment and propel PAS even further to the forefront.

Thirdly and finally, it would be wise to bear in mind that as Winston Churchill once said: “Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

Many of the factors present in the run-up to the historic 2008 polls are present once again — inflation, a dramatic swing in the Sarawakian state elections, disaffection amongst Chinese and Christian communities not to mention simmering discontent in the cities and urban areas.

The Barisan Nasional and Umno are no longer setting the agenda. Instead, wittingly or not, they appear to be following an opposition ‘play-book’.

In such a context will history repeat itself? Could it be that, Tsunami 1 will be followed by Tsunami 2…the choice is Barisan’s.

* Karim Raslan is a pundit on regional affairs and a columnist with several regional newspapers.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 11:56 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Now what, Mr Prime Minister

by
Lucius Goon

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 04, 2011

JULY 4 — Unbelievable. Incredible. Astounding. These should be the headlines in the lamestream media following Prime Minister Najib Razak’s u-turn on the Bersih rally on July 9.

It now transpires that he says that Bersih organisers can go ahead and have their gathering in a stadium.

“We are willing to provide a stadium for them to rally but why choose to protest in the streets.

“The government is not against them rallying in a stadium from morning until night. Just don’t hold street protest as it is very risky to the nation,” Najib was quoted as saying by The Malaysian Insider today.

This after he called respected lawyer Ambiga Sreenivasan an enemy of Islam and allowed his government to demonise her and others as enemies of the state.

This after his cousin, Hishammuddin Hussein declared Bersih an illegal organisation and encouraged the police to round up anyone wearing a yellow Bersih T-shirt.

This after the government and police colluded and came up with some false charges of reviving communism and Christian funding for Bersih and justified the use of the emergency detention laws against an elected representative and social activists.

I can imagine that Najib’s aides will try and spin his offer as the sign of a reasonable leader. I am sorry but I can’t buy that version. The handling of the Bersih event has been a joke, showing up cabinet ministers as incompetent and untruthful.

Wouldn’t it have been easier for the Najib administration to offer Bersih the use of the stadium and speak conciliatory language two weeks ago?

Or did Najib and his cabinet believe that ordinary Malaysians would be cowed by communist regime tactics?

Instead they allowed Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa and other individuals like Ali Rustam to run roughshod over the sensibilities of Malaysians.

What a shameful performance by the Najib government.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 8:33 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan willing to accept Najib’s stadium offer

By
Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 05, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, July 5 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties today declared themselves “open” to Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s offer to allow Bersih 2.0 to hold its July 9 rally in a stadium.

In a statement signed by PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar and DAP national organising secretary Teresa Kok, the pact said the agreement had been reached following several discussions among party leaders.

“We would like to record our stand that all three parties are open to the prime minister’s office as long as it respects the people’s right to assemble peacefully as enshrined under the Federal Constitution,” they said.

They added that Bersih 2.0’s demands for electoral reform should stay as the main objective of the rally, pointing out that such reforms were needed urgently before the 13th general election.

“There needs to be commitment from the PM on that, aside from his offer to Bersih that its rally can be held in a stadium,” they said.

The trio also said that their readiness to accept Najib’s stadium offer should be well received by the authorities.

“They should stop their harsh actions now. All three parties in PR are ready to cooperate with the police to ensure that the demonstration goes on smoothly.

“As such, PR demands that all those detained over Bersih 2.0 be freed immediately and charges against them dropped,” they said.

Their statement comes as Bersih 2.0 is in the process of determining whether to proceed with the rally after the King advised all parties on Sunday to resolve their issues through consultation instead of holding a demonstration.

It is believed that the King has also granted audience to Bersih 2.0 today as coalition’s chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan and two others were seen entering Istana Negara this afternoon.

During a press conference yesterday, Ambiga said the coalition was willing to call off its rally if the King advised them to do so.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2011, 3:08 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.