Not long ago, an international news agency shown police forcefully using water cannon against Hindraf protesters in their television news. Yet, the most deep memory in the mentioned news is this phrase used to describe the situation at that time: "This is demorcacy - Malaysian style".
It seem that Malaysian style democracy remains the same as is in the recent protest against the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA). Herewith is the link to BBC News (Asia Pacific) video clip, which once and again shown that democracy is under siege (or perhaps, under ISA detention).
BBC (20 July 2009) reported that Chua Jui Meng, a member of Malaysia's governing coalition, has quit to join the opposition Pakatan Alliance. He said he was concerned about alleged abuse of power and the unexplained death of an opposition leader's aide. …
"We see the abuse of power in the use of the federal institutions to harass, persecute and prosecute the leader of the opposition," he said. This was a reference to a sodomy trial, for which preliminary proceedings have begun, against Mr Anwar.
Mr Chua said the sudden death of a young opposition political aide, Teoh Beng Hock, was the tipping point in his decision to join the opposition.
"The tragic death of 30-year-old Teoh Beng Hock is the consequence of one such institution going overboard in its action." Mr Teoh, an aide to a member of the state cabinet in Selangor, ruled by the opposition alliance, apparently plunged from the 14th-floor offices of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
Meanwhile, Shannon Teoh (20 July 2009) highlighted three more similar high profile cases happened previously in Malaysia. Among them are the cases of Altantuya Shariibuu, Francis Udayappan and A. Kugan. Her write up is available in Malaysian Insider.
Seventeen civil society groups have dubbed the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock a casualty of politics and demands a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the incident. The groups include the Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (SCAH), Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI), Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC), Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (Dema), Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower), Jamaah Islah Malaysia (JIM) (Malaysiakini, 18 July 2009).
Further public opinions could be viewed at Malaysiakini such as follows:
Har Wai Mun | Jun 23, 09 4:58pm [Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/107074]
Not long after Jose Mourinho took over as the Chelsea football team manager, he self-proclaimed himself as the ‘Special One’. Coincidently, soon after Najib Abdul Razak took over as prime minister of Malaysia, he announced the ‘1Malaysia’ concept. How would these two match-up in the spirit of democracy?
The concept of democracy could be traced back to the philosophical thoughts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, particularly to his ‘On Social Contract’ (1762). In brief, there are three important components in democracy architectural, namely the individual, the laws and the government.
Every individual is born with the natural right to maximise his/her own benefit unlimitedly but chooses to exchange it with civil rights and hence subject themselves to the law. The government establishes and executes the law after it is appointed by the people.
Hence, in this tripartite ‘contractual’ inter-relationship, the ‘Special One’ should be no one. A democratic sovereign Malaysia is a unique equilibrium between the individual, the laws and the government. Any effort that could jeopardise this equilibrium should be rejected.
The proposed ‘unity talks’ is merely for a grouping of individuals to maximise their collective natural rights and not the unity of all people to enhance the overall civil welfare. Other undemocratic factors that need to be urgently rejected are the draconian Internal Security Act, the Sedition Act, racist policies and some double-standard practices of our police force.
Therefore, if Umno wishes to have unity talks, do invite all Malaysian to unite against these undemocratic factors.
As for the ‘1Malaysia’ concept it is a double-edged sword. On the positive side, Najib should be applauded for his effort to unite every Malaysian to strengthen Malaysian democracy. If so, let us hope that we are no longer separated by race and religion as in our national identity card and requirements to enter public universities and the public service sector.
‘1Malaysia’ should come together with more transparency and morality, hence less corruption, cronyism and unethical practices.
Nonetheless, one still wonders why our authorities seem so relaxed over the Lingam Tape scandal, the yearly findings of the Auditor-General’s Report, and the PKFZ fiasco and instead clamping down against the likes of P Uthayakumar, ‘1BlackMalaysia’ and DAP’s dinner functions.
All these certainly cast doubts that ‘1Malaysia’ could be nothing more than a political strategy. Furthermore, it’s difference with DAP’s ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ is still unclear.
With reference to Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’, a mental attack to disintegrate the enemy is superior to a physical confrontation. Perhaps enlightened from its moral defeat in the general election last year and subsequent by-elections, Barisan Nasional is no longer using aggressive rhetoric against Pakatan Rakyat.
Instead, a softer but deadlier approach using ‘unity’ as a theme is being used to perfection to disunite Pakatan and their supporters.
If in its purest intention, the special ‘1Malaysia’ would greatly strengthen the ‘Special One’ - Malaysia as a democratic sovereign nation - then it should be welcome. If not, Malaysian democracy is in grave danger. Thus, deciding on which version is true is of utmost importance.
ASEAN has a vision to form a single community by 2015. Thus, ASEAN integration has been a topic of great interest but unfortunately, attention has been over-focused on economics aspect. This paper aims to study the specific aspect of ASEAN banking sector integration within three objectives. Firstly, this paper aims to compare the ASEAN countries’ respective commitments to its own members through ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) against their commitments to the world under General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Secondly, this paper aims to evaluate the readiness of ASEAN for banking sector integration using statistical approach. Thirdly, the statistical results from the second objective will be utilized to construct an indicator of readiness for ASEAN banking sector integration. The results reveal that ASEAN countries’ commitment to AFAS did not differ much from their respective commitments to GATS. Statistical evidence shows that there are vast differences in monetary conditions between ASEAN countries, hence causing difficulties for one-step-total-integration. Therefore, “paired-integration” is proposed based on the results of “readiness indicator”. Optimal pairing for Malaysia is Thailand, followed by Philippines and Singapore.
Har Wai Mun | May 4, 09 3:44pm [Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/103567]
After being greatly successful in swinging the Indian vote in favour of Pakatan Rakyat since the 12th general election and for almost every subsequent by-election, Hindraf seems to have finally reached a crossroads, pondering which future path to go onto next.
Intense government suppression including the detention of their leaders and banning the movement makes Hindraf's future more uncertain. An internal rift does not help either.
Nevertheless, the biggest threat to Hindraf's future is neither the government nor its internal conflict, but the direction of their struggle in the long run. Two questions are of utmost importance to Hindraf.
Firstly, should Hindraf's continue their struggle by solely focusing on the Indian community or should encompass the multi-racial society in Malaysia?
When voters rejected Barisan Nasional's racial politics, one would ponder whether Hindraf would face the same fate in the near future. Do the voters want another MIC after they have rejected one?
Hindraf members could stress that they really care and fight for Indian community unlike the MIC. Yet truly, Malaysians could point out that there are poor and marginalised Malays and Chinese too.
Thus, how about them? Let the DAP take care of the Chinese while PAS and PKR help the Malays? I certainly hope not and thankfully do not see those abovementioned parties moving towards that direction of racial politics.
However, due to relatively more pressing problems from the Indian community, Hindraf is certainly being more practical in giving their undivided attention to the community for the moment.
But in the future, Hindraf's survival requires them to enlarge their vision and struggle for all Malaysians regardless of race to uphold the true spirit of ‘people power' as they originally popularised as ‘Makkal Sakhti'.
The second question is should Hindraf move towards attaining formal political power? On one hand, restriction to do so could limit the effectiveness of the movement to bring changes at the national level.
Thus, parliamentarians, ministers and state executive councilors are needed. On the other hand, a ‘yes' answer could possibly lead to certain individual members becoming overly politically ambitious.
By the way, bear in mind that Hindraf is officially an illegal movement, hence it is impossible for it to become a political party. Registering a new political party using new name is also equally impossible under the BN government.
So, the most workable way to gain formal political power is through existin political parties. Yet, another dilemma would be whether Hindraf parliamentarians of other party memberships could unrestrictedly represent the movement.
The answers to these questions might unlock the future direction for Hindraf. Currently, their existence seems to be more energised by emotion rather than on long-term basis practicalities.
Hindraf's ‘partnership' with Pakatan Rakyat is on a rather ‘ad hoc' basis based on the scenario that they share the same enemy (BN).
For Hindraf and Pakatan Rakyat to survive and glorify in Malaysian history, their ‘enemy' should not be BN, but poverty corruption, unfairness, restrictions on freedom (particularly the Internal Security Act), the alarming economic crisis, the declining education standard and the degradation of our environment.
Har Wai Mun | Apr 10, 09 5:13pm [Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/102123]
Looking at the recent political developments and the new cabinet lineup, democracy in Malaysia is heading down the drain. Online encyclopedia Wikipedia defines ‘democracy’ as a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system.
There are two principles of democracy. The first principle is that all members of society (citizens) have equal access to power.
The second is that all members (citizens) enjoy universally-recognised freedoms and liberties. Have these two principles been upheld in Malaysia?
Firstly, there are three ministers and six deputy ministers appointed not by them winning elections but through the ‘back door’. Does this imply that Barisan Nasional (BN) does not have capable members of Parliament to do the job?
Perhaps, the new prime minister sees extraordinary talent or wisdom in these senators that justify their appointment. If that is the case, as when Abdullah Badawi appointed Zaid Ibrahim, it is justifiable and should be applauded.
However, questions are raised over those who were losers and were rejected by voters in the 12th general election. Bear in mind that it should be the people that elect the government. When they are rejected by the people, why should they be in the cabinet?
This is a mockery of our electoral system. It is also a robbery of power from the people, hence violating the abovementioned first principle of democracy.
Furthermore, the failure to appoint newly-elected Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin, who is also a member of Parliament, is a mockery of the Umno elections too.
Secondly, a separate portfolio to ‘oversee national unity’ is a disgrace to the people. Does the government see Malaysians voting for Pakatan Rakyat as an act of ‘non-unity’ thus the urgent need to ‘oversee’ it so that it would not happen again?
Would it not be better to create a ‘Unity Affairs Division’ in each of the BN component parties as well to take care of their members’ ‘unity’?
Third, the appointment of Hishammuddin Hussien as Home Affairs minister is a big shock, which could backfire on BN too.
Not to belittle his ability, but given his record of supporting the draconian ISA and keris showboating, this appointment did not goes well with the second principle of democracy nor national unity.
Perhaps, this is Malaysia, the ‘Boleh-land’. Nevertheless, do not forget Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s infamous phrase of ‘work with me, not work for me’.
Despite being the most liberal and performance-oriented prime minister, his Umno mates no longer chose to work with him.
Hence, if the new prime minister and his cabinet try to practice ‘Own People First, Showboating Performance Now’, be warned that people power could still overcome whatever political suppression to restore the principles of democracy.
This for every subsequent by-election until the next general election.
