Arnold Puyok
Sabah’s electorates are not always kind to defecting party leaders – or infamously known as “katak-ing” in Sabah. In 1994, the then opposition PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) leaders left the party either to join BN or to form their own parties.
The mass defections from PBS forced the party to give up power to BN. And the 1995 general election results were telling: some of the defecting leaders lost in the election.
The voters were clearly angry and were not afraid to punish the “buhangkut” (a Kadazandusun word for frog), such as Jeffrey Kitingan, Bernard Dompok, Monggoh Orow, Othman Minudin and Limun Laikim.
The story did not end there. In the 1999 state election, more of the defecting leaders were punished. Dompok, who worked to get back his former Moyog constituency, was once again defeated.
PBS offshoots such as the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), Parti Demokratik Sabah (PDS) and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) failed to make inroads.
The 1995 and 1999 elections results combined indicate the response of the voters towards elected representatives who jumped from one party to another.
Sabah voters driven by personality politics
One should understand that Sabah voters in general are driven by personality politics and parochialism. This partly explains why errant elected representatives are often punished in the elections by the voters.
So, instead of boosting BN’s strength in Sabah, the recent resignations of PKR members and their pledge to support the ruling party could well backfire.
The decision made by Prime Minister and BN chief Najib Abdul Razak and Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman to hold a press conference to welcome the former PKR members is a wrong strategy to boost the ruling party’s popularity.
In fact, it may cause BN to lose support, especially in the Kadazandusun-majority areas.
Instead of accepting the former PKR leaders and trying to make it appear as if support for BN is growing, the ruling party should go to the ground and understand the reasons why it was rejected by mostly the Kadazandusun voters.
Of course, no one should be prevented from joining and supporting the BN cause, but to make a big fuss of the admission into BN by “disgruntled” and “insignificant” former members of PKR shows that the ruling party is desperate to win support.
Najib might want to create an impression that PKR is losing support and BN is slowly gaining ground.
But he should know the fact that Sabah politicians can change their political allegiance as fast as a “girl changes clothes” – to borrow a line from American singer Katy Perry’s lyrics.
Anwar was also trying to create the same impression when accepting Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin into PKR. But he was not able to use the two former BN leaders to increase support for the opposition.
In fact, PKR was in tatters due to acrimony between the party’s pioneering members in Sabah and supporters of the two former BN leaders.
The only way for BN to increase its popularity in Sabah is to understand what the electorates want and to address these matters fast.
BN has no reason not to do this because it has the power and resources to solve people’s problems.
The BN must not listen too much to Sabah leaders who say they are fighting for the people when in fact they are only interested in fighting for their own personal interests. The same goes for PKR, if it wants to provide the alternative to BN.
PKR cannot continue to allow internal bickering to weaken its presence in Sabah. It has to move fast to address its structural weaknesses and to turn itself into a mass political organisation.
The only way to do this is to allow for a succession plan to take place, so that the younger generation of leaders can chart a new strategy to ensure effective opposition politics in Sabah.
Source: http://borneoinsider.com/2013/12/05/sabah-defections-may-backfire-on-bn-buhangkut-will-be-punished/
Thursday, 5 December 2013
The non-fulfillment of the Malaysia Agreement: Who is to blame?
Arnold Puyok
In 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaya formed what is now called Malaysia. But the forming of Malaysia was not without challenges. In terms of population demography, Sabah and Sarawak were more culturally heterogeneous than Peninsular Malaya.
Sabah and Sarawak were also economically under-developed. Due to Sabah and Sarawak’s distinctive characters, they were allowed to make specific demands as part of a deal before their incorporation into Malaysia.
These demands were known as the 20-point memorandum for Sabah and 18-point memorandum for Sarawak. Both memorandums were later used as a guide by the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahans and Sarawakians about Malaysia.
The demands were later discussed in the Inter-Governmental Committee before their incorporation into the Federal Constitution. At the London talks in July 1963, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore agreed to sign the Malaysia Agreement.
The signing of the agreement was significant because it paved the way for the enactment of the Malaysia Act (Act No. 26 of 1963) which sealed the formation of Malaysia. With the enactment of the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution took over from the Malayan Constitution as a new “document of destiny” for Malaysia. The rights and privileges for Sabah and Sarawak are clearly stated in the Federal Constitution (Articles 161, 161A, 161B, 161E).
Apart from becoming a supreme document in the land, the Federal Constitution also reflects the new political reality in Malaysia. It should be stated that Malaysia was formed through the merging of three separately independent entities – Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.
However, some people argue that the federal government does not honour the 20/18-point memorandum. The issue becomes complicated when the legality of the 20/18-point is questioned. For some, raising the 20/18-point is akin to flogging a dead horse because it is already incorporated into the Federal Constitution. For others, the 20/18-point is a legal document and it is the federal government’s duty to fulfill the demands of Sabah and Sarawak before their incorporation into Malaysia. But ironically, the non-fulfillment of the 20-point demands were a work of Sabah own leaders.
In 1973, Sabah Chief Minister Mustapha Harun of Usno (United Sabah National Organisation) amended the State Constitution to make Islam the official religion of Sabah. In the 20-point memorandum, Sabah leaders requested for Islam not to be made official religion because the majority of the population was non-Muslims and many were not inclined towards Islam.
Mustapha continued to amend the State Constitution to make Bahasa Melayu the official language in replace of English. The 20-point stated that English should be the “official language of [Sabah] for all purposes, [s]tate or [f]ederal without limitation of time”. Mustapha’s actions were driven by his beliefs that Sabah could only be developed under one religion (Islam), one language (Bahasa Melayu), and one culture (Malay).
In 1976, the 20-point and Sabah’s autonomy were further eroded by Mustapha’s successor Harris Salleh of Berjaya who surrendered the state’s control over natural resources to the federal government. In 1984, Harris continued with his massive federalisation policies by surrendering Labuan. In 1991, the federal influence in Sabah came to its high point with the establishment of Umno and other Peninsular-based parties in the state. Most of the Usno members left the party and joined Umno.
The rotation system of the chief minister’s post introduced by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to ensure equal representation of the main ethnic groups in Sabah was just a temporary measure to consolidate Umno’s powers in Sabah. Just before the system completed its full cycle, it was abolished by Umno to seal its dominance in Sabah.
Changes in Sabah’s political landscape also affected the relations between one ethnic group with the other. Sabah has never experienced any serious ethnic tension since the formation of Malaysia. But when the Sabah Mufti called for the “Malay-isation” of the Muslim indigenous people, it caused a lot of anxiety – and potentially explosive ethnic fissures – in Sabah. The mufti’s refusal to apologise did not go well with many who continued to force the state Islamic leader to appear before the Native Court.
The mufti’s suggestion came amid the growing number of Malay/Muslim population in Sabah since the era of Mustapha. The non-Muslim people were aware of the fact that Sabah’s population demography had been altered to increase the Malay/Muslim population for political expediency. This is among the factors making the ruling party BN unpopular in the non-Muslim constituencies.
Sabahans have every reason to voice out their unhappiness about the attempt to alter Sabah’s plural identity and autonomy. But they must look introspectively and stop blaming the federal government and “semenanjung” people. The problems that happen in Sabah are mainly caused by Sabah leaders and Sabahans themselves.
Of course, one can say that the federal government has the innumerable powers to exert its influence in Sabah. But it is the duty of Sabah leaders to defend the Federal Constitution which grants Sabah certain rights and autonomy. Sabahans must also be aware that many Sabah leaders are using the 20/18-point issue and the Malaysia Agreement to revive their fading political support. Others use it as a “bargaining chip” to pursue their political ambition.
So, Sabahans should not trust these opportunist politicians too much. They must seek the truth themselves and use their democratic rights to elect leaders who are sincere in fighting for their rights.
The Federal Constitution protects the special privileges for Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysians of all walks of life have the duty to defend the sanctity and sovereignty of the Federal Constitution. Any attempt to erode the constitutional safeguards of Sabah and Sarawak must be stopped.
The formation of Malaysia happened by the sweat and toil of our founding fathers who envisioned a new country that belongs to all Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic identity and religion. Let us all defend what Malaysia was meant to be. – December 4, 2013.
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-non-fulfillment-of-the-malaysian-agreement-who-is-to-blame-arnold-puyok
In 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaya formed what is now called Malaysia. But the forming of Malaysia was not without challenges. In terms of population demography, Sabah and Sarawak were more culturally heterogeneous than Peninsular Malaya.
Sabah and Sarawak were also economically under-developed. Due to Sabah and Sarawak’s distinctive characters, they were allowed to make specific demands as part of a deal before their incorporation into Malaysia.
These demands were known as the 20-point memorandum for Sabah and 18-point memorandum for Sarawak. Both memorandums were later used as a guide by the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahans and Sarawakians about Malaysia.
The demands were later discussed in the Inter-Governmental Committee before their incorporation into the Federal Constitution. At the London talks in July 1963, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore agreed to sign the Malaysia Agreement.
The signing of the agreement was significant because it paved the way for the enactment of the Malaysia Act (Act No. 26 of 1963) which sealed the formation of Malaysia. With the enactment of the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution took over from the Malayan Constitution as a new “document of destiny” for Malaysia. The rights and privileges for Sabah and Sarawak are clearly stated in the Federal Constitution (Articles 161, 161A, 161B, 161E).
Apart from becoming a supreme document in the land, the Federal Constitution also reflects the new political reality in Malaysia. It should be stated that Malaysia was formed through the merging of three separately independent entities – Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.
However, some people argue that the federal government does not honour the 20/18-point memorandum. The issue becomes complicated when the legality of the 20/18-point is questioned. For some, raising the 20/18-point is akin to flogging a dead horse because it is already incorporated into the Federal Constitution. For others, the 20/18-point is a legal document and it is the federal government’s duty to fulfill the demands of Sabah and Sarawak before their incorporation into Malaysia. But ironically, the non-fulfillment of the 20-point demands were a work of Sabah own leaders.
In 1973, Sabah Chief Minister Mustapha Harun of Usno (United Sabah National Organisation) amended the State Constitution to make Islam the official religion of Sabah. In the 20-point memorandum, Sabah leaders requested for Islam not to be made official religion because the majority of the population was non-Muslims and many were not inclined towards Islam.
Mustapha continued to amend the State Constitution to make Bahasa Melayu the official language in replace of English. The 20-point stated that English should be the “official language of [Sabah] for all purposes, [s]tate or [f]ederal without limitation of time”. Mustapha’s actions were driven by his beliefs that Sabah could only be developed under one religion (Islam), one language (Bahasa Melayu), and one culture (Malay).
In 1976, the 20-point and Sabah’s autonomy were further eroded by Mustapha’s successor Harris Salleh of Berjaya who surrendered the state’s control over natural resources to the federal government. In 1984, Harris continued with his massive federalisation policies by surrendering Labuan. In 1991, the federal influence in Sabah came to its high point with the establishment of Umno and other Peninsular-based parties in the state. Most of the Usno members left the party and joined Umno.
The rotation system of the chief minister’s post introduced by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to ensure equal representation of the main ethnic groups in Sabah was just a temporary measure to consolidate Umno’s powers in Sabah. Just before the system completed its full cycle, it was abolished by Umno to seal its dominance in Sabah.
Changes in Sabah’s political landscape also affected the relations between one ethnic group with the other. Sabah has never experienced any serious ethnic tension since the formation of Malaysia. But when the Sabah Mufti called for the “Malay-isation” of the Muslim indigenous people, it caused a lot of anxiety – and potentially explosive ethnic fissures – in Sabah. The mufti’s refusal to apologise did not go well with many who continued to force the state Islamic leader to appear before the Native Court.
The mufti’s suggestion came amid the growing number of Malay/Muslim population in Sabah since the era of Mustapha. The non-Muslim people were aware of the fact that Sabah’s population demography had been altered to increase the Malay/Muslim population for political expediency. This is among the factors making the ruling party BN unpopular in the non-Muslim constituencies.
Sabahans have every reason to voice out their unhappiness about the attempt to alter Sabah’s plural identity and autonomy. But they must look introspectively and stop blaming the federal government and “semenanjung” people. The problems that happen in Sabah are mainly caused by Sabah leaders and Sabahans themselves.
Of course, one can say that the federal government has the innumerable powers to exert its influence in Sabah. But it is the duty of Sabah leaders to defend the Federal Constitution which grants Sabah certain rights and autonomy. Sabahans must also be aware that many Sabah leaders are using the 20/18-point issue and the Malaysia Agreement to revive their fading political support. Others use it as a “bargaining chip” to pursue their political ambition.
So, Sabahans should not trust these opportunist politicians too much. They must seek the truth themselves and use their democratic rights to elect leaders who are sincere in fighting for their rights.
The Federal Constitution protects the special privileges for Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysians of all walks of life have the duty to defend the sanctity and sovereignty of the Federal Constitution. Any attempt to erode the constitutional safeguards of Sabah and Sarawak must be stopped.
The formation of Malaysia happened by the sweat and toil of our founding fathers who envisioned a new country that belongs to all Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic identity and religion. Let us all defend what Malaysia was meant to be. – December 4, 2013.
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-non-fulfillment-of-the-malaysian-agreement-who-is-to-blame-arnold-puyok
Monday, 11 November 2013
The Politics of "Cari Makan" in Sabah
Arnold Puyok
Sabah politicians have always been driven by what I call as the politics of ‘cari makan’. But before I go any further, let me first explain what the politics of ‘cari makan’ means.
For Sabah politicians, politics is not about understanding people’s problems and turning those problems into policy solutions. These are not in the Sabah politicians’ vocabulary. Politics for them is simply about finding the ways and means to get access to the state’s development resources - often, in order to gain monetary benefits quickly. So, becoming a politician in Sabah is one of the fastest ways to become rich - or an instant millionaire.
When news about a former opposition assemblyperson leaving his party came out, it was hardly news at all – at least for me. This is Sabah! Sabah politicians like to ‘jump’ to ‘cari makan’. The excuses given by the assemblyperson who used expressions such as “for the people”, “for development’s sake”, “loss of confidence”, etc, etc, are not new and have become a cliché in Sabah.
But to be fair to the assemblyperson, he may have a “strong” reason to leave his party. It is his democratic choice to decide his future political direction. It may be argued that his leaving the party was for the interest of his electorate whom he thought might be better served under a more resourceful and financially able party. So, if this is the case, the assemblyperson cannot be blamed. It is the system that forces him to leave his party.
In Malaysia, opposition leaders are often relegated to a second-class status even though they are voted by the rakyat to represent them. The system is seriously skewed in that only elected representatives from the ruling party have access to the state’s development resources to develop their constituencies. This puts the opposition parties in a disadvantageous position - without sufficient financial resources, it is rather difficult to serve the rakyat’s needs satisfactorily.
There is also a question about moral principles of elected representatives. The argument against defecting to another party is that the leader has betrayed the trust of people who voted for him under the party he represented. But it may be argued that voters’ voting preference might be influenced by the candidate’s popularity than by the party’s standing.
So, rather than questioning the moral integrity of the defecting leader, the main issue here is how to increase the accountability of elected representatives so that they will not use their political position to ‘cari makan’. I suggest a number of ways.
First, parties from both sides of the political divide must use the ‘bottom-up’ approach in selecting potential candidates to run in an election. The potential candidates must be vetted from the lowest level of representation such as the village to the highest level of representation in the party. The current practice of most political parties is to choose candidates who are closer to the centre of power instead of those who are closer to the electorates.
It is also important for the potential candidates to appear in a council-type debate. The ability to debate and to articulate issues of public interest is essential to increase the accountability of elected representatives. The final stage of this process is a vetting by an independent body within the party to choose the most suitable candidate to contest in an election. The process of selecting a candidate must be done early and not one or two days before the election.
Second, potential candidates must declare their assets publicly. Assets declaration by elected representatives is part and parcel of a functioning democratic society. By declaring their assets, elected representatives may be discouraged from using the public office to accumulate wealth or to involve in commercial activities in which they may have certain hidden interests. The role of elected representatives is to serve people and not to make money.
Drawing the line on political funding
Thirdly, a law must be enacted to prevent elected representatives from using their political position to expand the business interests of their allies, family members, or other parties with whom they may have certain vested interests with.
The law must also draw the line very clearly in respect to political donation, political funding, campaign programmes, and so on to ensure that elected representatives do no take advantage of those activities mentioned to serve their own personal interests.
Fourthly, the status and prestige of the legislative assembly must be elevated. Assembly meetings should be conducted regularly, and not a one-day sitting as in the case of the recent Sabah assembly proceeding. Assembly debates should be live telecast so that the electorates can assess the performance of their representatives.
Proposed enactments should be pre-debated and previewed before they are brought to the assembly for deliberation.
All this while, most people do not have any idea about what is going on in the assembly. The general perception about assembly sittings is that they are boring, a waste of time, and do not affect the day-to-day life of public. Elected representatives have a duty to explain to the rakyat that the legislative is an important government institution as it is the ‘brain’ that determines the future of the country.
Fifthly, political parties must conduct an empowerment session or a capacity building programme to train their elected representatives.
Most of the elected representatives think their work is done after winning the election. Some spend more time at golf courses, at hotel lounges, and at karaoke outlets than in their constituencies to serve the rakyat.
Elected representatives must be trained how to debate, how to write and evaluate policies, and how to initiate grassroots-level programmes, among other things.
Finally, the government must set up a people’s tribunal as an avenue to lodge complaints against underperforming elected representatives. Most elected representatives regard themselves as “untouchable”, “semi-god”, and worse, a “boss”.
Through the people’s tribunal, elected representatives will be made accountable to the people they serve. It is also an avenue for people to speak up openly and critically about issues which their representatives fail to address satisfactorily.
It is important for elected representatives to have the moral courage to explain to people their every action - including to defect to other party or to become an independent - as in the case of the opposition assemblyperson earlier.
But what is more important is for people to be empowered so that they can hold their elected representatives accountable. People - especially Sabahans - have had enough of leaders who become elected representatives simply to ‘cari makan’. Elected representatives who merely want to ‘cari makan’ are an impediment to the country’s progress. People of all races and religions should stand up and say ‘no’ to this kind of leaders.
Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/246082
Sabah politicians have always been driven by what I call as the politics of ‘cari makan’. But before I go any further, let me first explain what the politics of ‘cari makan’ means.
For Sabah politicians, politics is not about understanding people’s problems and turning those problems into policy solutions. These are not in the Sabah politicians’ vocabulary. Politics for them is simply about finding the ways and means to get access to the state’s development resources - often, in order to gain monetary benefits quickly. So, becoming a politician in Sabah is one of the fastest ways to become rich - or an instant millionaire.
When news about a former opposition assemblyperson leaving his party came out, it was hardly news at all – at least for me. This is Sabah! Sabah politicians like to ‘jump’ to ‘cari makan’. The excuses given by the assemblyperson who used expressions such as “for the people”, “for development’s sake”, “loss of confidence”, etc, etc, are not new and have become a cliché in Sabah.
But to be fair to the assemblyperson, he may have a “strong” reason to leave his party. It is his democratic choice to decide his future political direction. It may be argued that his leaving the party was for the interest of his electorate whom he thought might be better served under a more resourceful and financially able party. So, if this is the case, the assemblyperson cannot be blamed. It is the system that forces him to leave his party.
In Malaysia, opposition leaders are often relegated to a second-class status even though they are voted by the rakyat to represent them. The system is seriously skewed in that only elected representatives from the ruling party have access to the state’s development resources to develop their constituencies. This puts the opposition parties in a disadvantageous position - without sufficient financial resources, it is rather difficult to serve the rakyat’s needs satisfactorily.
There is also a question about moral principles of elected representatives. The argument against defecting to another party is that the leader has betrayed the trust of people who voted for him under the party he represented. But it may be argued that voters’ voting preference might be influenced by the candidate’s popularity than by the party’s standing.
So, rather than questioning the moral integrity of the defecting leader, the main issue here is how to increase the accountability of elected representatives so that they will not use their political position to ‘cari makan’. I suggest a number of ways.
First, parties from both sides of the political divide must use the ‘bottom-up’ approach in selecting potential candidates to run in an election. The potential candidates must be vetted from the lowest level of representation such as the village to the highest level of representation in the party. The current practice of most political parties is to choose candidates who are closer to the centre of power instead of those who are closer to the electorates.
It is also important for the potential candidates to appear in a council-type debate. The ability to debate and to articulate issues of public interest is essential to increase the accountability of elected representatives. The final stage of this process is a vetting by an independent body within the party to choose the most suitable candidate to contest in an election. The process of selecting a candidate must be done early and not one or two days before the election.
Second, potential candidates must declare their assets publicly. Assets declaration by elected representatives is part and parcel of a functioning democratic society. By declaring their assets, elected representatives may be discouraged from using the public office to accumulate wealth or to involve in commercial activities in which they may have certain hidden interests. The role of elected representatives is to serve people and not to make money.
Drawing the line on political funding
Thirdly, a law must be enacted to prevent elected representatives from using their political position to expand the business interests of their allies, family members, or other parties with whom they may have certain vested interests with.
The law must also draw the line very clearly in respect to political donation, political funding, campaign programmes, and so on to ensure that elected representatives do no take advantage of those activities mentioned to serve their own personal interests.
Fourthly, the status and prestige of the legislative assembly must be elevated. Assembly meetings should be conducted regularly, and not a one-day sitting as in the case of the recent Sabah assembly proceeding. Assembly debates should be live telecast so that the electorates can assess the performance of their representatives.
Proposed enactments should be pre-debated and previewed before they are brought to the assembly for deliberation.
All this while, most people do not have any idea about what is going on in the assembly. The general perception about assembly sittings is that they are boring, a waste of time, and do not affect the day-to-day life of public. Elected representatives have a duty to explain to the rakyat that the legislative is an important government institution as it is the ‘brain’ that determines the future of the country.
Fifthly, political parties must conduct an empowerment session or a capacity building programme to train their elected representatives.
Most of the elected representatives think their work is done after winning the election. Some spend more time at golf courses, at hotel lounges, and at karaoke outlets than in their constituencies to serve the rakyat.
Elected representatives must be trained how to debate, how to write and evaluate policies, and how to initiate grassroots-level programmes, among other things.
Finally, the government must set up a people’s tribunal as an avenue to lodge complaints against underperforming elected representatives. Most elected representatives regard themselves as “untouchable”, “semi-god”, and worse, a “boss”.
Through the people’s tribunal, elected representatives will be made accountable to the people they serve. It is also an avenue for people to speak up openly and critically about issues which their representatives fail to address satisfactorily.
It is important for elected representatives to have the moral courage to explain to people their every action - including to defect to other party or to become an independent - as in the case of the opposition assemblyperson earlier.
But what is more important is for people to be empowered so that they can hold their elected representatives accountable. People - especially Sabahans - have had enough of leaders who become elected representatives simply to ‘cari makan’. Elected representatives who merely want to ‘cari makan’ are an impediment to the country’s progress. People of all races and religions should stand up and say ‘no’ to this kind of leaders.
Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/246082
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
A battle of wits between Musa and Shafie
Just as the dust of the GE13 settles, Sabah is once again under the spotlight of national attention.
This time it is on the race to occupy the Umno vice-president posts currently held by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Hishamuddin Hussein and Mohd Shafie Apdal.
Shafie, who is Semporna MP and federal Rural and Regional Development minister, has announced his intention to defend his post.
One of his potential competitors is also from Sabah, chief minister and Sabah Umno liaison chief Musa Aman. Musa has so far kept his political cards close on his chest, refusing to reveal his next course of action.
Many people see the race to win the vice-president post as a battle of wits between Musa and Shafie.
It is publicly known that Musa and Shafie are “strange bedfellows”.
Their battle to the pinnacle of power in Umno is seen as their attempt to consolidate their grip on party politics.
Neither Shafie nor Musa has offered any new policy platforms to contest. However, on paper, it looks like Shafie has the edge.
najib new cabinet 150513Compared to Musa, Shafie has been in federal politics for a long time and understands the dynamics of it.
Shafie also has a strong following in Sabah, which he has established via patronage support from his powerful Rural and Regional Development Ministry.
Shafie also enjoys a close relationship with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (right). Shafie is also seen as an ambitious political leader who wants to leave his mark on national politics.
Additionally, as Shafie is well-known among the Malays at the grassroots level, getting their support may not be much of a problem for him.
Musa lacking ‘Malay-ness’
However, as the Umno party election draws near, more and more Sabah Umno leaders have given Musa the go to contest.
He is the first chief minister who has managed to break the ten-year “political jinx” in Sabah.
Mustapha Harun of United Sabah National Organisation (Usno), Harris Salleh of Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Party (Berjaya) and Joseph Pairin Kitingan of Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) have all suffered from the political jinx, failing to retain power for more than two terms.
Musa has consistently delivered the seats to national parliament since 2004. Despite the criticisms against his leadership, Musa continues to enjoy strong support especially from the Muslim bumiputera voters and from Sabah BN component parties.
The way Musa responds to his political opponents has baffled many people. Instead of silencing them through legal recourse, Musa annoys them more by doing nothing and continuing to work at building coalitional support among his key supporters.
However, unlike Shafie, Musa is seen as lacking the ambition to spread his influence beyond Sabah.
And his lack of sense of “Malay-ness” is seen as a drawback in getting widespread Malay support throughout the country. Musa is half Dusun and his supporters regard him as a strong regional leader.
Maintain status quo
For the sack of party unity and as a preparation for the next general election, many BN supporters are with the opinion that it is best for Musa and Shafie to bury the hatchet and cooperate to develop Sabah.
The issue that causes the occasional conflict between Musa and Shafie is lack of coordination and miscommunication in the implementation of federal and state-initiated rural projects.
BN supporters note that instead of bringing their personal clash to the party polls, it is good for Musa and Shafie to maintain the status quo for the sake of Sabah and party unity.
However, no one can prevent Musa and Shafie from slugging it out. It is their right to push their political talent to the limit.
Come October this year, 146,000 delegates from 191 divisions will cast their votes.
The onus is on Musa and Shafie to convince the delegates that they have what it takes to bring positive changes to Umno.
------
ARNOLD PUYOK is senior lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
Source: www.malaysiakini.com/news/238642
Just as the dust of the GE13 settles, Sabah is once again under the spotlight of national attention.
This time it is on the race to occupy the Umno vice-president posts currently held by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Hishamuddin Hussein and Mohd Shafie Apdal.
Shafie, who is Semporna MP and federal Rural and Regional Development minister, has announced his intention to defend his post.
One of his potential competitors is also from Sabah, chief minister and Sabah Umno liaison chief Musa Aman. Musa has so far kept his political cards close on his chest, refusing to reveal his next course of action.
Many people see the race to win the vice-president post as a battle of wits between Musa and Shafie.
It is publicly known that Musa and Shafie are “strange bedfellows”.
Their battle to the pinnacle of power in Umno is seen as their attempt to consolidate their grip on party politics.
Neither Shafie nor Musa has offered any new policy platforms to contest. However, on paper, it looks like Shafie has the edge.
najib new cabinet 150513Compared to Musa, Shafie has been in federal politics for a long time and understands the dynamics of it.
Shafie also has a strong following in Sabah, which he has established via patronage support from his powerful Rural and Regional Development Ministry.
Shafie also enjoys a close relationship with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (right). Shafie is also seen as an ambitious political leader who wants to leave his mark on national politics.
Additionally, as Shafie is well-known among the Malays at the grassroots level, getting their support may not be much of a problem for him.
Musa lacking ‘Malay-ness’
However, as the Umno party election draws near, more and more Sabah Umno leaders have given Musa the go to contest.
He is the first chief minister who has managed to break the ten-year “political jinx” in Sabah.
Mustapha Harun of United Sabah National Organisation (Usno), Harris Salleh of Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Party (Berjaya) and Joseph Pairin Kitingan of Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) have all suffered from the political jinx, failing to retain power for more than two terms.
Musa has consistently delivered the seats to national parliament since 2004. Despite the criticisms against his leadership, Musa continues to enjoy strong support especially from the Muslim bumiputera voters and from Sabah BN component parties.
The way Musa responds to his political opponents has baffled many people. Instead of silencing them through legal recourse, Musa annoys them more by doing nothing and continuing to work at building coalitional support among his key supporters.
However, unlike Shafie, Musa is seen as lacking the ambition to spread his influence beyond Sabah.
And his lack of sense of “Malay-ness” is seen as a drawback in getting widespread Malay support throughout the country. Musa is half Dusun and his supporters regard him as a strong regional leader.
Maintain status quo
For the sack of party unity and as a preparation for the next general election, many BN supporters are with the opinion that it is best for Musa and Shafie to bury the hatchet and cooperate to develop Sabah.
The issue that causes the occasional conflict between Musa and Shafie is lack of coordination and miscommunication in the implementation of federal and state-initiated rural projects.
BN supporters note that instead of bringing their personal clash to the party polls, it is good for Musa and Shafie to maintain the status quo for the sake of Sabah and party unity.
However, no one can prevent Musa and Shafie from slugging it out. It is their right to push their political talent to the limit.
Come October this year, 146,000 delegates from 191 divisions will cast their votes.
The onus is on Musa and Shafie to convince the delegates that they have what it takes to bring positive changes to Umno.
------
ARNOLD PUYOK is senior lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
Source: www.malaysiakini.com/news/238642
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Malaysia's Election: Barisan Nasional's Paltry Win
The recent Malaysian election saw the ruling party Barisan Nasional (BN) retain its hold on power for another term after winning 133 out of 222 federal seats.
Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system sealed BN’s victory, despite the fact that Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the opposing coalition, won 54 per cent of the popular vote over BN’s 46 per cent.
PR’s de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has since alleged that the election was tainted with countless irregularities such as erasable indelible ink, vote-buying, unregistered ballot boxes, and sabotage by officials from the Election Commission (EC). It seems that Anwar will not concede defeat easily. He has organised massive rallies that have attracted thousands of Malaysians to protest the election results. It remains to be seen how far Anwar can go. Not all members in PR support mass rallies to challenge the election results. The new government has also warned that it will not tolerate any attempt to overthrow the government through illegal street protests. And for many ordinary Malaysians, the election is over, and it is time to move on.
The real question is why, despite the groundswell of support for PR, did it still fail to win the election? The answer lies in BN’s entrenched influence in the system.
First, BN has complete control over the electronic media outlets TV1, TV2, TV3, and to some extent ASTRO. News reports on these outlets are one-sided and often appear to be a form of government propaganda. BN-controlled print media such as Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian are also often used to attack the opposition and not to report objective news. This has left the opposition with no choice but to depend on alternative media channels such as YouTube, blogs, and social networking sites to reach the public. But in rural areas without internet coverage, voters continue to depend on information disseminated by BN-controlled media organisations.
Additionally, unlike other Commonwealth countries with Westminster systems, Malaysia does not have clear guidelines to regulate the conduct of caretaker governments once parliament is dissolved. In the lead-up to the election, BN was accused of misusing government vehicles and staff during campaigning, and disbursing government funds to entice the voters. This is a fairly ‘normal’ practice for politicians from both sides of the political divide, given that the EC appears to lack the resolve to regulate the use of money in campaigning. In the 2013 election BN supporters were allegedly given between RM50 and RM100 to vote for BN. For rural voters, who form the large bulk of support for BN, RM50 is a lot of money. Some were even promised development aid such as roof zincs and water tanks if they could ‘prove’ that they had voted for BN.
Malaysia’s electoral system is also designed to help BN remain in power. The largest party in BN, UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), knows that most of its support comes from the rural Malay voters. Through a process of electoral re-delineation — or ‘gerrymandering’ — BN has created more rural Malay areas, even though the number of voters in these areas is disproportionately small compared to urban areas. This practice of skewing electoral boundaries in favour of BN is glaringly evident in Sabah — a ‘fixed deposit’ state for BN. UMNO needed to win more Malay seats to strengthen its grip on Sabah. Thus, more Malay seats were created at the expense of the non-Malay constituencies. All UMNO needed to do to form a government with a simple majority in the 60-seat Sabah Legislative Assembly was to win the 32 Malay-majority seats.
It is still possible for BN to win back the support of disgruntled voters who feel as though BN’s victory was improperly obtained.
First, BN has to address the alleged fraudulent practices in the electoral system. Asking the voters to leave the country if they are not happy with the way things are done in Malaysia is certainly not the way to improve the system’s weaknesses. Second, rather than attributing the major swing of Chinese support away from BN to ungratefulness and racism, BN should try and find out why Chinese voters are dissatisfied. In tackling this issue, BN must not neglect those who voted against it in Sabah and Sarawak. Cutting development funds and withdrawing infrastructural projects in areas where BN did not win — a practice of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s administration — is childish and runs counter to BN’s ‘People First’ pledge. Third, BN must act swiftly to initiate the various reforms in its election manifesto.
If BN can address all of these three issues boldly and effectively, it might be accepted by Malaysians as the ‘legitimate’ winner of the election. Otherwise, Malaysians have every reason to challenge the election results.
Source: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/29/malaysias-election-barisan-nasionals-paltry-win/#more-35974
Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system sealed BN’s victory, despite the fact that Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the opposing coalition, won 54 per cent of the popular vote over BN’s 46 per cent.
PR’s de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has since alleged that the election was tainted with countless irregularities such as erasable indelible ink, vote-buying, unregistered ballot boxes, and sabotage by officials from the Election Commission (EC). It seems that Anwar will not concede defeat easily. He has organised massive rallies that have attracted thousands of Malaysians to protest the election results. It remains to be seen how far Anwar can go. Not all members in PR support mass rallies to challenge the election results. The new government has also warned that it will not tolerate any attempt to overthrow the government through illegal street protests. And for many ordinary Malaysians, the election is over, and it is time to move on.
The real question is why, despite the groundswell of support for PR, did it still fail to win the election? The answer lies in BN’s entrenched influence in the system.
First, BN has complete control over the electronic media outlets TV1, TV2, TV3, and to some extent ASTRO. News reports on these outlets are one-sided and often appear to be a form of government propaganda. BN-controlled print media such as Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian are also often used to attack the opposition and not to report objective news. This has left the opposition with no choice but to depend on alternative media channels such as YouTube, blogs, and social networking sites to reach the public. But in rural areas without internet coverage, voters continue to depend on information disseminated by BN-controlled media organisations.
Additionally, unlike other Commonwealth countries with Westminster systems, Malaysia does not have clear guidelines to regulate the conduct of caretaker governments once parliament is dissolved. In the lead-up to the election, BN was accused of misusing government vehicles and staff during campaigning, and disbursing government funds to entice the voters. This is a fairly ‘normal’ practice for politicians from both sides of the political divide, given that the EC appears to lack the resolve to regulate the use of money in campaigning. In the 2013 election BN supporters were allegedly given between RM50 and RM100 to vote for BN. For rural voters, who form the large bulk of support for BN, RM50 is a lot of money. Some were even promised development aid such as roof zincs and water tanks if they could ‘prove’ that they had voted for BN.
Malaysia’s electoral system is also designed to help BN remain in power. The largest party in BN, UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), knows that most of its support comes from the rural Malay voters. Through a process of electoral re-delineation — or ‘gerrymandering’ — BN has created more rural Malay areas, even though the number of voters in these areas is disproportionately small compared to urban areas. This practice of skewing electoral boundaries in favour of BN is glaringly evident in Sabah — a ‘fixed deposit’ state for BN. UMNO needed to win more Malay seats to strengthen its grip on Sabah. Thus, more Malay seats were created at the expense of the non-Malay constituencies. All UMNO needed to do to form a government with a simple majority in the 60-seat Sabah Legislative Assembly was to win the 32 Malay-majority seats.
It is still possible for BN to win back the support of disgruntled voters who feel as though BN’s victory was improperly obtained.
First, BN has to address the alleged fraudulent practices in the electoral system. Asking the voters to leave the country if they are not happy with the way things are done in Malaysia is certainly not the way to improve the system’s weaknesses. Second, rather than attributing the major swing of Chinese support away from BN to ungratefulness and racism, BN should try and find out why Chinese voters are dissatisfied. In tackling this issue, BN must not neglect those who voted against it in Sabah and Sarawak. Cutting development funds and withdrawing infrastructural projects in areas where BN did not win — a practice of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s administration — is childish and runs counter to BN’s ‘People First’ pledge. Third, BN must act swiftly to initiate the various reforms in its election manifesto.
If BN can address all of these three issues boldly and effectively, it might be accepted by Malaysians as the ‘legitimate’ winner of the election. Otherwise, Malaysians have every reason to challenge the election results.
Source: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/29/malaysias-election-barisan-nasionals-paltry-win/#more-35974
Thursday, 16 May 2013
The "Rakyat Tsunami" in Sabah
BN (Barisan Nasional/National Front) won 133 out of 222 federal seats while PR (Pakatan Rakyat or People’s Pact) 89 seats to retain the Federal government. But in terms of popular votes, PR obtained more than BN by a margin of eight percent. On announcing BN’s win, its chairman Najib Razak attributed the electoral outcomes to a “Chinese tsunami”. The next day, the UMNO (United Malays National Organisation)-controlled Utusan Malaysia released a front-paged news with the title of “Apa Lagi Cina Mahu?” (What more do the Chinese Want?). BN leaders, irrespective of those who won and lost in the election, supported Najib’s Chinese tsunami contention. Some called the Chinese as “ungrateful” while others regarded them as “racists” for exercising their democratic rights. While a proper study is needed to analyse voting patterns at GE13, and if indeed the Chinese community as a whole should be blamed solely for BN’s loss, the election results in Sabah showed no such evidence of a racial tsunami. The tsunami in Sabah cut across geographical and racial boundaries.
As expected, BN returned to power in Sabah with 48 state seats compared to 59 it obtained in 2008. The opposition managed to increase its share of state seats from only one in 2008 to 12 in 2013. At the federal level, BN won 22 seats as opposed to the opposition’s three. With BN coming to power obtaining more than a two-thirds majority, Sabah once again became a strong fortress for the ruling coalition. The 22 federal seats contributed by Sabah BN also ensured the ruling coalition’s simple majority win in parliament.
Despite Sabah playing its role as kingmaker in federal politics, the opposition managed to make significant inroads at the state and federal levels. This is particularly evident in the Kadazandusun-majority constituencies in which the opposition managed to win five seats. Most of the BN candidates contesting in the Kadazandusun-majority areas also had their majorities substantially reduced. Key BN leaders from PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah/Sabah United Party) such as Herbert Timbun Lagadan and Jahid Jahim also lost their seats to PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat/People’s Justice Party). Following the trend in the Kadazandusun-majority constituencies, the opposition also managed to make inroads in the Chinese-majority areas by winning three seats in Api-Api, Luyang, and Sri Tanjong. The opposition also won in three mixed areas with a substantial number of Kadazandusun and Chinese voters in Inanam, Likas and Kapayan – all with increased majorities.
At the federal level, BN continued to establish its dominance over the Muslim-Bumiputera-majority areas. However, it lost in Penampang, an urban area with a large number of Kadazandusun and Chinese voters. Despite BN winning more seats than the opposition at the federal Kadazandusun-majority areas, the majorities obtained by BN candidates were substantially reduced. The opposition also won two urban and Chinese-majority constituencies of Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan. The mixed federal seats of Tuaran and Sepanggar were won by BN but with reduced majorities.
So, what do the election results in Sabah tell us?
First, the results are a clear indication of BN’s influence over the rural Muslim voters. BN’s politics of development once again unleashed its magic. The culture of dependency cultivated by BN through the endowment of aid such as water tanks, roof zincs and cash money charmed the rural voters. For most of the rural voters, quick gains in term of cash money gave them a new lease of life. No amount of persuasion could influence the rural voters to vote for any party other than BN. In some instances, it was alleged that some would take a picture of their ballot paper as proof in return for water tanks or roof zincs. The absence of an alternative Muslim-based party also forced the Muslim-Bumiputera voters in Sabah to support UMNO. Most did not support PKR as the party does not have credible Muslim leaders. Multi-racial parties such as PBS, PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah), SAPP (Sabah People’s Progressive Party) and STAR (State Reform Party) are less attractive to the Muslim community because they are more Kadazandusun or Chinese in outlook. The last Muslim-based party in existence is USNO that is now defunct and whose remaining leaders are supporting STAR led by Jeffrey Kitingan.
Second, the elections results in Sabah indicate the sentiment of Kadazandusun voters against BN’s Kadazandusun-based parties such as PBS, UPKO (United Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Organisation) and PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah). Lack of leadership, unclear vision, and failure to attract the young people weakened the Kadazandusun support for these BN parties. Joseph Pairin Kitingan and Joseph Kurup who lead PBS and PBRS respectively survived the election due to split votes in Keningau and Pensiangan. UPKO president Bernard Dompok even lost to a young PKR leader Darell Leiking in Penampang. The formation of the RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry) to address the problem of illegal immigrants and the millions of ringgit in development funds channeled to the Kadazandusun areas failed to consolidate the Kadazandusun support in BN.
Third, the election results in Sabah also showed the support of voters towards local-based opposition parties such as STAR and SAPP that staunchly champion the “Borneo Agenda”. For some, the Borneo Agenda is still relevant but it is championed by the wrong leaders. The voters were given the impression that STAR and SAPP leaders were only interested in pursuing their hidden agenda using the Borneo Agenda as a bargaining chip. Some also believed that STAR and SAPP were funded by a third party to split the opposition votes. Despite these allegations, STAR managed to win one seat through its chairman Jeffrey Kitingan in Bingkor – his stronghold for a very long time. SAPP was completely decimated. SAPP’s president Yong Teck Lee lost in Likas to a newcomer from DAP (Democratic Action Party) with a 5652-vote margin. SAPP also lost in all seats it contested. Clearly, most of the Chinese abandoned SAPP because of the party’s lack of direction. The rejection of STAR and SAPP also meant that some Sabahans had started to look beyond parochialism that has fuelled Sabah politics since independence. In the Kadazandusun-majority constituencies such as Matunggong, Kadamaian, Tamparuli and in mixed area such as Inanam, voters preferred PKR than the local-based opposition parties to represent them.
The election results in Sabah gave BN the mandate to rule the state for another term. The results also show Sabah playing its kingmaker role once again in determining control of the Federal government. However, the significant shift of support away from BN to the opposition indicates a changing political dynamics on the ground. Sabah may remain a “fixed deposit” to BN for the time being and its politics of development may still be a force to be reckoned with in the rural areas. The dependency culture that BN cultivates may help the rural people to survive economically but only in the short term. If BN fails to face the changing political realities, it may lose Sabah in the next election. The opposition’s ability to make inroads show that it has the support of the people whose plights BN has failed to address. All the opposition needs to show is that it is sincere and that it is a much better alternative to BN. The election in Sabah is clearly not about the rise of one particular race against the other. It simply shows the ordinary Rakyat exercising their democratic right to choose the political party that best represents their interests.
Source: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2013/05/11/the-rakyat-tsunami-in-sabah/
BN (Barisan Nasional/National Front) won 133 out of 222 federal seats while PR (Pakatan Rakyat or People’s Pact) 89 seats to retain the Federal government. But in terms of popular votes, PR obtained more than BN by a margin of eight percent. On announcing BN’s win, its chairman Najib Razak attributed the electoral outcomes to a “Chinese tsunami”. The next day, the UMNO (United Malays National Organisation)-controlled Utusan Malaysia released a front-paged news with the title of “Apa Lagi Cina Mahu?” (What more do the Chinese Want?). BN leaders, irrespective of those who won and lost in the election, supported Najib’s Chinese tsunami contention. Some called the Chinese as “ungrateful” while others regarded them as “racists” for exercising their democratic rights. While a proper study is needed to analyse voting patterns at GE13, and if indeed the Chinese community as a whole should be blamed solely for BN’s loss, the election results in Sabah showed no such evidence of a racial tsunami. The tsunami in Sabah cut across geographical and racial boundaries.
As expected, BN returned to power in Sabah with 48 state seats compared to 59 it obtained in 2008. The opposition managed to increase its share of state seats from only one in 2008 to 12 in 2013. At the federal level, BN won 22 seats as opposed to the opposition’s three. With BN coming to power obtaining more than a two-thirds majority, Sabah once again became a strong fortress for the ruling coalition. The 22 federal seats contributed by Sabah BN also ensured the ruling coalition’s simple majority win in parliament.
Despite Sabah playing its role as kingmaker in federal politics, the opposition managed to make significant inroads at the state and federal levels. This is particularly evident in the Kadazandusun-majority constituencies in which the opposition managed to win five seats. Most of the BN candidates contesting in the Kadazandusun-majority areas also had their majorities substantially reduced. Key BN leaders from PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah/Sabah United Party) such as Herbert Timbun Lagadan and Jahid Jahim also lost their seats to PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat/People’s Justice Party). Following the trend in the Kadazandusun-majority constituencies, the opposition also managed to make inroads in the Chinese-majority areas by winning three seats in Api-Api, Luyang, and Sri Tanjong. The opposition also won in three mixed areas with a substantial number of Kadazandusun and Chinese voters in Inanam, Likas and Kapayan – all with increased majorities.
At the federal level, BN continued to establish its dominance over the Muslim-Bumiputera-majority areas. However, it lost in Penampang, an urban area with a large number of Kadazandusun and Chinese voters. Despite BN winning more seats than the opposition at the federal Kadazandusun-majority areas, the majorities obtained by BN candidates were substantially reduced. The opposition also won two urban and Chinese-majority constituencies of Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan. The mixed federal seats of Tuaran and Sepanggar were won by BN but with reduced majorities.
So, what do the election results in Sabah tell us?
First, the results are a clear indication of BN’s influence over the rural Muslim voters. BN’s politics of development once again unleashed its magic. The culture of dependency cultivated by BN through the endowment of aid such as water tanks, roof zincs and cash money charmed the rural voters. For most of the rural voters, quick gains in term of cash money gave them a new lease of life. No amount of persuasion could influence the rural voters to vote for any party other than BN. In some instances, it was alleged that some would take a picture of their ballot paper as proof in return for water tanks or roof zincs. The absence of an alternative Muslim-based party also forced the Muslim-Bumiputera voters in Sabah to support UMNO. Most did not support PKR as the party does not have credible Muslim leaders. Multi-racial parties such as PBS, PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah), SAPP (Sabah People’s Progressive Party) and STAR (State Reform Party) are less attractive to the Muslim community because they are more Kadazandusun or Chinese in outlook. The last Muslim-based party in existence is USNO that is now defunct and whose remaining leaders are supporting STAR led by Jeffrey Kitingan.
Second, the elections results in Sabah indicate the sentiment of Kadazandusun voters against BN’s Kadazandusun-based parties such as PBS, UPKO (United Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Organisation) and PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah). Lack of leadership, unclear vision, and failure to attract the young people weakened the Kadazandusun support for these BN parties. Joseph Pairin Kitingan and Joseph Kurup who lead PBS and PBRS respectively survived the election due to split votes in Keningau and Pensiangan. UPKO president Bernard Dompok even lost to a young PKR leader Darell Leiking in Penampang. The formation of the RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry) to address the problem of illegal immigrants and the millions of ringgit in development funds channeled to the Kadazandusun areas failed to consolidate the Kadazandusun support in BN.
Third, the election results in Sabah also showed the support of voters towards local-based opposition parties such as STAR and SAPP that staunchly champion the “Borneo Agenda”. For some, the Borneo Agenda is still relevant but it is championed by the wrong leaders. The voters were given the impression that STAR and SAPP leaders were only interested in pursuing their hidden agenda using the Borneo Agenda as a bargaining chip. Some also believed that STAR and SAPP were funded by a third party to split the opposition votes. Despite these allegations, STAR managed to win one seat through its chairman Jeffrey Kitingan in Bingkor – his stronghold for a very long time. SAPP was completely decimated. SAPP’s president Yong Teck Lee lost in Likas to a newcomer from DAP (Democratic Action Party) with a 5652-vote margin. SAPP also lost in all seats it contested. Clearly, most of the Chinese abandoned SAPP because of the party’s lack of direction. The rejection of STAR and SAPP also meant that some Sabahans had started to look beyond parochialism that has fuelled Sabah politics since independence. In the Kadazandusun-majority constituencies such as Matunggong, Kadamaian, Tamparuli and in mixed area such as Inanam, voters preferred PKR than the local-based opposition parties to represent them.
The election results in Sabah gave BN the mandate to rule the state for another term. The results also show Sabah playing its kingmaker role once again in determining control of the Federal government. However, the significant shift of support away from BN to the opposition indicates a changing political dynamics on the ground. Sabah may remain a “fixed deposit” to BN for the time being and its politics of development may still be a force to be reckoned with in the rural areas. The dependency culture that BN cultivates may help the rural people to survive economically but only in the short term. If BN fails to face the changing political realities, it may lose Sabah in the next election. The opposition’s ability to make inroads show that it has the support of the people whose plights BN has failed to address. All the opposition needs to show is that it is sincere and that it is a much better alternative to BN. The election in Sabah is clearly not about the rise of one particular race against the other. It simply shows the ordinary Rakyat exercising their democratic right to choose the political party that best represents their interests.
Source: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2013/05/11/the-rakyat-tsunami-in-sabah/
Thursday, 2 May 2013
Close battle to win Putrajaya
The battle is drawn, the race is tight, and BN and PR have the equal chance to win. But in the end, it is up to the voters to decide.
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/02/malaysias-13th-general-election/
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/02/malaysias-13th-general-election/
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
News coverage on the general election in East Malaysia
Sabah and Sarawak are considered as fixed deposits for BN. They will be the key states to watch in the election. This news tells about voters' sentiments in East Malaysia and the issues that affect them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-29/barisan-nasional-spends-big-to-keep-key-seats/4658930
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Najib and Anwar must now debate
Now that former prime minister Najib Razak and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim have presented their campaign manifestoes. The next step is for both to step up and defend their respective policies in a healthy debate. Since Najib’s campaign approach is quite similar to the presidential style in the US, the former prime minister cannot afford not to duel in a debate with his fiercest and most formidable contender – Anwar. For those who say that debate is a waste of time miss one crucial point: the job of politicians is not just to represent the people but to defend their policies. Najib and Anwar must convince Malaysians that they have the best policies worth of defending. And there is no other way to do this than to outwit each other in a healthy debate.
If Najib refuses to debate, it only raises doubt of his capability in defending BN’s (Barisan Nasional) policies and challenging the alternatives provided by PR (Pakatan Rakyat). Contrary to what critics say, debating Anwar does not mean that Najib will commit a political suicide. True, Anwar is a good orator and a crowd puller. If Najib thinks that BN deserves another term and PR cannot make a good government, this is the opportunity for him to tell Malaysians that Anwar is all bark but no bite. But then again the only way to prove this is to see both aspiring prime minister to embark on the battle of the minds. Malaysians want a new prime minister who can articulate issues as well as having the brain to address them.
BN and PR will do disservice if Malaysians do not see the two most recognisable faces in the country’s political arena meeting face to face in a debate. At least one BN leader, Shabbery Chik, came to debate Anwar in 2008. This is a good start for Malaysia as it shows political maturity on the part of BN and PR. The debate has since become the talk of the town. Malaysians from all walks of life gave two thumbs up to the historic debate. In the end, it is not about who wins and who loses. An open debate will allow the public to assess to capability of their representatives to articulate issues and to recommend solutions to them. Presenting the manifestoes alone is not enough. In fact, it is pointless if the manifestoes are not scrutinised and criticised in a constructive and reasonable manner.
If Najib refuses to debate, it only raises doubt of his capability in defending BN’s (Barisan Nasional) policies and challenging the alternatives provided by PR (Pakatan Rakyat). Contrary to what critics say, debating Anwar does not mean that Najib will commit a political suicide. True, Anwar is a good orator and a crowd puller. If Najib thinks that BN deserves another term and PR cannot make a good government, this is the opportunity for him to tell Malaysians that Anwar is all bark but no bite. But then again the only way to prove this is to see both aspiring prime minister to embark on the battle of the minds. Malaysians want a new prime minister who can articulate issues as well as having the brain to address them.
BN and PR will do disservice if Malaysians do not see the two most recognisable faces in the country’s political arena meeting face to face in a debate. At least one BN leader, Shabbery Chik, came to debate Anwar in 2008. This is a good start for Malaysia as it shows political maturity on the part of BN and PR. The debate has since become the talk of the town. Malaysians from all walks of life gave two thumbs up to the historic debate. In the end, it is not about who wins and who loses. An open debate will allow the public to assess to capability of their representatives to articulate issues and to recommend solutions to them. Presenting the manifestoes alone is not enough. In fact, it is pointless if the manifestoes are not scrutinised and criticised in a constructive and reasonable manner.
Friday, 5 April 2013
Sabahans' (new) dilemma
In 1994, Herman Luping in his seminal work, “Sabah’s dilemma”, wrote about the dilemma faced by Sabahans in maintaining state autonomy and independence under the Federation of Malaysia. Sabah leaders wanted to safeguard the state’s regional rights but the federal leaders viewed this as an attempt to override the power of the central government. Just as Sabahans are prepared to vote in the upcoming 13th Malaysian General Election, they are facing with a new kind of dilemma – which party to vote to rule Sabah for the next term. Sabahans have shown that they are capable of voting out a party that they dislike. A case in point is USNO (United Sabah National Organisation) in 1975. Despite USNO’s leader Mustapha Harun’s iron fist rule, Sabahans voted in unison to oust him from power. In 1985, Sabahans bravely voted against the mighty BERJAYA (Sabah People’s United Front) in favour of PBS (Sabah United Party). Back then, Sabahans had a clear choice: BERJAYA to replace USNO, and PBS as an alternative to BERJAYA. Now, despite the desire of Sabahans to see change in the political landscape of the country, they have to make a hard choice between the complacent Sabah BN whose leaders lack the tenacity to address the Sabah issues and the fractious opposition coalition led by PR (People’s Front) consisting of PKR (People’s Justice Party), DAP (Democratic Action Party), PAS (Pan Malaysian Islamic Party), and UBF (United Borneo Front) comprising STAR (State Reform Party) and SAPP (Sabah People’s Progressive Party).
In a survey conducted by Merdeka Centre, more than 70 percent of the respondents in Sabah were satisfied with the performance of Prime Minister Najib Razak. It is undeniable that Najib’s popularity is contributed by his transformational leadership style and his pragmatic policies (despite their many flaws). Unlike Najib, however, Sabah BN leaders lack pragmatism in addressing the Sabah issues. Not many Sabahans in the rural areas understand what Najib is trying to do. Sabah BN leaders seem to lack the fervour to materialise Najib’s transformational plan. Many Sabahans are also unhappy with the lackadaisical attitude of Sabah BN leaders in tackling the perennial illegal immigrant issue. Due to the inertia shown by BN, Sabahans have no choice but to look for the alternative. In 1999 and 2004, Sabahans rejected PKR as it was then a newcomer in Sabah politics. In 2008, Jeffrey Kitingan helped increase PKR’s popularity. Even though Jeffrey is known for his infamous reputation as “katak” (political frog), he managed to “re-package” the Borneo Agenda to rally Kadazandusun support for PKR. Despite PKR’s failure to win any seat, its popular votes increased substantially in most of the constituencies.
Now, PKR is back to woo Sabahans once again through a partnership with DAP and PAS in PR. PKR’s future in Peninsular Malaysia looks promising but it is a different story in Sabah. Lack of leadership, clashing personalities and infighting cause disarray in PR. Internal party conflict in PR has deteriorated further with the admission of APS (Sabah Coalition for Change) and PPS (Sabah People’s Front for Change) into PR. Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin who lead APS and PPS respectively have submitted their potential candidates to PR, much to the chagrin of the “original” members of the opposition coalition who regard the two former BN leaders as opportunists. The mudslinging between PR and the state-based opposition parties in UBF has weakened the opposition coalition in Sabah. STAR and SAPP have accused PR as having the agenda to “colonise” Sabah. They urge Sabahans to reject Peninsula-based parties as only Sabah-based parties can understand local sentiments better. Some Sabahans, however, have had enough of Jeffrey and SAPP’s leader Yong Teck Lee. They have been in politics for too long and have a lot of political baggage. Many still remember Jeffrey’s act of betrayal in 1994 in which he left his brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the founder of PBS, to form a new party. Partly because of Jeffrey’s action, Pairin had to relinquish his post as chief minister of Sabah. Yong was one of the ring leaders whom Pairin had accused of having the intention to oust him from power. Yong’s withdrawal from PBS had weakened the Chinese support in the party. So, just like Wilfred and Lajim, Jeffrey and Yong are also considered as opportunists and not real fighters for Sabah rights.
The fractious opposition coalition means that PR and UBF will contest against each other. Come nomination day, disgruntled members of the respective coalitions will file their candidacy to contest as independents. This will add colour to the electoral contest in Sabah as in 2004 and 2008. Nevertheless, the 13th general election will be different from the ones in 1975 and 1985 where Sabahans had a clear choice between the incumbent and the alternative party. The upcoming election will force Sabahans to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Source: www.asiapacific.anu.edu.au
In a survey conducted by Merdeka Centre, more than 70 percent of the respondents in Sabah were satisfied with the performance of Prime Minister Najib Razak. It is undeniable that Najib’s popularity is contributed by his transformational leadership style and his pragmatic policies (despite their many flaws). Unlike Najib, however, Sabah BN leaders lack pragmatism in addressing the Sabah issues. Not many Sabahans in the rural areas understand what Najib is trying to do. Sabah BN leaders seem to lack the fervour to materialise Najib’s transformational plan. Many Sabahans are also unhappy with the lackadaisical attitude of Sabah BN leaders in tackling the perennial illegal immigrant issue. Due to the inertia shown by BN, Sabahans have no choice but to look for the alternative. In 1999 and 2004, Sabahans rejected PKR as it was then a newcomer in Sabah politics. In 2008, Jeffrey Kitingan helped increase PKR’s popularity. Even though Jeffrey is known for his infamous reputation as “katak” (political frog), he managed to “re-package” the Borneo Agenda to rally Kadazandusun support for PKR. Despite PKR’s failure to win any seat, its popular votes increased substantially in most of the constituencies.
Now, PKR is back to woo Sabahans once again through a partnership with DAP and PAS in PR. PKR’s future in Peninsular Malaysia looks promising but it is a different story in Sabah. Lack of leadership, clashing personalities and infighting cause disarray in PR. Internal party conflict in PR has deteriorated further with the admission of APS (Sabah Coalition for Change) and PPS (Sabah People’s Front for Change) into PR. Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin who lead APS and PPS respectively have submitted their potential candidates to PR, much to the chagrin of the “original” members of the opposition coalition who regard the two former BN leaders as opportunists. The mudslinging between PR and the state-based opposition parties in UBF has weakened the opposition coalition in Sabah. STAR and SAPP have accused PR as having the agenda to “colonise” Sabah. They urge Sabahans to reject Peninsula-based parties as only Sabah-based parties can understand local sentiments better. Some Sabahans, however, have had enough of Jeffrey and SAPP’s leader Yong Teck Lee. They have been in politics for too long and have a lot of political baggage. Many still remember Jeffrey’s act of betrayal in 1994 in which he left his brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the founder of PBS, to form a new party. Partly because of Jeffrey’s action, Pairin had to relinquish his post as chief minister of Sabah. Yong was one of the ring leaders whom Pairin had accused of having the intention to oust him from power. Yong’s withdrawal from PBS had weakened the Chinese support in the party. So, just like Wilfred and Lajim, Jeffrey and Yong are also considered as opportunists and not real fighters for Sabah rights.
The fractious opposition coalition means that PR and UBF will contest against each other. Come nomination day, disgruntled members of the respective coalitions will file their candidacy to contest as independents. This will add colour to the electoral contest in Sabah as in 2004 and 2008. Nevertheless, the 13th general election will be different from the ones in 1975 and 1985 where Sabahans had a clear choice between the incumbent and the alternative party. The upcoming election will force Sabahans to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Source: www.asiapacific.anu.edu.au
Monday, 1 April 2013
In search of the lost "tataba"
The tataba is a magic wand in the Dusun mythology. It is, however, no longer used by the Kadazandusuns in the modern times. It is lost in the mid of the advancement of the socio-cultural life of the Kadazandusuns. The Kadazandusuns are now looking for a different kind of tataba - one that propelled the Kadazandusuns to prominence in the early 1960s and 1980s. The elusive tataba that the Kadazandusuns have been looking after losing it in 1994 is the oft-repeated and over-used word, unity.
Recently, the three Kadazandusun-based parties in Sabah -- PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah), UPKO (United Pasok Momogun Organisation) and PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah) -- held a gathering at the famed KDCA (Kadazandusun Cultural Association) building in Penampang. The "misompuru" (unity meet) is widely seen as a symbolic event that rekindles the Kadazandusun nationalistic movement during the eras of Donald Stephens and Joseph Pairin Kitingan. Stephens formed UPKO in the early 1960s to represent the Kadazans at the height of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Pairin formed PBS in 1985 as a response to BERJAYA's pro federal policies that caused the Kadazandusuns to lose their cultural significance.
In 1968, Stephens dissolved UPKO in the name of "indigenous unity" after failing to prevent UPKO's members from joining USNO (United Sabah National Organisation), a Muslim-based party led by Mustapha Harun. Stephens joined USNO with the remaining members of UPKO. This was generally regarded as the end of Kadazandusun preeminence. In 1985, the Kadazandusuns once again had the chance to exert their influence through PBS. Despite PBS's multiracial outlook, it was mainly a Kadazandusun-based party. Pairin who formed and led PBS was also (and still is) the Huguan Siou (paramount and brave leader) of the Kadazandusuns. At the same time, Pairin also led the KCA (Kadazan Cultural Association. Now Kadazandusun Cultural Association). This gave Pairin enourmous influence over the Kadazandusuns. Under Pairin, PBS won the successive state elections in 1986, 1990, and 1994. PBS was fighting along state issues and wanted the federal government to restore the Twenty Point memorandum and to give more recognition to the Malaysian Agreement 1963. Such strong regional overtones, however, irked the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who regarded Pairin as a "dangerous" regional leader.
When PBS failed to force the federal government to accede to its demands, it left BN in 1990 at the elevant hour before nomination for the 1990 general election. This angered Mahathir who called Pairin's action as a "stab in the back". Sabah was under the opposition PBS until 1994. Despite PBS being democratically elected, it was treated indifferently by the federal government. Federal allocation was cut off substantially and Pairin, on a number of occasions, was even snubbed by federal officials despite his role as Sabah chief minister elect. By 1994, federal influence in Sabah became more pronounced with UMNO’s (United Malays National Organisation) entry into local politics. USNO was effectively dissolved and its members joined UMNO en masse. In the 1994 state election, PBS won once more with a razor-thin majority and formed the next government. But with only two-seat majority in the state legislative assembly, PBS failed to prevent its members from leaving the party. Two of Pairin's deputies and founding members of PBS Bernard Dompok and Joseph Kurup were also leaving PBS. With the massive exodus, PBS's nine-year rule ended abruptly. James Chin wrote that the fall of PBS in 1994 signifies the "end of Kadazan unity". After almost 12 years in the opposition, PBS returned to BN in 2002. There is no better explanation as to why PBS decided to be part of the ruling party once again other than its desire to survive. Since then, the Kadazandusuns are represented by PBS, UPKO and PBRS.
At the recent misompuru, Pairin, Dompok and Kurup saw eye to eye once again. The rendition of PBS's official anthem "bersatu" brought Pairin, Dompok and Kurup to the PBS's heyday in the 1980s. Dompok and Kurup, however, did not show any sign of regret in dithcing PBS. Pairin was neither apologetic about his failure to prevent his two deputies from leaving him. Obviously, the three Kadazandusun leaders did not use the misompuru to set a new vision to develop the Kadazandusuns. Kurup who was given the opportunity to talk first did not mince his words in saying that it is about time the Kadazandusun-based parties to unite after a long separation. Dompok who is seen as more vocal in championing the Kadazandusun cultural rights spoke at length about the illegal immigrant problems. He also suggested that the Malaysian ICs be re-issued so that only genuine Sabahans are recognised as citizens. Pairin was clearly not as combative as he used to in the 1980s. Reading from a prepared text, Pairin did not offer any new idea on the future direction of the Kadazandusuns.
Despite the "success" of the misompuru, Pairin, Dompok and Kurup have failed to convince the Kadazandusuns that they are willing to walk the talk in achieving real Kadazandusun unity. The misompuru is largely seen as an attempt to consolidate the Kadazandusun support in BN. In the past months or so, the Kadazandusuns have been quite unhappy with the failure of their leaders to speak up on issues such as the illegal immigrants, cultural rights of the Kadazandusuns, and under-representation of the Kadazandusuns in the state and federal service. BN is also wary of the split in Kadazandusun support after the formation of STAR Sabah led by Pairin's younger brother Jeffrey Kitingan. Not all Kadazandusuns support Jeffrey but he has a substantial number of loyal Kadazandusun supporters in the interior.
In the end, many Kadazandusuns were left disappointed despite the "historic" misompuru. PBS, UPKO and PBRS are set to remain as they are for the time being. There is no sign that either Pairin, Dompok or Kurup is willing to step down as president of their respective party, nor is there any indication that they are willing to form a single entity to represent the Kadazandusuns. For some people, Kadazandusun unity can only be achieved if Dompok and Kurup return to PBS. At the very least, many Kadazandusuns want the three Kadazandusun leaders to set aside their ego and to form a new entity led by young and progressive Kadazandusun blood. Otherwise, the Kadazandusuns will never (ever) find the lost tataba.
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Lahad Datu standoff: claim on Sabah is a non-issue
Arnold Puyok
At the time of writing, the Malaysian security forces are still hunting down the remaining members of the Sulu group who invaded Sabah with arms almost four weeks ago. Effort to bring the standoff through negotiation failed resulting in an all-out military attack by the Malaysia government. There are many reasons given as to the main motive of the Sulu group. The Sulu group claims that it belongs to the Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate. The group’s main demand is to claim Sabah from Malaysia. The group also says that it will not leave Sabah even when forced to do so.
The questions are: if the Sultan of Sulu is serious in pursuing the Sabah claim, why did he resort to violence? Why did he not go into a peaceful negotiation with the Philippines government? After all, as a Filipino citizen, the Sultan of Sulu cannot pursue a serious international security issue personally without his government’s intervention. The Sultan of Sulu can also initiate a dialogue with the Malaysian government to address the plight of the Sulu Sultanate. There are various channels the Sultan of Sulu can take to make his voice heard. But his use of violence and unwillingness to ask his followers to surrender puts into question his main motive. The way in which the whole incident unfolded warrants us to look into the Lahad Datu standoff in a wider perspective.
Analysts have assumed that the Lahad Datu incident may have been triggered by the peace negotiation between the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) and the Philippines government. Malaysia was the broker of the peace plan. The peace agreement will give the autonomous region of Mindanao more freedom in handling local affairs in turn for ceasefire from militants. Malaysia’s involvement is purely for economic and security reasons. The region’s growth will not only ensure peace but economic opportunities for Malaysia and the Philippines. Malaysia also hopes that with the peace deal, Filipinos – especially those without proper documents – will return to their homeland to start a new life.
Unfortunately, some parties were not happy with the peace deal. At stake is the region’s natural wealth awaiting to be exploited. The parties involved in the peace deal are expected to directly benefit from its spillover economic effects. The main question is: how best can the economic benefits be distributed fairly among the warring parties? Apart from the wealth-sharing formula discussed in the peace plan, a power-sharing strategy was also laid out to ensure that the people in the Southern Philippines are adequately represented.
The Lahad Datu standoff is an attempt by a covert group to sabotage the peace deal and to embarrass the Philippines president Benigno Aquino. The Sulu group is using the Philippines claim over Sabah to gain attention and also to help the Sultan of Sulu to resurrect his personal demand. The whole incident in Lahad Datu has nothing to do with the Philippines claim over Sabah. The attempt to debate whether Sabah belongs to the Sulu Sultanate or not is just a waste of time.
The prospect of peace and security in the Southern Philippines looks gloomy. Without the sincerity and seriousness of the warring parties to end violence and to spare more innocent lives, the Southern Philippines will continue to be plagued by poverty, intermittent wars, and violence. The effects of the conflict can be felt in Sabah – a state within the federation of Malaysia that has never experienced any major conflict and has been enjoying a remarkable economic growth in the past decades. While it is the responsibility of the Philippines government to ensure that the conflict in its troubled southern territory does not spread to Sabah, the Malaysian government has a duty to protect its border from being intruded in the future. The Lahad Datu standoff is not Malaysia’s problem alone, it is also the Philippines’ and both countries must now work out a long-term solution to ensure that rule of law is restored in the Sulu region.
Source: www.themalaysianinsider.com
At the time of writing, the Malaysian security forces are still hunting down the remaining members of the Sulu group who invaded Sabah with arms almost four weeks ago. Effort to bring the standoff through negotiation failed resulting in an all-out military attack by the Malaysia government. There are many reasons given as to the main motive of the Sulu group. The Sulu group claims that it belongs to the Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate. The group’s main demand is to claim Sabah from Malaysia. The group also says that it will not leave Sabah even when forced to do so.
The questions are: if the Sultan of Sulu is serious in pursuing the Sabah claim, why did he resort to violence? Why did he not go into a peaceful negotiation with the Philippines government? After all, as a Filipino citizen, the Sultan of Sulu cannot pursue a serious international security issue personally without his government’s intervention. The Sultan of Sulu can also initiate a dialogue with the Malaysian government to address the plight of the Sulu Sultanate. There are various channels the Sultan of Sulu can take to make his voice heard. But his use of violence and unwillingness to ask his followers to surrender puts into question his main motive. The way in which the whole incident unfolded warrants us to look into the Lahad Datu standoff in a wider perspective.
Analysts have assumed that the Lahad Datu incident may have been triggered by the peace negotiation between the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) and the Philippines government. Malaysia was the broker of the peace plan. The peace agreement will give the autonomous region of Mindanao more freedom in handling local affairs in turn for ceasefire from militants. Malaysia’s involvement is purely for economic and security reasons. The region’s growth will not only ensure peace but economic opportunities for Malaysia and the Philippines. Malaysia also hopes that with the peace deal, Filipinos – especially those without proper documents – will return to their homeland to start a new life.
Unfortunately, some parties were not happy with the peace deal. At stake is the region’s natural wealth awaiting to be exploited. The parties involved in the peace deal are expected to directly benefit from its spillover economic effects. The main question is: how best can the economic benefits be distributed fairly among the warring parties? Apart from the wealth-sharing formula discussed in the peace plan, a power-sharing strategy was also laid out to ensure that the people in the Southern Philippines are adequately represented.
The Lahad Datu standoff is an attempt by a covert group to sabotage the peace deal and to embarrass the Philippines president Benigno Aquino. The Sulu group is using the Philippines claim over Sabah to gain attention and also to help the Sultan of Sulu to resurrect his personal demand. The whole incident in Lahad Datu has nothing to do with the Philippines claim over Sabah. The attempt to debate whether Sabah belongs to the Sulu Sultanate or not is just a waste of time.
The prospect of peace and security in the Southern Philippines looks gloomy. Without the sincerity and seriousness of the warring parties to end violence and to spare more innocent lives, the Southern Philippines will continue to be plagued by poverty, intermittent wars, and violence. The effects of the conflict can be felt in Sabah – a state within the federation of Malaysia that has never experienced any major conflict and has been enjoying a remarkable economic growth in the past decades. While it is the responsibility of the Philippines government to ensure that the conflict in its troubled southern territory does not spread to Sabah, the Malaysian government has a duty to protect its border from being intruded in the future. The Lahad Datu standoff is not Malaysia’s problem alone, it is also the Philippines’ and both countries must now work out a long-term solution to ensure that rule of law is restored in the Sulu region.
Source: www.themalaysianinsider.com
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Tough Task for Sabah RCI
Arnold Puyok
AS more and more disclosures are made at the ongoing hearing of Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sabah illegals problem, Sabahans have begun to speculate in earnest about the matter, considered the "mother of all issue" in the state.
Some are angry at what they see transpiring at the RCI hearing so far, with witnesses testifying about various ways in which illegals were given documentation. But others prefer to adopt a wait-and-see attitude until more stories are told. Of course, the opposition leaders have been quick to capitalise on the issue even though they are struggling to find the right "angle" through which they can use to attack the Barisan Nasional.
Some of the opposition leaders have called the present government "illegitimate" while others want the electoral roll to be cleaned first before the general election in called. Former chief minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh, whose name is implicated in the illegal immigrant issue, defended his track record, saying that he did not break any law. He was also quick in passing the buck to the federal government who he said held the power to award citizenships to anyone.
Harris snubbed one of the RCI investigation officers when he was asked about the Project IC (or Project M). Calling the Project IC as a "false" story, Harris said he did not have time to respond to people who raise the issue. Interestingly, Harris's former boss Tun Mahathir Mohamad acknowledged Project IC and defended it as a "legal" process.
The RCI was established by Prime Minister Najib Razak who was under pressure from the public and leaders from both sides of the political divide. The decision to go ahead with the RCI is a popular one. In a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre, an overwhelming 88% of the respondents agreed with the establishment of the RCI. Most of the respondents (11%) also said that they want the illegal immigrant issue to be debated in the coming election. This shows that the illegal immigrant issue is important and requires an urgent solution.
Not everyone is happy that the RCI is taking place. Obviously, Najib is taking a bold but risky political gamble as many Umno leaders are implicated in the issuance of Malaysian ICs through dubious means. The RCI works both ways for Najib and the BN. It works for Najib as it "proves" the sincerity of the government to address the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah; it works against the BN as the allegation of illegal immigrants being given Malaysian citizenship illegally happened throughout the BN's rule.
The stories recounted by the witnesses at the RCI so far show that the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah is complex and has no easy solution. Some of those alleged to have acquired Malaysian ICs illegally have become part of the society and have on numerous occasions participated in the country's electoral process.
Questions have been raised whether these "fake" Malaysians should have their citizenships revoked or whether they be allowed to remain as citizens based on humanitarian grounds. Public confidence can only be restored if the RCI is allowed to do its task without fear or favour. As the election looms, the public is expecting the RCI to wrap up its investigation soon and to propose immediate and long term solutions to the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah. That is not likely to happen, as the RCI has six months to complete its task.
Despite the rhetoric and posturing by commentators and politicians alike, the illegal immigrant issue is one touching on the country's security and sovereignty. Thus no parties should interfere in the work of the RCI or try to take advantage of it for their political gain.
Source: http://fz.com/content/tough-task-sabah-rci
AS more and more disclosures are made at the ongoing hearing of Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sabah illegals problem, Sabahans have begun to speculate in earnest about the matter, considered the "mother of all issue" in the state.
Some are angry at what they see transpiring at the RCI hearing so far, with witnesses testifying about various ways in which illegals were given documentation. But others prefer to adopt a wait-and-see attitude until more stories are told. Of course, the opposition leaders have been quick to capitalise on the issue even though they are struggling to find the right "angle" through which they can use to attack the Barisan Nasional.
Some of the opposition leaders have called the present government "illegitimate" while others want the electoral roll to be cleaned first before the general election in called. Former chief minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh, whose name is implicated in the illegal immigrant issue, defended his track record, saying that he did not break any law. He was also quick in passing the buck to the federal government who he said held the power to award citizenships to anyone.
Harris snubbed one of the RCI investigation officers when he was asked about the Project IC (or Project M). Calling the Project IC as a "false" story, Harris said he did not have time to respond to people who raise the issue. Interestingly, Harris's former boss Tun Mahathir Mohamad acknowledged Project IC and defended it as a "legal" process.
The RCI was established by Prime Minister Najib Razak who was under pressure from the public and leaders from both sides of the political divide. The decision to go ahead with the RCI is a popular one. In a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre, an overwhelming 88% of the respondents agreed with the establishment of the RCI. Most of the respondents (11%) also said that they want the illegal immigrant issue to be debated in the coming election. This shows that the illegal immigrant issue is important and requires an urgent solution.
Not everyone is happy that the RCI is taking place. Obviously, Najib is taking a bold but risky political gamble as many Umno leaders are implicated in the issuance of Malaysian ICs through dubious means. The RCI works both ways for Najib and the BN. It works for Najib as it "proves" the sincerity of the government to address the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah; it works against the BN as the allegation of illegal immigrants being given Malaysian citizenship illegally happened throughout the BN's rule.
The stories recounted by the witnesses at the RCI so far show that the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah is complex and has no easy solution. Some of those alleged to have acquired Malaysian ICs illegally have become part of the society and have on numerous occasions participated in the country's electoral process.
Questions have been raised whether these "fake" Malaysians should have their citizenships revoked or whether they be allowed to remain as citizens based on humanitarian grounds. Public confidence can only be restored if the RCI is allowed to do its task without fear or favour. As the election looms, the public is expecting the RCI to wrap up its investigation soon and to propose immediate and long term solutions to the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah. That is not likely to happen, as the RCI has six months to complete its task.
Despite the rhetoric and posturing by commentators and politicians alike, the illegal immigrant issue is one touching on the country's security and sovereignty. Thus no parties should interfere in the work of the RCI or try to take advantage of it for their political gain.
Source: http://fz.com/content/tough-task-sabah-rci
Monday, 7 January 2013
Opposition Capers in Sabah
Opposition Capers in Sabah
By Arnold Puyok
Sabah politics has never failed to generate the interest of political pundits. Not only does Sabah have a lot of political mavericks known for their political stunts, Sabah politics is also as unpredictable as the weather. The withdrawal of two former BN strongmen, Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin, to align with PR has heightened the race to win public office in Sabah. BN is banking on its track record while PR is riding on the promise to form a transparent, democratic and people-friendly government.
The state-based opposition parties SAPP and STAR are also promising a better and more reliable government. But different from PR, they rely heavily on the “Borneo Agenda” to rally support. The PR-friendly groups such as APS (Angkatan Perubahan Sabah) led by Wilfred is tasked to go into the Kadazandusun areas to weaken STAR while Lajim’s PPPS (Pakatan Perubahan Sabah) is responsible for consolidating the Muslim support in PR.
All the state-based opposition parties resort to sloganeering to woo new supporters. The very mention of “inikalilah” (this is the time) reminds one of STAR with its no-holds-barred approach in championing Sabah’s rights and autonomy. APS’s campaign motto is “ubah” (change), almost similar to PPPS’s “tukar”. Can PR and state-based opposition parties provide a strong challenge to BN that has more than 50 years of experience in electoral politics?
In the effort the deny BN any chance of winning, PR is determined to have a one-to-one fight with the ruling party. However, such a plan seems remote judging from the way PR deals with the issue of seat allocation. The chances for PR to win and deny BN’s two-thirds majority in Sabah are high if it allows state-based opposition parties to contest one-to-one against the ruling party in all the 60 state constituencies.
As PR’s main aim is to win Putrajaya, it will have to win a certain number of parliamentary seats in Sabah even though the task of winning has become difficult than ever. The SAPP’s strongholds are mainly in Chinese-majority areas. The state-based opposition party to watch is STAR, whose support is growing particularly in the Kadazandusun areas even though there has been rumour that the party has lost support following the allegation that it is funded by UMNO to split the support for PR.
STAR’s “Borneo Tea Parties” seem to bear fruits at least among young professionals, especially teachers. If STAR’s facebook account is used to measure the party’s popularity, the Sarawak-based party should be commended for its ability in attracting new members in such a short time.
SAPP had said that it managed to strike a deal with STAR. But Jeffrey Kitingan’s statement in the media that he is determined to “do it alone” squashed SAPP’s attempt at finding an amicable solution to end the squabble over seat allocation. It is possible for all the state opposition-based parties to contest against each other and thus give BN the advantage to return to power.
There are many reasons why Jeffrey refused to budge. First, Jeffrey has a bigger agenda in mind, one of which is to restore Sabah’s rights and autonomy through the Borneo Agenda. For Jeffrey, this can only be done if STAR has bargaining power in the legislative assembly. Second, in the event there is no clear winner in the election, STAR would have the chance to bargain as a coalition partner.
Seats allocation will remain a main issue among the opposition parties. PR might contest in all the 25 parliamentary seats in Sabah depending on the outcome of its on-going negotiation with SAPP and STAR. However, on his visit to Sabah, Anwar Ibrahim said he is willing to contest only in areas where PR has a higher probability of winning.
STAR may contest in all 60 state seats. STAR may have no choice but to go into a collision course with APS in Kadazandusun-majority areas and PPPS in Muslim-majority areas. SAPP may have no choice as well but to compete with STAR. If this happens, it reduces the chances of the opposition to win. No amount of sloganeering and sophisticated campaign approach can help the opposition leaders topple BN unless they are willing to bury their ego and work as a team.
Retrieved from http://themalaysianinsider.com
By Arnold Puyok
Sabah politics has never failed to generate the interest of political pundits. Not only does Sabah have a lot of political mavericks known for their political stunts, Sabah politics is also as unpredictable as the weather. The withdrawal of two former BN strongmen, Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin, to align with PR has heightened the race to win public office in Sabah. BN is banking on its track record while PR is riding on the promise to form a transparent, democratic and people-friendly government.
The state-based opposition parties SAPP and STAR are also promising a better and more reliable government. But different from PR, they rely heavily on the “Borneo Agenda” to rally support. The PR-friendly groups such as APS (Angkatan Perubahan Sabah) led by Wilfred is tasked to go into the Kadazandusun areas to weaken STAR while Lajim’s PPPS (Pakatan Perubahan Sabah) is responsible for consolidating the Muslim support in PR.
All the state-based opposition parties resort to sloganeering to woo new supporters. The very mention of “inikalilah” (this is the time) reminds one of STAR with its no-holds-barred approach in championing Sabah’s rights and autonomy. APS’s campaign motto is “ubah” (change), almost similar to PPPS’s “tukar”. Can PR and state-based opposition parties provide a strong challenge to BN that has more than 50 years of experience in electoral politics?
In the effort the deny BN any chance of winning, PR is determined to have a one-to-one fight with the ruling party. However, such a plan seems remote judging from the way PR deals with the issue of seat allocation. The chances for PR to win and deny BN’s two-thirds majority in Sabah are high if it allows state-based opposition parties to contest one-to-one against the ruling party in all the 60 state constituencies.
As PR’s main aim is to win Putrajaya, it will have to win a certain number of parliamentary seats in Sabah even though the task of winning has become difficult than ever. The SAPP’s strongholds are mainly in Chinese-majority areas. The state-based opposition party to watch is STAR, whose support is growing particularly in the Kadazandusun areas even though there has been rumour that the party has lost support following the allegation that it is funded by UMNO to split the support for PR.
STAR’s “Borneo Tea Parties” seem to bear fruits at least among young professionals, especially teachers. If STAR’s facebook account is used to measure the party’s popularity, the Sarawak-based party should be commended for its ability in attracting new members in such a short time.
SAPP had said that it managed to strike a deal with STAR. But Jeffrey Kitingan’s statement in the media that he is determined to “do it alone” squashed SAPP’s attempt at finding an amicable solution to end the squabble over seat allocation. It is possible for all the state opposition-based parties to contest against each other and thus give BN the advantage to return to power.
There are many reasons why Jeffrey refused to budge. First, Jeffrey has a bigger agenda in mind, one of which is to restore Sabah’s rights and autonomy through the Borneo Agenda. For Jeffrey, this can only be done if STAR has bargaining power in the legislative assembly. Second, in the event there is no clear winner in the election, STAR would have the chance to bargain as a coalition partner.
Seats allocation will remain a main issue among the opposition parties. PR might contest in all the 25 parliamentary seats in Sabah depending on the outcome of its on-going negotiation with SAPP and STAR. However, on his visit to Sabah, Anwar Ibrahim said he is willing to contest only in areas where PR has a higher probability of winning.
STAR may contest in all 60 state seats. STAR may have no choice but to go into a collision course with APS in Kadazandusun-majority areas and PPPS in Muslim-majority areas. SAPP may have no choice as well but to compete with STAR. If this happens, it reduces the chances of the opposition to win. No amount of sloganeering and sophisticated campaign approach can help the opposition leaders topple BN unless they are willing to bury their ego and work as a team.
Retrieved from http://themalaysianinsider.com
Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building
Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building
By Arnold Puyok
TO BUILD a nation is not easy. It took the Americans more than 200 years to finally find their identity. Hence, there surely is a lot of work to be done to transform Malaysia into a solid nation. It is indeed a work-in-progress. We must remember, Malaysia is just 49 years old (from its founding in 1963), way too young compared with major countries, such as the United States, China and India, just to name a few.
In order to build a successful Malaysian nation, Malaysians must be willing to put aside their political and cultural differences. However, this will be an enormous challenge as not only are Malaysians divided politically and culturally, they are also divided regionally. A case in point is Sabahans and Sarawakians who are separated from their peninsular Malaysian counterparts by the South China Sea.
The main challenge confronting the government of the day (and any government to come) is to bridge what I call the political and cultural gap in Malaysian society. This endeavour must start with the effort to truly integrate Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia. Since 2008, Sabah and Sarawak are considered by many as the ruling party Barisan Nasional’s (BN) “fixed deposits”. The label came after the East Malaysian states helped the BN return to power by contributing 56 parliamentary seats in the 2008 general election.
These seats were crucial in ensuring the BN’s slim electoral victory. Many analysts (including this writer) have predicted that the BN will return to power but not necessarily with Sabah and Sarawak as its fixed deposits anymore, depending on changes in the dynamics of local politics. Sabah and Sarawak’s fixed deposits status has brought them to national prominence. Sabah, in particular, has been receiving numerous development assistances from the Federal Government.
Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan Sabah received the largest financial allocation of more than RM16 billion. More Sabahans were also appointed to hold important positions in the federal cabinet. Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, for instance, was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to helm the influential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal, the Ministry of Rural Development. These cabinet portfolios are normally reserved for key Umno leaders from peninsular Malaysia.
Despite the special treatment given to Sabah and Sarawak, many are not happy with the fixed deposits label. They ask: if Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?
When the democratically elected PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) was in power, it was pushed into the political wilderness by the Mahathir administration simply because the party was championing state rights and autonomy. This caused Sabah to lag behind in terms of infrastructural development. Despite peninsular Malaysia’s marked development progress, Sabah and Sarawak are still way behind.
It is important for the government to set politics aside for the sake of nation-building. Sabah and Sarawak must not be regarded as fixed deposits anymore. Sabahans and Sarawakians have suffered a lot due to “bad politics” played by self-serving leaders. The Federal Government must not alienate Sabahans and Sarawakians just because they are politically and culturally different. Sabahans and Sarawakians are loyal Malaysian citizens who want to be treated equally as their fellow Malaysians in the peninsular Malaysia.
If the government is serious about building a strong Malaysian nation, Sabahans and Sarawakians teach us that we all can live in peace and harmony if we are willing to accept each other’s political and cultural differences. In Sabah and Sarawak, ethnic tolerance is high. There have never been any ethnic riots in Sabah and Sarawak throughout Malaysia’s 49 years of history. Ethnic harmony is intact thanks to inter-ethnic marriages. Regional identity plays a more important role than do ethnicity and religion. It does not matter whether one is Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut, Lundayeh or Bisaya, racial identity is not as strong as in peninsular Malaysia.
While many of the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak have embraced either Islam or Christianity, they take pride in their cultural roots. That is why when the “Allah” issue came about, Sabahan Muslims came to defend the right of their Christian counterparts to use the word “Allah".
Najib is correct when he said that Sabah is a model for the 1Malaysia policy even though many acknowledge the fact that 1Malaysia existed in Sabah and Sarawak long before it was conceived. The introduction of the 1Malaysia concept and the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into the country’s mainstream development by the Najib Administration is a step in the right direction towards building a Malaysian nation.
However, this must be done by acknowledging the religious and cultural diversity of the people of Sabah and Sarawak. The journey of building a Malaysian nation started long ago when the country’s founding fathers drafted a constitution that respects the democratic right of every Malaysian citizen such as the right to religious beliefs, the right to vote, the right to form a political party and so on.
The people in Sabah and Sarawak were also accorded with certain rights due to their religious and cultural uniqueness. If the powers-that-be recognise these rights and make every effort to educate Malaysians to respect and accept them, we are in the right track to building a successful nation.
The original version of this posting can be found at http://fz.com/content/role-sabah-and-sarawak-nation-building.
By Arnold Puyok
TO BUILD a nation is not easy. It took the Americans more than 200 years to finally find their identity. Hence, there surely is a lot of work to be done to transform Malaysia into a solid nation. It is indeed a work-in-progress. We must remember, Malaysia is just 49 years old (from its founding in 1963), way too young compared with major countries, such as the United States, China and India, just to name a few.
In order to build a successful Malaysian nation, Malaysians must be willing to put aside their political and cultural differences. However, this will be an enormous challenge as not only are Malaysians divided politically and culturally, they are also divided regionally. A case in point is Sabahans and Sarawakians who are separated from their peninsular Malaysian counterparts by the South China Sea.
The main challenge confronting the government of the day (and any government to come) is to bridge what I call the political and cultural gap in Malaysian society. This endeavour must start with the effort to truly integrate Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia. Since 2008, Sabah and Sarawak are considered by many as the ruling party Barisan Nasional’s (BN) “fixed deposits”. The label came after the East Malaysian states helped the BN return to power by contributing 56 parliamentary seats in the 2008 general election.
These seats were crucial in ensuring the BN’s slim electoral victory. Many analysts (including this writer) have predicted that the BN will return to power but not necessarily with Sabah and Sarawak as its fixed deposits anymore, depending on changes in the dynamics of local politics. Sabah and Sarawak’s fixed deposits status has brought them to national prominence. Sabah, in particular, has been receiving numerous development assistances from the Federal Government.
Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan Sabah received the largest financial allocation of more than RM16 billion. More Sabahans were also appointed to hold important positions in the federal cabinet. Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, for instance, was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to helm the influential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal, the Ministry of Rural Development. These cabinet portfolios are normally reserved for key Umno leaders from peninsular Malaysia.
Despite the special treatment given to Sabah and Sarawak, many are not happy with the fixed deposits label. They ask: if Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?
When the democratically elected PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) was in power, it was pushed into the political wilderness by the Mahathir administration simply because the party was championing state rights and autonomy. This caused Sabah to lag behind in terms of infrastructural development. Despite peninsular Malaysia’s marked development progress, Sabah and Sarawak are still way behind.
It is important for the government to set politics aside for the sake of nation-building. Sabah and Sarawak must not be regarded as fixed deposits anymore. Sabahans and Sarawakians have suffered a lot due to “bad politics” played by self-serving leaders. The Federal Government must not alienate Sabahans and Sarawakians just because they are politically and culturally different. Sabahans and Sarawakians are loyal Malaysian citizens who want to be treated equally as their fellow Malaysians in the peninsular Malaysia.
If the government is serious about building a strong Malaysian nation, Sabahans and Sarawakians teach us that we all can live in peace and harmony if we are willing to accept each other’s political and cultural differences. In Sabah and Sarawak, ethnic tolerance is high. There have never been any ethnic riots in Sabah and Sarawak throughout Malaysia’s 49 years of history. Ethnic harmony is intact thanks to inter-ethnic marriages. Regional identity plays a more important role than do ethnicity and religion. It does not matter whether one is Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut, Lundayeh or Bisaya, racial identity is not as strong as in peninsular Malaysia.
While many of the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak have embraced either Islam or Christianity, they take pride in their cultural roots. That is why when the “Allah” issue came about, Sabahan Muslims came to defend the right of their Christian counterparts to use the word “Allah".
Najib is correct when he said that Sabah is a model for the 1Malaysia policy even though many acknowledge the fact that 1Malaysia existed in Sabah and Sarawak long before it was conceived. The introduction of the 1Malaysia concept and the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into the country’s mainstream development by the Najib Administration is a step in the right direction towards building a Malaysian nation.
However, this must be done by acknowledging the religious and cultural diversity of the people of Sabah and Sarawak. The journey of building a Malaysian nation started long ago when the country’s founding fathers drafted a constitution that respects the democratic right of every Malaysian citizen such as the right to religious beliefs, the right to vote, the right to form a political party and so on.
The people in Sabah and Sarawak were also accorded with certain rights due to their religious and cultural uniqueness. If the powers-that-be recognise these rights and make every effort to educate Malaysians to respect and accept them, we are in the right track to building a successful nation.
The original version of this posting can be found at http://fz.com/content/role-sabah-and-sarawak-nation-building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)