Notes on a New Nation, Day 3

Posted on May 12, 2018 by Tricia

Notes on a New Nation
Day 3 Post-GE14, 12 May 2018

The news comes at us fast and furious, like bullets from a gun. I’m not sure how long I should be doing these daily updates; I suppose as long as things are not yet settled and press conferences are taking place each day with major announcements. Once again, this is to have an accurate record of these historic days.

Today’s update traces the events that have taken place between 6pm Friday 11 May and 6pm Saturday 12 May 2018, following Malaysia’s 14th general election on 9 May. I will try to order the points not necessarily chronologically but the biggest news of the day, normally starting at the federal government level, and then going to what is happening within the different states.

First, yesterday evening (11 May) there was a leaked flight schedule being circulated, showing that ex-Prime Minister Najib Razak and wife Rosmah Mansor were to depart from the Subang Airport to arrive at the Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport in Jakarta at 10am on 12 May. A video was also spread on social media depicting Hishamuddin Rais (long-time known organiser of street protests) calling for Malaysians to gather at the Subang Airport at 4am to stop the couple from leaving Malaysia. Many have derided this as irresponsible vigilantism, and prefer that the processes of law be adhered to. Malaysiakini broke the news early this morning that both Najib and Rosmah were blacklisted by the Immigration Department, based on checks done at 5.30am on 12 May, which returned the results as “Please refer to the nearest immigration office” in red letters (the same results other activists received in the past when barred from travel). However, when they checked again at 9.30am the results showed “No obstacle” in green letters, indicating they were not blacklisted. The Director General of the Immigration Department, Mustafar Ali, confirmed that they were “not blacklisted for now”, but the Immigration Department later issued a Facebook statement confirming that they had both been blacklisted.

Najib Razak on 12 May had issued a press statement on Facebook stating that he and his family would take a holiday abroad starting from today, after the general election. However, a police source later confirmed that the private flight was cancelled pending further instructions. Indeed, a crowd of about 100 (as reported in Malay Mail) had shown up in front of the Subang Airport to examine vehicles entering, to inspect them for Najib and Rosmah’s presence. Najib Razak later tweeted (at 11.58am) that he had been informed that the Immigration Department does not permit him and his family to leave the country, and that he respects this instruction and will be with his family within Malaysia.

Sometime in the late morning, a news report from MStar (the Malay version of the Star) stated that a Bersatu youth exco made a police report based on a video that allegedly showed a Prime Minister’s Department van delivering 50 Birkin handbags worth at least RM200,000 each to several condominium units in Paviliion Kuala Lumpur (source: http://www.mstar.com.my/…/berita-…/2018/05/12/ben-ali-lapor/).

This was the day of multiple press conferences being called for. Of course there was Tun Dr Mahathir’s press conference that all were awaiting, on the Cabinet announcement. But simultaneous to that were the initial press conferences supposedly first by Khairy Jamaludin (on behalf of the Youth, Women and Puteri [young women] wings of UMNO), and another separately by Zahid Hamidi. Later the media received notice that in fact, after the emergency UMNO Supreme Council meeting chaired by Najib Razak, Najib himself would be holding the press conference. At this press conference, Najib finally announced that he would step down with immediate effect as UMNO President and BN Chair, based on the “principle of moral responsibility”. He also announced that Zahid Hamidi would take over the duties as UMNO’s President, because the party constitution does not allow for “acting” Presidents. Hishamuddin Hussein would take over the duties of Deputy President and Deputy BN Chair. They left promptly after Najib made these announcements, with no Q&A session thereafter (which, my media friends tell me has been the norm – Najib Razak has almost never fielded questions from the floor).

Pakatan Harapan’s press conference was the next big thing of the day, where Tun Dr Mahathir announced several key individuals into the initial Cabinet. In the PC, he announced that apart from the already confirmed positions of himself as PM and Wan Azizah as DPM, the following three were confirmed: Lim Guan Eng as Finance Minister, Mohamed Sabu as Defence Minister, and Muhyiddin Yasin as Home Minister. Over the next two to three weeks, the other positions up to 25 ministries would be filled. It is interesting that he specifically mentioned that they want a “small Cabinet”; the BN government is known to be bloated with a relatively large Cabinet. Another interesting observation is that there is now a separate Minister of Finance from the Prime Minister. The practice of combining both the PM and Finance Minister results in a huge conflict of interest. But equally important to note that it was Tun Dr Mahathir himself who began this practice, after Anwar Ibrahim was initially sacked from his position as DPM and Finance Minister in 1998. Tun Daim was made Finance Minister I and Tun Dr Mahathir Finance Minister II, and then when Tun Daim later left the Cabinet, Tun Dr Mahathir took over the portfolio fully as full Finance Minister (Hwok-Aun Lee can verify this better than me).

Tun Dr Mahathir also announced the formation of a special “Council of Elders” or Council of Eminent Persons, consisting of 5 individuals, namely Tun Daim Zainuddin (his former Finance Minister and strong supporter/ally, who would also chair this council), Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz (former Central Bank Governor), Tan Sri Hassan Merican (former Petronas President), Robert Kuok (Malaysian-born tycoon, now based in Hong Kong) and Prof. Dr. Jomo Kwame Sundram (eminent economist and academic). The council would study and submit Cabinet papers on “things happening over the last years from 2009 until now”, and having independent people would be needed to vet reports and get “various data including those running government funds, and control some of the ministries which may involve some of the previous government”. Most within the line-up have had some relationship with Tun Dr Mahathir in the past, and have been considered to be critics of the Najib administration in one way or another in recent years. Tun Daim of course has been publicly supportive of PH during the campaign period; Tan Sri Zeti was part of the 1MDB investigative committee, then representing the Central Bank (but had remained silent after her retirement); Tan Sri Hassan Merican was known to have had his contract not extended after he made some critical remarks that the government should not depend excessively on Petronas for oil funds, Robert Kuok had been criticised quite vehemently by MCA upon the release of his memoirs (accused of supporting the opposition), and Dr. Jomo has been known to be instrumental in assisting the opposition in its various economic reports and position papers, although he too was appointed as a Fellow at ISIS (a think tank funded by the government). One may consider this to be “more of the old”, but given that Tun Mahathir does not have much time to get his reforms instituted, he may well be forced to depend on old, trusted advisors to get things moving.

As for what’s happening in the states, it is hard to keep up, since things keep changing every hour or so. In Perak, PAS released a statement yesterday offering a “no opposition unity government”, meaning that all parties (BN, PAS and PH) would form a government collectively, but only on the conditions that it should be led by a Muslim, and that the state exco should have a Muslim majority. Recall that earlier, Zambry had announced BN had the majority of state seats and was seeking an audience with the Sultan (he did not say where he would get the additional seats from, and it was assumed to be from PAS). The Perak Palace gave PH up to 2pm today (Saturday 12 May) to prove they have the numbers to form government. Finally, today, it was announced that two state assemblypersons (names unknown) have left BN to join PH. This makes the seat tally as follows: BN 25, PAS 3 and PH 31. At the time of writing, it was reported that Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin has been sworn in once again as the Perak Menteri Besar, nine years after he was unceremoniously ousted when BN took control in 2010 in a disputed leadership crisis. (Am leaving the inaccurate fact in, as it was reported, but wrongly so. But the correct news is that the new Menteri Besar is in fact the Perak PPBM Chair, who is Faizal Azumu, also known as Peja, and he was sworn in by the Perak Sultan.)

Over in East Malaysia, over a whole day there seemed to be no resolution as to what is happening in the state of Sabah. Although Musa Aman was sworn in as Sabah’s Chief Minister on Thursday night (10 May), Warisan’s Shafie Apdal said it would not recognise the Sabah state government as it did not have the “absolute mandate” and the numbers to form government. At a press conference yesterday evening (11 May), Shafie Apdal announced that they now had 35 assemblypersons, after six BN ADUNs defected (Abdul Muis Pichu (Sebatik), Hamisa Samat (Tanjong Batu), Osman Jamal (Balung), and Jamawi Jaafar (Kemabong) from Umno, and Ewon Benedick (Kadamaian) and Abidin Madingkir (Paginatan) from United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Upko). (source: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/424442). At the time of writing, it is understood that Shafie Apdal would be sworn in as the new Sabah Chief Minister at 9.30pm tonight (12 May). Sabah’s political developments are fascinating, and this feels like a repeat of what transpired in 1986 when there were two chief ministers having been sworn in. This was followed by a series of bomb blasts throughout Kota Kinabalu, which has been well documented by fellow documentary-maker Nadira Ilana in her short film “The Silent Riot” (more about it in this old article by Pei Ling Gan here http://www.selangortimes.com/index.php…). Peninsular Malaysians really need a “Sabah Politics 101” session after all of this is resolved. For those who haven’t followed Sabah politics in a while, the multiparty nature of local politics there is convoluted and confusing.

Finally, there were also news reports of Tun Dr Mahathir having met with Sarawak Governor Taib Mahmud (former Chief Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. It was rumoured to have been to discuss the possibility of BN component party PBB’s leaving the coalition to join PH. BN holds 19 parliamentary seats (PBB 13, PRS 3, PDP 2 and SUPP 1). If PBB were to leave BN, this would increase the parliamentary seat count of PH to 136 seats, still 12 short of what one imagines is the intent of Tun Dr Mahathir, to achieve a two third majority in Parliament, which would require at least 148 of the 222 seats. In response to these rumoured talks, Baru Bian issued a press statement as PKR Sarawak Chair, saying that Sarawak BN parties should not be allowed to join PH on principle, since PBB is UMNO’s proxy and having them in PH would betray the trust of the people. This is not yet resolved at the time of writing.

In the meantime, the two supposedly secure BN states seem to be shaky, where there is talk in Perlis of several BN MPs and assemblypersons switching over to PH (source: https://www.thestar.com.my/…/perlis-bn-mps-and-reps-on-ver…/) and something seems to be afoot in Pahang as well, where the swearing-in ceremony was originally scheduled for this morning (12 May, source: http://www.sinarharian.com.my/…/majlis-angkat-sumpah-menter…) but it has since been postponed to as late as next week. No reason has been given for this postponement. BN/UMNO seems to be imploding; late last night at UMNO’s 72nd anniversary celebration, a video was circulating on social media showing an UMNO Youth member speaking to the media, calling for Najib Razak to step down – he was very quickly and physically removed from the premises by other angry UMNO members, calling him a traitor to UMNO after all the party had done.

Finally, some interesting thoughts and questions about the nature of “official media” in this new era of government. Entities like RTM, TV3, Bernama, Utusan, Berita Harian, NST and so on have always been known to be pro-UMNO/BN, and it will be interesting to see over the following weeks the nature of their news reporting, and what PH would do to reform some of the more government-owned outlets. Already their coverage is beginning to be more open, although it will take time for a truly critical and mature mass media to develop once again, after having been stifled for many years. Tun Dr Mahathir did make a commitment in April this year to abolish the Anti-Fake News Act 2018, Sedition Act 1948, Prevention of Crime Act 1959, Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1971, National Security Council Act 2016, and any law with mandatory death sentences, as well as several “oppressive” provisions in laws such as the Penal Code, the Communications and Multimedia Act, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, Peaceful Assembly Act, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. (source: https://www.thestar.com.my/…/dr-m-pakatan-to-repeal-contr…/…). If these can be done quickly, Malaysians would feel more assured that Tun Dr Mahathir is not the same Prime Minister he used to be. His quick wit was not lost on the media in a recent press conference when he said, “Please ask your questions in an orderly manner… Please remember, I was the dictator.”

Posted in Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

Notes on a New Nation, Day 2

Posted on May 11, 2018 by Tricia

Notes on a New Nation
Day 2 Post-GE14 (as at 5.45pm, 11 May 2018)

So much is taking place at such a rapid pace that I feel the need to document events so that I (and perhaps other researchers) can look back on this period with some semblance of accurate scrutiny, sifting away the rumour from the fact.

Over the last 24 hours, much has transpired. When I last wrote my initial thoughts, it was based on the wrong assumption that the leader of the party with the majority seats would be the person the Agong would identify as the Prime Minister. This view was corrected when Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed in his 12.30pm press conference on Thursday 10 May 2018 quoted from the Federal Constitution accurately, stating that “the constitution says that the Prime Minister should have the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament. It does not say it should have the support of any party. As long as it has the support of the majority of Members of Parliament, he is entitled to become the Prime Minister. The majority has the right to name him and to require him to be duly appointed according to the constitution.” This was reiterated in a statement by the former Malaysian Bar Presidents, who said that Article 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution expressly provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of that House, and thereafter he shall on the advice of the Prime Minister appoint other Ministers from or among either House of Parliament.

This is similar to the precedent in 2008 in the states of Selangor and Penang, and in 2010 in Perak, where the majority of the members of the State Assemblies in question did not need to prove they were part of a formal coalition. I made this addition in my edited commentary yesterday.

Based on the above constitutional requirement, Tun Dr. Mahathir announced that he would seek an audience with the Agong (Sultan Muhammad V) at 5pm to be sworn in. My understanding is that this announcement was made without prior arrangements with the Palace itself. At 2.45pm, the Election Commission Chairman Tan Sri Mohd Hashim Abdullah presented the official results of the polls to palace officials.

In a press statement issued in the afternoon, Comptroller of the Royal Household Datuk Wan Ahmad Dahlan Ab Aziz said the palace received an official letter from Pakatan Harapan component members at 1.38pm supporting the appointment of Mahathir as Prime Minister. He said that Sultan Muhammad V had then met with party leaders Wan Azizah (PKR), Muhyiddin (Bersatu), Lim Guan Eng (DAP) and Mohamed Sabu (Amanah) at 5pm. It is at this 5pm meeting that presumably the four party leaders affirmed that they supported the appointment of Mahathir as Prime Minister. The press statement then confirmed that “His Majesty after having interviewed them and listened to their views, decided to invite Tun Dr Mahathir to form the next Federal Government pursuant to Article 43(2a) of the Federal Constitution. His Majesty then consented to swear Tun Dr Mahathir in as Prime Minister at 9.30pm today”.

Amidst all this, there were many messages flying around on WhatsApp (yes, this has been the WhatsApp election) that the Agong had intentionally delayed the swearing-in ceremony. After all, in previous occasions the swearing-in ceremony takes place the morning after the general election – it is a ceremonial perfunctory affair, but nonetheless one that is of utmost importance to lend legitimacy to the position of Prime Minister, after which he can carry out his official duties. In the press statement, the Istana Negara stated that it “strongly refutes any allegation that His Majesty the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong XV Sultan Muhammad V delayed the appointment of Tun Dr. Mahathir as Prime Minister” and ended by saying he looks forward to working with Tun Dr Mahathir and his administration. After much trepidation and bated breath, the swearing-in ceremony took place without much further ado at 9.30pm on Thursday night 10 May 2018. Outside, there were celebrations as people gathered with the PKR flags. Finally, Tun Dr Mahathir was sworn in as Malaysia’s 7th Prime Minister at the ripe age of 92 (about to be 93 in July).

Pakatan Harapan held a press conference at midnight, with newly appointed Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir speaking (but surrounded with the newly elected MPs), thanking the people for their support. He made special care to mention the importance of a “business-friendly government” and “Malaysia Incorporated” – the latter of which being the concept that he had personally introduced many years earlier. His emphasis was very much on cleaning up the country’s finances, and economic management, stating clearly that “we have to increase the confidence of investors into Malaysia’s administration.” All ended on a positive note.

Because he moves so quickly, more events have unfolded today (Friday 11 May 2018) already. The Pakatan Harapan Presidential Council held a meeting this morning at Yayasan Al-Bukhary in KL, after which Tun Dr Mahathir announced several important measures. First, the formation of Cabinet, where 10 key ministries would be announced tomorrow (Saturday 12 May 2018), namely Finance, Home Affairs, Defence, Education, Rural Development, Economy, Public Works, Transport, Multimedia, Science & Technology and Foreign. He also said that all PH parties would be represented in the Cabinet. It will be interesting to see which parties and personalities will occupy these important ministries to immediately steer the country forward.

Second, he also announced that Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Muhammad V has indicated his willingness to give a full pardon to de facto PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as soon as possible.

Now, again a constitutional legal expert would be best suited to address this issue, but based on my readings, it seems to be that here are no fixed rules or regulations pertaining to the process. It is not stated clearly as to who can be the applicant and there is not deadline for the King to decide on granting clemency. In deciding the pardon, the King can take into consideration other factors which the court are not allowed to, such as claims of innocence and injustice. In other words, the King has to decide based on conscience and thorough consideration without being influenced by any other party, quarter or individual. This is because at the end of the day, the King does not need to provide reasons for his decision when granting the pardon. Regardless of the outcome from the State’s Pardons Board based on the King’s decision, it cannot be challenged in court. In other words, his decision is the final outcome for the convicts.

Also, the King has the personal discretion to decide whether or not to grant the pardon. Further, he is not bound to act on the “advice” given by the Pardons Board. There are no rules governing the process. It is not stated who should be the applicant. Nor is the form of the petition prescribed. Also, there is neither a time limit for submitting the petition; nor for the King to decide. The considerations that the King must take into account are also not stated. And finally, there is no limit to the situations when a pardon can be granted on the basis of mercy. Whatever decision the King makes cannot be challenged in a court of law. The courts have consistently ruled that the discretion exercised is not justiciable. Nor can anything indirectly related to it be challenged – such as a delay in coming to a decision. (The above two paragraphs are quoted verbatim extensively from https://asklegal.my/p/malaysia-s-royal-pardons-system.html and http://www.thesundaily.my/node/297873).

Based on the above, there were rumours that Anwar Ibrahim would be released today (Friday 11 May), but this has been clarified by PKR, saying that the “legal process” would have to take place. According to Sivarasa Rasiah, PKR MP, “the process involves an application for pardon to be given to the Pardons Board, with documentation to be prepared. The Pardons Board will then have to hold a meeting, before a recommendation is made for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to decide”. Once he is pardoned and released, the next steps would be, if Tun Dr Mahathir is serious about having Anwar Ibrahim in place as the 8th Prime Minister, to confirm whether he is able to contest in an election or not. Lawyers need to confirm whether as a former convict, the constitutional requirement about not being able to contest for five years would still hold if a royal pardon is granted. Then if he is permitted to contest, to hold a by-election for a vacated Parliamentary seat in order for Anwar Ibrahim to return as a sitting MP, in order to be a prime ministerial candidate.

The third major announcement this morning was that full investigations on the Attorney-General (AG), the Election Commission (EC), and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) would be carried out, for suspected misconduct. In the case of the AG, he accused AG Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali to have broken the law by hiding evidence on the alleged misappropriation of funds in sovereign investment firm 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). On the MACC, whether or not they are biased and hence would need to be changed. Finally, whether the EC Chairman is biased and involved in corrupt practices, and if action would need to be taken against him. Swift action from the Prime Minister; it is hoped though that true institutional reform will be carried out, since even the powers of the Executive (concentrated within the Prime Minister’s Office) should not be absolute.

In the meantime, there are other local battles being fought, chief of which being in Sabah. BN won 29 seats, Warisan 21, PKR 2, DAP 6 and STAR (Jeffrey Kitingan’s party) 2. Initially it was thought that Warisan (Shafie Apdal) would be able to form government with all the other parties combined as this would make a simple majority of 31 seats of the 60, beating BN’s 29. Further, UPKO first announced it was leaving the BN coalition (it holds 5 state seats), but later this was retracted – apparently only its leader agreed to join Warisan, whereas the 5 ADUNs appear to be in favour of staying with BN. As a result, on Wednesday night 9 May 2018, BN announced the formation of a BN Sabah unity coalition government with STAR. On Thursday night 10 May, Musa Aman (Sabah BN Chairman) was sworn in as Chief Minister and Jeffrey Kitingan as Deputy Chief Minister. A spontaneous protest broke out outside Kota Kinabalu Istana, with people waving PKR flags. News is trickling out today (Friday 12 May) that Shafie Apdal was headed to the Istana, his purpose of the visit unknown. Two opposing coalitions are still fighting it out, to form Sabah’s new state government, although the swearing in of one side has already taken place.

In other states: As of late last night, Perak BN announced that it has enough seats to form the state government. BN has 27 seats in Perak, PAS 3 and PH 29. This indicates it might be cooperating with PAS to form government, and Zambry its former Menteri Besar is seeking an audience with Sultan Nazrin to seek his consent to form the state government. PAS has asked its members not to speculate, as the matter is still being discussed within their Majlis Syura (religious council). Kedah, however, has been called by PH – BN won 3, PAS 15 and PH 18 seats respectively. Its Menteri Besar Mukhriz Mohamed (also the state’s former MB under the BN government) has been sworn in officially.

This makes for very interesting analysis in days to come especially from a federalism perspective. Different states can form governments based on different parties in different coalitions now. This is really exciting and different in Malaysian politics. Where BN and PAS are cooperating in Perak, they are not doing the same in Kedah, nor at the federal level. State political parties are becoming more decentralised, it may seem. But PAS needs to be watchful, since its members have been campaigning against UMNO-BN, or at least partially so, and being in coalition with them even in one state might be disingenuous. So as it stands, BN holds 5 states (Perlis, Pahang, Sarawak, Perak (with PAS), and Sabah (with STAR)), PH holds 6 states (Penang, Kedah, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, Johor), and PAS holds 2 states (Kelantan and Terengganu).

It is a momentous time for Malaysia. Today, 11 May, marks UMNO’s official anniversary, 72 years after its formation in 1946. And it is in shambles. Already BN Penang is calling for Najib Razak to step down as the BN Chair, and the Kedah UMNO Youth is calling for him to step down as UMNO President. UMNO is having a “celebration” tonight for their anniversary, although I suspect it will be sombre and not very festive – a deep, hard look at itself is what’s needed. After all, we want a strong opposition to emerge too, to keep the PH government in check. BN recorded 36.42% of the popular vote, according to Malay Mail, its lowest ever in history. PH won 47.33% of the popular vote, but combined with Warisan in Sabah it is 49.54%, and combined with PH-backed independent Batu MP, 49.87%. (Official figures are yet to be released).

BN has had an incredible history, starting with the Alliance in 1955, and all component parties had a tremendously important role to play back then. But it has suffered a terrible rot from within; dissection and examination is required for real reform to make itself credible again in the future.

Posted in Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

Notes on a New Nation, Day 1

Posted on May 10, 2018 by Tricia

Notes on a New Nation
Day 1 Post-GE14, 10 May 2018

A few preliminary thoughts on what is happening right now in Malaysia. Unprecedented in our political history.

Yesterday on 9 May 2018, we saw the people of Malaysia voting for change against the incumbent Barisan Nasional. Pakatan Harapan the opposition coalition making up PKR, DAP, Amanah and PPBM won the hearts and minds of its citizens, sweeping the majority of our 222 Parliamentary seats and most of the states in the country. This was a clear signal that the leadership of Najib Razak is no longer respected and desired. Major leaders in Barisan were defeated including the MCA and MIC Presidents Liow Tiong Lai and Subramaniam in their seats Bentong and Segamat respectively.

The Election Commission performed its duties despite delaying the election results severely, causing most Malaysians watching the elections closely to stay up all night, myself included. As at early this morning, the results were out and reported accurately, thankfully. But due to recounts in several hot seats, a few seats seemed to change hands at the last minute. This included Wee Ka Siong’s seat in Ayer Itam, Johor (which he won, also after a recount).

Many conflicting pieces of information are flowing out of both formal and informal channels as I type. Although late last night, Ali Hamsa the government’s Chief Secretary issued an official statement declaring today (Thursday 10 May and Friday 11 May) are public holidays upon the wishes of “the Government”, leading many to believe the civil service had finally recognised the new government, this is not yet the case.

The processes to install a government in place post a general election are simple: The Election Commission first needs to declare the results and the winner. Following that, the leader of the party with the most seats won will be invited by the Yang DiPertuan Agong to be sworn in officially and appointed Prime Minister, to form the government.

However, there are many obstacles Pakatan Harapan has ahead of it. Because it is not a formal coalition (yes, they had applied for its registration but nothing came from the Registrar of Societies), it does not exist as an official entity that can be considered to form a government. The seat tally of the informal coalition stands at PKR (104), and DAP (9), so by right the 113 already surpasses the simple majority required to prove it commands the confidence of the majority of Malaysian voters.

Because there is no single party with a clear simple majority, Malaysia is now in a situation of a Hung Parliament. This was predicted by several analysts, myself included, as a possible electoral outcome given how tight the race was. This is a constitutional debacle now on procedure on how to proceed.

President of PKR, Dr Wan Azizah, can meet with the Agong to form the government. As I am not a lawyer, I am quoting extensively from Haris Ibrahim here: “If she chooses to abdicate that responsibility and appoint Mahathir with the consensus of the other parties that they choose to work with and who choose to work with them, including the 9 MPs from DAP and others, then and only then will Mahathir be sworn in as PM… Wan Azizah can by constitution meet with the Agong and accept appointment as PM to form the government with or without Mahathir’s agreement but not the other way around i.e. Mahathir cannot be PM without Wan Azizah’s agreement.”

However, this is not unprecedented procedure. Remember that in 2008, there was no official coalition since Pakatan Rakyat had not yet been formed at the time that Selangor, Penang, and Perak were won. All that was necessary was for the winning representatives to gather and amongst themselves elect a leader, and this leader with the respective party representatives to seek a meeting with the Sultan to show they commanded the majority of the state assembly. The same thing can happen at the federal parliament level here. Also, when the Perak state government was toppled in 2010, and the three pro-Pakatan assemblyperson jumped ship to be “Barisan-supporting independents”, the Perak Sultan was sufficiently satisfied that the new majority (without having to be in official coalition) commanded the majority of the state assembly. These are very crucial in setting the precedent for our situation now.

As for the states, Pakatan Harapan (again the official coalition would need to be established in order to form state governments) swept the states of Penang, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca and Johor. Barisan retains the states of Perlis, Pahang and Sarawak. PAS emerges quite strong out of this election, retaining Kelantan and winning over Terengganu – this is a recognition that conservative Islamic politics still has a major role to play in the country. Whoever emerges victor will have to negotiate with the Hadi version of PAS, which may be troubling news. The three states that remain at play are Kedah, Perak and Sabah. This is because of very close seat tallies. In Kedah, it is BN 3, PAS 15, PH 18 and Perak, it is BN 27, PAS 3 and PH 29, and in Sabah BN won 29 seats while all other parties (Warisan and others) make up 31 collectively.

The voter turnout was lower yesterday than in 2013, at 76% compared to 85% the last time. A voter turnout of lower than 85% was predicted to lead to a sure BN win. With the controversial redelineation too that strongly favoured BN, this result was completely unexpected and caught most pollsters and pundits by surprise. Only Invoke and Tun Daim Zainuddin seem to have gotten the prediction of a PH win right, although with some major flaws (e.g. Invoke predicted PAS would win zero state seats). Merdeka Centre got it wrong (predicted BN would win with 100 seats) but Pusat Ilham got it closer to the mark (predicted a PH win with 100 out of 165 Peninsular seats).

Outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak in a press conference at 11am this morning, although not outrightly conceding defeat (not even a congratulatory note to Tun Dr. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan), has said relatively clearly that the people have spoken and that “I accept the verdict of the people”. It is unlikely that he will be able to show to the Agong that he commands the confidence of the majority of Parliament.

11.35 million Malaysians voted in the country’s 14th general election. This is no mean feat, considering the mid-week polling day that caused major inconvenience. Overseas voters had to overcome late ballots arriving at their doorstep. These encumbrances led to Malaysians volunteering in a spirit never before seen, to carpool, finance transport and get votes back to the Election Commission by the 5pm deadline. It warms our hearts that we could come together in a show of great unity for the future of our children and nation.

Now, as at noon on 10 May 2018, the day after, Malaysia is in unprecedented territory. The first ever Hung Parliament in history, we anxiously await the decision of the Agong and hope that he, too, will ultimately prevail and prove that he has the best interests of the rakyat at heart.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Competition for better political and policy outcomes

Posted on April 28, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 26 April 2018 under the title “Competition for better outcomes”, here.

GRAB, the Malaysian home-grown riding app, recently bought over Uber in several Southeast Asian countries. Some of us avid users have already noticed a marked increase in riding costs, primarily because the app no longer features favourable promo codes and discounts.

Singapore’s Competition and Consumer Commission even plans to investigate if the take-over infringes competition laws as if so, Grab would be considered as monopolising the market, resulting in poor outcomes for both riders and drivers.

The modern capitalist world we live in is based on the principle that competition is healthy and provides positive outcomes for consumers. We shop for products, compare prices and quality, and congratulate ourselves when we emerge with the best possible item for our needs.

For that reason, we have laws penalising monopolies as they would dictate prices, thereby ending competitive practices that would have otherwise been to our benefit.

The same principle should apply to politics.

When parties compete with one another, they are forced to be on their toes to continually serve and satisfy the needs of their constituent voters.

The theory is that they would try to outwit the other through a slew of better policies, ideas, and services. Voters then judge based on these outcomes and decide who gets to stay in government for an additional term.

But just like in economics, politics requires a set of regulations to keep all the players in check on an equal and level playing field. This is ultimately the crucial key ingredient in maintaining fairness.

For goods and services, we have our own Competition Commission that regulates the market based on the Competition Act 2010. For elections, we have the Election Commission that regulates electoral practices based on the Elections Act 1958 and the Election Offences Act 1954.

The redelineation exercise managed by the Election Commission that resulted in severely malapportioned seats (in Selangor alone, the ratio between the largest and smallest constituencies is four to one) means that some constituencies would require a very small number of voters to secure a seat in Parliament, whereas in some others an extremely large number of voters is required.

This does not hold true to the principle of equal representation. This exercise has largely favoured the ruling incumbent Barisan Nasional, and will invariably be a main factor in determining outcomes at the general election.

Despite the unequal playing field that the opposition parties are dealing with, the opposition has managed to win over some states in the past.

Ten years ago in 2008, at the 12th general election, several states fell to the opposition – including states like Selangor, Penang, Kedah, and Perak, which was unprecedented.

Many had initially expressed concern that due to the lack of experience in governing, the opposition coalition would not be prepared to lead.

After all, they had only the previous experience of rallying on the streets.

Two terms later, despite some issues that each state government had to deal with over the last decade, many of which were not satisfactorily dealt with, it is clear that political parties other than the Barisan are able to rule when given the opportunity.

Whether or not they are governing well is a matter for the voters to decide – there are scores of “report cards”, administrative and financial outcomes that voters can use to decide on performance.

The point is that systems of government ought to be such that a takeover of government at any level – be it state or federal – is possible.

No one party must ever dominate government institutions such that a transition is not possible when the electorate demands so.

Countries around the world have experienced their own form of prolonged single-party dominant states, where it would not have been imaginable for their incumbent parties to be toppled. But it happened.

It happened in Mexico, when the dominant party Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) fell to the opposition National Action Party (PAN) after 71 years in power.

It happened in Taiwan when the Nationalist Party (KMT) fell to the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) after four decades (or eight decades if one includes KMT’s rule on the mainland before 1949).

In both cases, the opposition parties happened to secure victories at the subnational level first, before moving on to winning nationally.

In Mexico, PAN won over three states in 1994, before going on to defeat PRI’s two-thirds majority in Parliament and winning the 2000 presidential election.

In Taiwan, the opposition candidate from the DPP won the Taipei mayoral election in 1994 before going on to win the 2000 presidential election.

And there are times when the new government in power fails to impress voters, so that they are eventually voted out again.

In Japan, the incumbent Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) fell to the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in 2009, but the latter was voted out very quickly after a very short term of three years in government.

Of note is that the DPJ leader, Ichiro Ozawa, was originally part of the dominant LDP party to begin with before he chose to join the opposition.

Two-party and multi-party systems around the world have seen the change of parties taking place smoothly without experiencing tremendous upheaval.

What Malaysia needs is a political system that ensures such change can be allowed to happen should the voters will it – and then allow for a series of continuous changes, again if people choose as such.

Political transition can be done smoothly and efficiently; this just requires political maturity, which perhaps some might argue in their interests that our country is not yet ready for. This is archaic thinking.

Yes, laws that silence and suppress exist to be employed, but these are signs of weakness exercised only by those who fear change.

If we endorse competitive practices for good in the economic sense of the word, then it logically follows we should do the same for political practices.

Parties are much like companies that offer their goods and services to us as consumers. The transition between buying one brand to another should be smooth; after all, it is our hard-earned cash.

Similarly, the transition between one party to another in government ought to be equally facilitated, just like what happened in states like Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Perak in 2008, barring some strange events.

The ultimate goal is for political competition to ideally result in better policy and delivery outcomes for citizens of the country – better schools, universities, hospitals, economic policies, and local council services for all.

Posted in Economics, Elections, General Politics, Reflections | Leave a comment

In the contest for power, Malaysia’s resurgent states stake a claim

Posted on April 26, 2018 by Tricia

First published in New Mandala on 24 April 2018, here.

The era of dominant federal government may be over as leading states push for greater autonomy, resisting a centre compromised by scandal and policy drift.

Ahead of Malaysia’s 14th general election (GE14), Johor’s crown prince Tunku Ismail Ibrahim (popularly known as TMJ) issued a statement earlier this month essentially calling for the maintenance of the incumbent UMNO government. It was also a thinly veiled criticism of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed, who had curtailed the powers of the hereditary rulers during his 22 years in power, and who’s now leading the opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan (PH) as its prime minister-in-waiting. The royal houses rarely intervene so publicly in national political affairs, and the Johor royal family has made the headlines in recent years. Most cutting was the TMJ’s reminder to political leaders: “Do not question the sovereignty of Johor.”

Despite government being in caretaker mode, both federal and state-level parties have been offering ‘goodies’ to their voters in these final weeks before GE14’s polling day on 9th May. The federal Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) made 67,000 free RM800 (A$269) fuel cards available to taxi drivers in Peninsular Malaysia, while in Selangor state, chief minister Azmin Ali handed out cash allocations, laptops and iPads in his constituency. In Penang, responding to prime minister Najib Razak’s promise to remove road tolls for motorcyclists at the two bridges linking island and mainland Penang, chief minister Lim Guan Eng said all tolls would be abolished if PH takes federal power. In Johor, chief minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin announced that three entertainment parks worth almost RM8 billion (A$2.7 billion) would be built in the near future.

In an environment so highly focused on national-level politics, what role do the states play? Are federal-state relations relevant, and do they impact electoral outcomes in any way, and how?

MALAYSIA IS A complex creature. While it was formed as a constitutional federation and has all the trappings of a formal federalism, in reality it practises only a weak or highly centralised form of federalism. Over the years, greater power and control have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the federal government, starting with the abolishment of local council elections in 1965.

The federal government’s powers are far-reaching, and states have little say over their own state economies. Ever since the early 1970s, when then prime minister Tun Razak (Najib’s late father) initiated a policy of a kerajaan berparti or a government run on UMNO’s philosophy – at a time when the race-based affirmative action New Economic Policy (NEP) was being rolled out nationwide – states have been largely subservient to national-level ideology and direction. Up until 2008, UMNO and Barisan Nasional (BN) arguably considered states as natural extensions of the centre, operatives necessary to fulfill the national mandate of economic development – the more centralised, the more efficient.

Today, the Prime Minister’s Department budget alone is more than five times larger than the state budget of Selangor and almost nine times larger than Penang’s, according to the 2018 budget. Although policy areas such as local government and land are supposed to be under state jurisdiction, according to the federal constitution, there exist entities like the National Council for Local Government and National Land Council, both chaired by a federal minister, both with strong influence over how such matters are managed within the states. There are also numerous provisions in the federal constitution that permit the federal government to actively intervene in a state’s affairs. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) can declare an emergency with the advice of the Prime Minister for the sake of maintaining ‘national security and public order’, which is extendable to any matter within the legislative authority of a state.

In the context of Malaysia’s single-party dominance, where UMNO-BN has never lost power, it’s no surprise that, with a few exceptions, BN-controlled states are not as autonomous since their decisions are largely governed from the centre. Federal infrastructure projects would invariably receive the required state developmental order approval, for instance (states have the power to withhold this).

On the converse, whenever opposition parties have taken over state governments, they have been punished. For instance, oil-rich Kelantan and Terengganu have had their oil royalties withheld whenever opposition party Pas won power. The federal government banned log exports from Sabah that resulted in that state’s income falling drastically when it was under opposition rule in 1991. Budget cuts and delays in development project approvals have also been standard practice. Some states have resorted to depending on natural resources for their funding, since that is one of the few areas states manage. Sometimes this results in tragic outcomes: for instance, Kelantan was accused of excessive logging, which many argue resulted in the tragic floods of December 2014. Even BN-controlled states like Pahang (Najib’s home state) have also had to rely on natural resources to boost state income, through both logging and bauxite mining.

WHEN PAKATAN RAKYAT took over control of the states of Selangor, Penang, Perak, Kedah and Kelantan in the wake of 2008’s now historic 12th general elections, State Development Offices (SDOs) were physically removed from state premises, with funds directly channeled from the federal government and completely bypassing the new state governments. The federal government also set up Village Development and Safety Committees (JKKKP) that report directly to the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development. In the recent redrawing of election constituency boundaries, many individuals reportedly supporting the exercise and the new Selangor boundaries were in fact representatives of the JKKKP federal committees.

Malaysia’s richest states Selangor and Penang have had to contend with federal government interventions in multiple ways over the past decade, including federal instructions to civil servants that ran counter to the states’ agendas. Although civil servants are supposed to serve the government of the day, states’ senior civil servants (except in Johor) are appointed and promoted from the federal service and hence are put in the difficult position of serving two masters simultaneously.

For example, in 2010 when the Selangor state secretary was due to be replaced, the federal Public Service Commission announced the name of the new state secretary without the Selangor chief minister’s consultation. The chief minister called for a special state assembly sitting to amend the state constitution, which would give the chief minister and the Sultan of Selangor the power to choose senior state officials. But this proposed amendment did not get the required two-thirds majority in the state parliament, and the chief minister was forced to accept the federal government’s choice of a new state secretary against his will.

However, because these two states are highly industrialised and urbanised, they have had a different experience to previous opposition (non-BN) states, which were primarily rural in nature (Kelantan, Terengganu and Sabah). In the past, the BN federal government punished rural states by withholding funding and development, but it was no longer able to do the same in Selangor and Penang. These states have drawn from existing thriving industry, state-linked companies, and land development for their resources. Because these states also contribute disproportionately to the national economy, it was also foolhardy to threaten the economies of these states.

Over the past decade, both Selangor and Penang have sought to promote themselves as better-run states, demonstrating better budget outcomes and economic management, people-friendly services and policy delivery, and the ability to maintain investments and a strong economy. Such messages have been used by both states to position themselves as an alternative federal government model. In fact, some state policies have been imitated at federal level: Selangor’s Rumah Mampu Milik low-cost housing programme arguably inspired the federal-level PR1MA programme.

Selangor used its legislative assembly’s Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (SELCAT) to investigate corruption cases under the previous chief minister Khir Toyo of UMNO-BN. Selangor’s UMNO has not been able to recover from these negative perceptions, and lacking a strong leader, the state opposition has been weak. Previous state patronage systems have also been redirected, resulting in curtailed revenue streams that would have previously accrued back to central UMNO headquarters. Both Selangor and Penang state governments introduced Freedom of Information Enactments and implemented asset declaration systems for their Exco (state ministry) members. These two measures are unprecedented, and have not been replicated by other state governments nor the federal government.

THERE WERE MANY occasions in which overlapping jurisdictions caused confusion in opposition-held states. The Selangor government bore the brunt of dissatisfaction over several water shortage incidents in the state over the past decade. ‘Water supplies and services’ was transferred from the Federal Constitution’s state list to the concurrent list in 2005, where both federal and state government have joint control over how water is treated and distributed in states. The restructuring has been a long drawn out process because of disagreements between the federal and state governments, made more complicated because there were four separate concessionaires to negotiate with. But voters care little for the details, and demand the issue be resolved quickly.

Such federal-state political competition has allowed other states to embolden themselves. For instance, the states of Sarawak and Sabah have become increasingly vocal in their demands for greater autonomy and to restore the terms of the Malaysia Agreement of 1963. The Sarawak state assembly passed a motion to demand a 20% royalty, instead of the 5% that the state currently receives in petroleum revenue sharing agreements with the federal government, Petronas and international oil companies. Sabah opposition politicians followed suit to demand the same. Negotiating with Putrajaya has resulted in Sarawak being able to set up its own oil and gas company, Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (PETROS), which is to work with Petronas and become an active player in the oil and gas industry by 2020. BN-led Johor has also fluffed its feathers, where crown prince Tunku Ismail Ibrahim declared in 2015 that the state had a right to secede from Malaysia if the terms of the federal agreement are violated, and the term ‘Bangsa Johor’ (the Johor race) has been used repeatedly to mark out a specific state identity, separate from the rest of the nation’s.

Having an opposition coalition leading at the state level offers voters a glimpse into how it will govern at the national level. The picture isn’t always rosy, where there have been complications, in part due to the intra-coalition conflicts on religion and race. More so in Selangor than in the more ethnically homogeneous states of Penang, Kelantan and Kedah. Selangor has had to deal with sensitive issues such as alcohol, entertainment centres, the relocation of a Hindu temple, and the confiscation of Malay Bibles. In so doing, the state government has had to find a delicate balance where all parties – of various inclinations –will agree to compromise. Although the Islamist party Pas is no longer part of this coalition, its representatives were in the Selangor Exco right up to the recent dissolution of the state assembly. Selangor Pas was less vehement in its criticisms of other coalition partners like the DAP, compared to their national counterparts. Hence the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition outlasted its national coalition (which has regrouped with different partners as Pakatan Harapan), presumably because it wanted to enjoy the benefits that state power provides. Perhaps this predicts a future in which state and national coalitions need not be formed with the same parties?

There have also been allegations of continued patronage within the states of Selangor and Penang, through well-oiled deals with private developers and contracts at local councils, demonstrating that opposition-led states are unable to break out of the BN model of patronage politics. But unless political party financing is reformed, all parties will depend on such patronage systems for survival. Politicians in Malaysia are expected to provide their constituents with money – gifts for funerals, weddings, mosques, associations and so on. And being in opposition is no exception. In fact, the political culture of clientelism is so deeply rooted that the constituents expect it of their elected representatives.

Selangor and Penang would have likely remained under opposition hands at this GE14, except for the federal Election Commission’s (EC) redelineation exercise which has significantly redrawn constituency boundaries in Selangor – the state the BN desperately wants to win back. BN holding federal power and influence over the EC has resulted in drastically malapportioned seats in the state. In short, states are helpless against federal interventions into its constituency boundaries, directly affecting electoral outcomes.

In some – but not all – cases, the successes of Selangor and Penang have been used as a narrative to convince voters of the economic possibilities these states can achieve in opposition PH hands. Whether such successes can be replicated is dependent on the nature of the state, and only Johor is similar to Selangor in urban and demographic makeup. Other states the opposition hopes to win over like Kedah are more rural. There are other indications that voters in Kelantan are likely to support BN over Pas, given the latter has been unable to contribute meaningful economic development to the state – thanks primarily to issues described above where rural opposition states are cut off from federal resources.

Healthy political competition between the federal and state governments has expanded policy possibilities, as both levels observe, challenge, adapt, learn from, and imitate the other. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that states – especially those led by the opposition – are becoming increasingly conscious of their distinctive state identities. Some have expressed their desires for greater autonomy and independence, and are challenging what was previously considered a de facto centralised federal government. This new federal-state dynamic is something any ruling federal government will have to get used to.

Posted in Economics, Federalism, General Politics, Public Administration, Selangor, Transparency and Good Governance, Water | Leave a comment

Travel inconveniences and work exigencies may discourage blue-collared Malaysians from returning home to vote

Posted on April 20, 2018 by Tricia

First published on Channel NewsAsia on 17 April 2018, here.

Commentary: Travel inconveniences and work exigencies may discourage blue-collared Malaysians from returning home to vote 

Tricia Yeoh

Train and bus tickets are in shortage, suggesting that many blue-collared Malaysians may not return to vote in Malaysia’s general election, says one observer.

KUALA LUMPUR: For the first time since the first parliamentary election in Malaya in 1959, Malaysia will hold its general election on a Wednesday, right smack in the middle of the week.

After many months of speculation, the Election Commission finally announced polling day will fall on May 9.

Previous elections have been held on weekdays, but these were on either Mondays or Tuesdays, or across a few days, but most have been on a weekend.

UNNECESSARY INCONVENIENCE

As many observers have pointed out, this creates unnecessary inconvenience for voters, schools (schools are not on holiday that week) and companies. Although the Malaysian government hastily declared it a public holiday after some public backlash, this still requires employees returning home to vote to take additional days of leave to travel long distances.

Malaysian civic action responded rapidly, with multiple platforms being set up to carpool and raise funds for those unable to afford the transportation fees to return.

Airlines such as Cathay Pacific, AirAsia, and Malindo also announced a waiver for flight charges or rebooking fees for Malaysians.

Several companies have committed to sponsoring their staff’s travel expenses, while one homestay in Johor is providing free accommodation for returning voters.

NOT ENOUGH TO ENSURE HIGH VOTER TURNOUT

These are commendable acts on the part of Malaysians to promote citizens’ duties to exercise their right to vote, but will this be enough to ensure a high voter turnout?

Voter turnout in the last three general elections was relatively high, with an 86 per cent turnout in 2013 (the highest ever recorded in a Malaysian general election), 76 per cent turnout in 2008 and 73.9 per cent in 2004.

However, the last time the election was held on a weekday, voter turnout was 69 per cent, in 1999. Even so, this was a Monday, and a Wednesday polling day would conceivably have a greater impact on lowering voter turnout even further, despite efforts to provide commute.

OVERSEAS MALAYSIANS IMPACTED

Companies and Malaysians working overseas will be forced to deal with disrupted work activities on at least two to three days of that week.

Those who cannot afford to give up either their Tuesdays or Wednesdays due to previous work arrangements that cannot be rescheduled, whether they be conferences or meetings will simply have a much lower incentive to travel back to vote.

This includes professionals, managers, executives, technicians and workers living in neighbouring countries, including Singapore where there are an estimated 400,000 or more Malaysian work permit holders, and Hong Kong.

While several Singaporean companies have granted leave to their Malaysian staff to vote, Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi was reported to have said if employers from Singapore do not permit them leave, the best thing to do is not to come back to vote.

BLUE-COLLARED WORKERS IMPACTED

It is also unlikely that blue-collar factory workers in particular, including those working in menial labour would have the option of taking leave to travel home to vote.

The Election Offences Act 1954 requires every employer to give its staff a reasonable period to vote. Employers who do not allow their staff to vote on polling day may be subject to a fine or imprisonment.

However, while some companies have the luxury of closing shop for several days, construction projects are typically set on strict schedules. Factories, eateries, and other service providers also need to be operational despite Wednesday being a public holiday.

This may impact overseas blue-collared workers working in Singapore the most. A study by financial inclusion group Microfinance Gateway found that the majority of Malaysian work permit holders in Singapore work within the manufacturing and service sectors. The majority of the 400,000 Malaysians working in Singapore are in blue-collar jobs, whose salaries average around S$2,500 per month, according to Malaysian news reports.

These workers are unlikely to be connected to well-intentioned carpooling or funding initiatives active on social media platforms.

They might therefore simply choose not to have their wages reduced for the chance to vote, especially if they have to cough up their own money for the return journey or if taking additional days off would impact their jobs.

LIMITED TICKETS

Even for Malaysians planning to return home to their hometowns to vote, they may not be able to given limited tickets.

The national train service announced last week that tickets for its Electric Train Service (ETS) from Kuala Lumpur to Ipoh and other northern destinations have been sold out for both May 8 and 9.  Express bus tickets from Kuala Lumpur to the north, Kelantan and Terengganu have also sold out, and it remains to be seen if bus companies will provide additional services. Traffic on the roads that week will be an additional hurdle for voters and transport providers alike.

TIME TO EXERCISE RIGHT TO VOTE

Voting every five years is a chief opportunity for Malaysians to meaningfully exercise their right to participate in the country’s democratic processes. It is therefore unfortunate that authorities called for polling day on a mid-week. It is even more unfortunate that a political analyst has predicted that a lower voter turnout of 70 per cent would restore a two-third majority to ruling incumbents Barisan Nasional, suggesting that the choice of voting day was motivated by a political agenda.

While it is positive that Malaysians have responded quickly and organically to encourage fellow citizens to return home to vote, unless citizens are truly individually motivated by the need for change, it is unlikely that this will significantly impact the likely lower voter turnout in the upcoming general election. But against the odds, matching the previous election turnout figures would surely reflect a keen and healthy desire of voters to express their democratic rights and have a say in the future of the nation.

Posted in Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

Government knows best

Posted on April 5, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 29 March 2018, here.

IN April 2009, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak famously pronounced that “the era where the government imposed excessive controls and adopted the attitude of ‘government knows best’ is over”. He also said that achieving a peaceful and prosperous country is when the government and the people worked together to meet this objective.

Nine years later, as the country is on the cusp of the 14th general election, a new bill has been tabled in Parliament that seems to be the very antithesis of that statement.

The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 proposes a fine of up to RM500,000 or a 10-year jail term for offenders, who would be considered anyone – Malaysian or not, inside the country or out – who knowingly creates, offers, publishes, prints, distributes, circulates or disseminates any fake news or publication containing fake news.

The term “knowingly” is what many lawyers and rights groups are questioning to be key in the interpretation of this section – “knowingly” according to whom? Second, who is to decide what constitutes “fake news”? Will there be a Truth Commission set up to verify any and every possible bit of information? Would opinions by a columnist that may seem contrary to the position taken by the authorities also be deemed as untruths and therefore liable under the new law?

These developments do not only stand the risk of infringing upon citizens’ freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, but it has much deeper and long-term implications on society.

While true that fake news is unwelcome, and it can be difficult to sift through the news to determine what is verified or not, it is not the duty of the state to determine when a piece of information is fake or not. This assumes that the individual no longer has the conscience nor responsibility to judge for oneself.

A government that decides on its citizens’ behalf what is true and false is a government that interferes unduly with their personal choice, namely a nanny state, reminiscent of George Orwell’s Big Brother state in his book 1984. This leads to the consequent question of what is the role of government, essentially?

An IDEAS paper published in 2010 – but still very relevant today – answers this, stating that the only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. This means the government has no business interfering in people’s lives and telling them what to do (by encouraging or discouraging certain activities) or what to think and believe (through censorship and stifling of opinions) – because, simply, “these actions constitute a violation of individual rights, which is in direct contrast to the government’s proper purpose: the protection of rights”.

The problem with governments that excessively intervene in the private and personal lives of individuals is that citizens eventually find it impossible to pursue their values and further their lives in the ways they so desire. The opportunities that we humans want to freely, happily and successfully pursue – whether in the form of writing, creative arts, politics, academia or otherwise – would become that much more difficult when faced with the large, looming shadow of the state telling us what is and is not permissible.

Malaysians have become used to living under a big government. This piece of legislation is yet another in a series of existing laws that already hamper our ability to speak and write critically, including the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Sedition Act whose clauses are particularly open for wide interpretation.

Our national schools have introduced “higher order thinking skills” into the curriculum, supposedly to increase thinking skills among children to nurture and equip Malaysia’s next generation of innovators to think critically. This seems rather farcical, where on the one hand we are hoping to develop critical thinking skills in primary schoolchildren, but when they grow up, we aim to stifle critical thinking among adults.

History has shown us the disastrous effects of a government that first possesses, and then later uses and abuses its excessive power over its citizens. I believe this is what Najib Abdul Razak aimed to avoid when he said that the era of government knows best is over. Unfortunately, things seem to have changed somewhat over the last decade. Government now knows best.

Posted in General Politics, Liberalism, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Malaysian opposition presents younger array of leaders, amid unhealthy political culture

Posted on March 10, 2018 by Tricia

First published on Channel NewsAsia on 3 March 2018, here.

Commentary: Malaysian opposition presents younger array of leaders, amid unhealthy political culture

Tricia Yeoh

Where political culture traditionally favours seniority and age, the opposition has demonstrated efforts to groom and expose younger politicians, says one expert from the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian parliament will automatically dissolve on Jun 24, and elections must be held by August 2018 at the very latest.

But speculation is rife that elections will be held in early May, before fasting month begins on May 16.

As the hype towards the 14th general election grows, the primary question on voters’ minds is who will take over as the next Prime Minister and form the next array of the country’s future leaders?

The opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan in December 2017 made its startling announcement that the Prime Minister-in-waiting is none other than Dr Mahathir Mohamed.

This has sparked huge debate among analysts and critics, chief among which is the criticism that Mahathir was in fact the leader who created many structural flaws that have allowed current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to remain in power despite corruption allegations .

DEARTH OF NEW LEADERSHIP?

Another more sobering critique is that this reflects the dearth of new leadership among a coalition that claims it represents the future.

In the event of a national opposition win, Dr Mahathir’s appointment as Prime Minister is expected to only be transitory until Anwar Ibrahim – likely to be released from prison in June 2018 but who will be unable to contest in the upcoming elections – is given a royal pardon, in the hopes this leads to his eventual appointment as the subsequent Prime Minister.

The resulting narrative is that the same two faces that occupied the number one and two top positions in the Barisan government in 1998 may yet again lead the nation.

This has not helped the public perception that younger opposition politicians do not have opportunities to advance the political ranks of leadership as rapidly as they should.

Those who take this view may have expected opposition leaders such as Azmin Ali, Selangor Chief Minister, to have been named a potential Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister candidate. Azmin has led the state of Selangor relatively successfully since September 2014.

The situation looks more dismal if one examines the incumbent Barisan Nasional parties. The political leadership in UMNO is in the hands of Prime Minister Najib Razak, but the question surely should be: Who is next in line after Najib?

Other prominent UMNO leaders like Deputy President Zahid Hamidi and Najib’s cousin Hishammuddin Hussein have been active in politics for the last four to five decades. Other reform-minded leaders like International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa Mohamed and Higher Education Minister Idris Jusoh are turning 68 and 63 respectively this year, and the former has been rumoured to retire from federal politics soon.

The only other younger prominent personalities within UMNO are Khairy Jamaluddin, son-in-law to former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, and present Youth and Sports Minister, as well as possibly Sabah-born Rahman Dahlan, a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Apart from these figures, one is hard-pressed to identify national leaders with the necessary calibre and experience to form a strong team for Malaysia as it heads towards 2020, the target year for the country to achieve developed nation status.

Other Barisan component parties do not boast an array of new leaders either, not least due to their poor performance in the last election. MCA’s senior representatives on the Cabinet, Liow Tiong Lai and Wee Ka Siong are hardly new faces, whilst MIC only has a sole representative 64-year-old Subramaniam Sathasivam.

NEWER YOUNGER FACES

The opposition’s resort to old-timers filling the top two posts has fueled the observation that other significant personalities in the coalition are similarly long-time politicians including Parti Bersatu’s Muhyiddin Yassin (former Deputy Prime Minister), Mukhriz Mahathir (Dr Mahathir’s son and former Kedah Chief Minister) and DAP’s Lim Guan Eng (current Penang Chief Minister).

But the opposition promises a wider array of younger leaders.

The Pakatan coalition offers a significantly larger number of younger leaders compared to the incumbent Barisan Nasional parties. Keadilan’s Nurul Izzah Anwar and Rafizi Ramli, and DAP’s Liew Chin Tong, Tony Pua and Ong Kian Ming are just a few.

One of the advantages the opposition has is that it leads two prominent state governments. Selangor and Penang are two of the richest, most urbanised and industralised states in the country.

Younger personalities have been able to take advantage of this by being placed in leadership positions there, and gain the necessary experience and credibility – especially crucial in the opposition’s claims of being reform-minded, where experiments can be first carried out at a smaller scale.

Although Barisan parties have their youth wings, young Pakatan leaders are given opportunities to shine. 39-year old Hannah Yeoh is the youngest and the first female state legislative assembly speaker in the country, while 36-year old Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is a member of the state executive council, both appointed by the Selangor state government.

Even younger is 32-year old Dr Afif Bahardin in the Penang state executive council.

In comparison, Barisan, leading 10 other states in the country, has not equally placed their young politicians in leadership positions, nor projected them forward as public personas to the same degree.

COMPETITION OF NEW POLICY IDEAS

Some of the younger opposition leaders named have demonstrated their mettle on public policy issues. Many have been prolific writers, thinkers and proactive opinion shapers.

Through the presentation of op-eds, papers and books, public engagement, and visible interactions with local, independent think tanks and civil society groups, they have shown more thought leadership on critical issues compared to their Barisan counterparts. With former IDEAS CEO Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Bersih champions Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah rumoured to be joining Pakatan Harapan in the coming weeks, this will be even more evident.

The trouble on the Barisan’s side stems from political inertia – when a coalition is in power for an indefinite period with no significant challenge, there tends to be a lack of competition of ideas on public policy.

There is minimal policy debate within the ranks of UMNO. Because it has held power for so long, most policy thinking and analysis are contained within the executive arm of government, whether from ministers themselves or in discussions among civil servants, political appointees and aides, or external consultants.

The resulting perception is that policymaking remains the domain of elites, even as most Malaysians are gravely concerned about day-to-day issues like the cost of living.

Unless politicians are appointed into the executive, and only senior politicians have such opportunities, younger Barisan politicians find their policy exposure and ability to demonstrate their worth to the ranks of their parties unfortunately limited.

Consequently, can we really blame the Malaysian public for wondering if they are fit to lead?

HIERARCHY AND AGE

There are also other factors at play in Malaysia, a traditionally hierarchical society, where positions are given based on tenure and age. The unsaid rule is one needs to therefore bide his time before being rewarded with a substantive post.

The party structure, especially in a party as conservative as UMNO, is not inherently geared towards meritocracy. And if it is not careful, Bersatu – Dr Mahathir’s party now part of the opposition coalition that consists of many former UMNO members – may end up inheriting the same archaic political culture.

To groom the next generation of leaders in public policymaking and politics, older politicians must be willing to train and provide leadership positions to younger members.

This must be done early; such that younger leaders will have both the time and space to develop the necessary required skills.

The examples set by the Selangor and Penang state governments are good, but are not enough. New faces should be brought in at the local council levels, groomed upward at the state and national levels, and given more prominent leadership positions if they have proven their worth.

Policy debate must be rigorously encouraged at the party and coalition levels; yet not enough of this is being done by either side.

Finally, older leaders must be willing to step aside for new blood when the time is right. This is arguably the hardest thing to do, if political parties are pre-occupied with winning just this one election.

Tricia Yeoh is chief operating officer of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

A new civil society-political relationship?

Posted on March 6, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 1 March 2018 here.

OVER the last few weeks, speculation has been rife that several prominent civil society leaders will be making the leap into active politics.

This was first prompted by Wan Saiful Wan Jan’s announcement that he is leaving the independent think tank IDEAS, which has led to rumours that he will join a political party in order to contest in the upcoming general election. Other bigwigs rumoured to jump into the fray include Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah, both of Bersih 2.0 renown.

This is not a new phenomenon, in which members of civil society feel compelled to join frontline politics.

In 2008, many prominent individuals similarly left civil society to contest, and subsequently win, as elected representatives. These included the likes of Elizabeth Wong (now Selangor state executive council member) and Sivarasa Rasiah (now Subang member of Parliament), both of whom were regular faces in the human rights and activism scene.

It is not an altogether unsurprising phenomenon either, since those who are actively involved in advocating fundamental rights and improving political democracy in the country would also be the same individuals who feel that they may be able to do more given a strong political platform.

Of course, it is debatable as to which platform offers one the bigger, better opportunity to do more good and ignite change – within neutral civil society or partisan political ground. The answer is that individuals within both these spheres play an equally important role.

The position occupied by civil society is crucial in keeping politicians in check, whether in power or in opposition. Non-partisan organisations are able to constructively criticise where criticism is due, observe, monitor and report on areas they believe politicians are failing in, especially in relation to their constituents’ interests.

Good governance, transparency, and integrity are some of the commonly held principles that civil society tends to hold their representatives accountable to.

This is an important space to maintain, such that the independence and credibility of the civil society organisation in question is not compromised.

In fact, these were some of the debates that took place within civil society in the years following the 2008 event, in which individuals who joined the then opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat would have naturally had a close relationship with existing human rights and civil society organisations. To what extent can this distance be maintained?

Or in fact, should there be such a distance at all, since if civil society’s primary role is to advocate a certain cause, and by ensuring individuals within the political corridors of power are kept well-informed, this allows for the greatest possible change?

For example, within the first term of the Pakatan government in Selangor, it was possible for the Coalition of Good Governance – a coalition of civil society organisations – to advocate for a Freedom of Information Enactment to be legislated within the Selangor state government, made relatively easier by the presence of Elizabeth Wong. This was the first such state enactment to have been passed, eventually followed by the Penang state government, and is still considered a landmark piece of legislation today.

However, there were also failures where efforts to push for local council elections were in vain as the opposition coalition dealt with internal differences as to whether that was the right way forward. As with many things, the answer probably depends.

In this case, the proximity of civil society and politics depends on the nature of the relationship being cultivated and the actors involved.

It would be considerably negative if the relationship resulted in cronyism for the sake of lucrative exchange of contracts, or if civil society chooses to remain silent on the dubious wrongful actions of politicians in positions of power.

However, it would be positive if the objective of the relationship is to ensure that public policy reform is achieved. If both parties are actively working towards better governance, then this close relationship can be encouraged.

However, one important caveat to note is that once individuals join politics, it is often that their interests change rapidly.

First, they are obliged to follow a certain political position, which may at times be contrary to the individual’s own. One now needs to act and speak on behalf of the party collective as opposed to the individual per se.

Second, the motivations are also fundamentally different. Where in civil society, the motives can still be arguably said to remain uninfluenced by power, in politics one is invariably incentivised by power – after all, to gain power is the very domain of being in politics. If not, one is in no position to institute change. And if that is so, then those contesting to win are influenced by the extent to which their voters will support them, which requires providing populist promises most of the time.

Therein lies the dilemma for those in politics; to compromise one’s own values or not, if at all. There are those fortunate few who do not need to compromise on their belief systems, but this is rare and would apply where one’s position, both in the party and electorally, is absolutely secure.

On a final note, it is positive that individuals with the breadth and depth of experience in civil society are choosing to play an even more active role in public life through politics since they would be well-positioned to understand the grave problems our country is going through.

They would also be more sympathetic and open to receiving proposals from civil society in improving socioeconomic and government policy, which is promising for long-term reform should they obtain and maintain prominence.

However, it is also equally imperative that civil society itself regroups – as it had to do after the 12th general election in 2008 – and reconsiders its own leadership gaps. Civil society will always play that sometimes annoying, but irreplaceable role of public watchdog.

In order to maintain the success that existing organisations like IDEAS and Bersih, among others, have played in the last decade as pressure groups, it is hoped that new leadership emerges and carries on the torch for the next phase in what will likely be a new civil society-political relationship.

Posted in Civil Society, Elections, General Politics, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Independent Institutions Needed Now

Posted on February 22, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 15 February 2018, here.

AS the nation gears itself up for the 14th general election, it is inevitable that political parties will try to woo their electorate with promises. And try they should, to display policies they believe in and would implement if given the mandate to rule.

Civil society groups have also launched initiatives to pressure politicians to commit to what they consider to be priorities for the country’s future. Of the latter, two coalitions – Governance, Integrity, Accountability and Transparency (GIAT, a group of independent organisations) and Gabungan Kiri (a group of left-leaning individuals) – have emerged with proposals they feel important. What is common among their proposals is a strong emphasis on good governance, transparency and independent institutions.

The call for institutions that are independent from the executive is not new. Activists and opposition politicians have long derided the highly-centralised system of government in Malaysia, stating that the executive is given too much power. An ideal balance would see the other arms of government, namely the judiciary and legislative, as equally robust and able to carry out their duties independently without the fear of political interference. Whether the interference takes place is another matter altogether; that the possibility remains open is sufficient for concern.

The danger of an all-powerful executive is made evident when the rules governing the country are no longer non-partisan but lean more favourably towards one side over another. The court sentencing of PKR Member of Parliament Rafizi Ramli to 30 months’ jail for revealing banking details related to the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd has raised eyebrows. The case involved some RM250 million in public funds spent on the cattle-rearing project in Gemas that no longer has any cattle or staff, and Rafizi had exposed the company’s purchase of luxury condominium units in 2011.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers needs immediate addressing, where there should be a clear separation between the role of the public prosecutor and that of the attorney-general. Currently, the two roles are fused into one person, which is a conflict of interest since one person’s role is to prosecute any wrongdoing and act on behalf of public interest, while the other is to be principal legal adviser to the government. The conflict of interest is bound to arise if and when there are cases in which public and government interests clash.

The legislative arm of government is equally crucial in keeping the government accountable. Parliament is where our elected representatives essentially are supposed to make the laws that govern us, and raise questions on our behalf. Unless they are part of the ruling government today, however, members of Parliament unfortunately have fewer opportunities to do this than we imagine. Because bills are tabled at the last minute, MPs do not have enough time to study draft bills and comprehensively critique them. Ideally each ministry should have a cross-partisan parliamentary select committee that has access to ministry accounts for regular scrutinising, which would greatly increase the chances of spotting mismanagement of funds early on, as opposed to letting corrupt scandals balloon out of proportion at which point the money is no longer recoverable.

Of course, within the executive itself, certain agencies must also be given the independence to carry out their tasks. In fact, the integrity of their institutions very much depends on their independence; the lack thereof would make a mockery of their ability to execute their duties effectively. Two key institutions are the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Election Commission, the latter being particularly relevant this election year.

The MACC is of special concern, given their heavy responsibilities of investigating corruption and recommending prosecutions. Considering numerous corruption cases that have plagued our country in recent years, it is more imperative than ever that they are given the right to investigate cases freely. Some ways of addressing this include having the MACC be answerable to Parliament instead of the prime minister, allowing them to hire and fire their staff (right now they draw from the common civil service pool), and having a commission that has some independent representatives drawn from civil society or professional bodies.

Recently, it was reported that MACC withdrew 47 of its certified integrity officers from ministries and agencies, replaced by in-house integrity officers trained by the National Integrity and Good Governance Department. It is positive that there is a greater focus on the mainstreaming and institutionalisation of integrity and good governance, which is a much broader scope than looking at just corruption alone, since many incidents may not strictly fall into the “corrupt” category but are considered problematic under a good governance agenda. However, to more holistically address these issues, officers working on both anti-corruption and integrity cases should be collaborating instead.

Our failure at protecting the integrity and independence of these crucial institutions will come at a heavy cost. As the younger generations of Malaysians observe there is no respect for the rule of law at the highest levels of power, they too are unlikely to adhere to the rules. This presents a more serious problem: what values are we passing on to our children? Why teach them honesty, integrity and uprightness when these values do not pay off in the long run? If we believe fundamentally in preserving a society that upholds good morals for the sake of the individual and the collective, we must be serious about reforming the institutions of government and nation that are supposed to protect us all. And so should the political parties that aim to get our votes.

Posted in Civil Society, Elections, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment