anwar and arif to battle it out in permatang pauh

ok folks, who do you think will win the permatang pauh by-election? observers have made their bet about it: anwar will easily defeat arif but with a reduced majority win. anwar may not be able to match wan azizah's 13 000 or so majority votes due to the fact that the bn will use its might to ensure anwar's difficult passage into the parliament. if anwar won the election with a reduced majority, the bn will surely take it to mean that the popular support for the opposition icon is waning; if anwar lost the election, then, it would mean that the pakatan rakyat's ambition to grab power will not only be difficult but impossible. the political economist terence gomez of um said the 30 mps tipped to crossover would most likely stay in bn as it would be difficult to persuade them to change party.

earlier, i predicted that anwar would win the by-election in permatang pauh with a reduced majority. but since intelligence reports have indicated that the permatang pauh constituents are all for anwar, it may be safe to assume that anwar will win big. don't forget that permatang pauh is anwar's stronghold. whatever it is, let us see how the voters in permatang pauh will vote this time.

pbs has to do something to remain relevant

the pbs kiulu division showed what it means to criticise a leader when it asked the huguan siou pairin kitingan to quit to pave the way for a young progressive leader to take pbs's helm. for someone who has been on top for so many years, the call indicates that some pbs members have begun to see pairin as a lame duck leader who has lost his claws. those calling pairin to quit want his deputy maximus ongkili to take over pbs's leadership but the questions which pbs members need to ask themselves are: is maximus the right person to replace pairin? can he become the new huguan siou of the kadazandusun if pairin resigning as president of pbs would also mean that he need to relinquish the influential titular position as well?

talks at the grassroots level (and this was confirmed by a source as well) are that maximus is unlikely to replace pairin as huguan siou because compared to pairin, he does not have a strong grassroots base. maximus is also said to be not likeable among the chinese and muslim pbs members. if pbs was to remain relevant, at least as a multiracial party, it has to ensure that the chinese and muslim support remain strong. so far, pbs has done nothing constructive to maintain its chinese and muslim support. it is true, according to a source, that some chinese, in particular, have already begun to see sabah politics beyond pbs. the muslims, on the other hand, are beginning to see umno as a capable party to uniting the muslim community in sabah. the chinese and muslim who remain loyal to pbs now can be considered as those who are sympathetic to pbs's struggles.

if no credible leader is found and pairin has to resign, then pbs has to face its rival party upko which is now trying to woo kadazandusun members to its midst. upko may be more appealing to the kadazandusuns now because it mobilises its political movement along the strong kadazandusun sentiment. if pbs lost its kadazandusun support, it will surely face disbandment as its support depends heavily on the kadazandusun community.

so, really, pbs has no choice but to buckle up. this would mean revamping the party's lineup by injecting new young blood and preparing for a leadership transitional process. it also needs to woo young members who are beginning to develop interests towards politics. the pbs should emulate upko that has established komulakan to reach the younger generation. while it is true that from the political point of view that pbs would survive as long as it is in bn, it would face the same fate as in the case of mic and mca if no efforts are taken to solidify its mass support.

as for pairin, perhaps, it is time for him to focus more on uniting the kadazandusun community in his capacity as huguan siou. let someone helm the pbs and let not politics divides the kadazandusun further.

a review of the historical anwar-shabbery debate

yes, i saw the debate on astro awani and was really excited about it. just before the debate began, i made sure i had a notebook and a pen with me to jot down all the arguments from both sides of the debaters. the moderator was johan jaafar, a familiar face in malaysian broadcasting industry. okay, i do not have problem with johan. sometimes, i enjoy reading his column on nst. modelled on the american presidential debate, both debaters were allowed to bring in their respective moderators. anwar took zulkifli sulong with him while shabbery had nordin kardi the uum vc to be on his side. anwar and shabbery were given four minutes each to provide their opening statements. sadly, both had to take about one to two minutes to present their respective "mukadimahs". yes, sometimes malaysians--our politicians to be exact--rarely talk straight to the point.


okay, anwar's basic premise is that he could lower the prices of oil by 50 per cent and the sources of subsidies could be taken from petronas' dividens. he also said the ipps' (independent power providers) "excess capacity" could be used to cushion the government's financial burden. he simply argued that if the government is more prudent in its spending; and if it could ensure that financial mismanagement would be the thing in the past, it would not have incurred much financial losses. shabbery, on the other hand, argued that the increase in oil prices is beyond the government's control as the oil industry is very much influenced by the political and economic situation in the oil producing countries. he also said the government had to make an unpopular decision for the betterment of the future generation. shabbery said the billions of ringgit paid as subsidies could be better used for building necessary infrastructures i.e. schools, hospitals, etc.

to be fair to both debaters, i do not want to judge who is the real winner. they had their own strenghts and weaknesses. nevertheless, both had, at times, strayed from the main topic of the debate. it would be more interesting if both debaters stuck to the main argument and provide us with facts so we could decide whose case is much compelling. for instance, how is anwar going to reduce the prices of oil by 50 per cent and what are the mechanisms that he would use to achieve that target?. shabbery should have focused more on the rationale for the government to increase oil prices and why it is a right decision for malaysia to take.

the drawback of course was that both took the opportunity to launch personal attacks against each other. it is incorrect to say that only shabbery had spoken about something unrelated; anwar also talked about unrelated and highly politically charged statement i.e. that he is going to stand in an by-election soon, etc. he should have kept his political ambition to his heart and let the people decide if he is indeed credible even as the so-called "prime minister-in-waiting". another sad thing is that, shabbery's backer nordin kardi did not use the platform to question anwar as an academician would question a long-established and contestable fact. he seemed more interested in ridiculing anwar with his well-known sarcastic remarks. for me, it was a letdown for the academic community.

anwar and shabbery had shown to us that civil discourse can happen in malaysia. the airing of the debate and malaysians' reaction to it also indicate that we are ready to discuss openly and civilly about issues affecting our country. i think malaysia would be a much safer place to live in if we all learn how to agree and disagree about something openly rather than pretending to agree about something without openly showing our disagreement.

to concur with rehman rashid of new straits times, the real winner of the debate is no other than civil discourse!

High Drama or Circus in Malaysian Politics?

I was excited in learning about the whole affairs of Malaysian politics because the drama about the so-called conspiracy theory once again resurface. Our nation was surprised with the news of an aide to former deputy prime minsiter, Anwar Ibrahim, being sodomised. And guess what, he was said to have been sodomised by Anwar himself! Remember that Anwar was convicted with sodomy (but was later acquitted from the conviction) in 1998. Almost nine years have passed, and the catchphrase “liwat” once again appears on mainstream newspapers. The drama heightened when a private investigator made a Statutory Declaration (SD) claiming that our deputy prime minister Najib Razak has connection with the Altantunya murder. Not only that he also made an explosive statement that Najib had sexual relationship with Altantunya!

A day after that, the private investigator retracted his statement saying that he was forced to make the earlier SD. Today, the private investigator was said to have been disappeared and his family members were really concerned about his safety. It is from here that the conspiracy theory began to spiral uncontrollably. First, many believe that that someone in the government had told the private investigator to cook up a statement about the deputy prime minister. With this, the conspirators hoped to tarnish the deputy prime minister’s image that would make him automatically ineligible to become president of UMNO and our prime minister should he is able to oust prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Others say that the allegation made against the deputy prime minister was masterminded by Anwar himself and that Abdullah had allowed this to happen because he does not want Najib to take over his place.

Many people appear to believe this story. I, for one, am more concerned about the nation’s stability than about who is going to be the prime minister after Abdullah. The people especially those living in rural areas are already suffering from the high cost of living and stagnant economy. For me, the people have spoken up through the election and that they wanted the Barisan Nasional and Abdullah to lead this country. If the opposition is not happy with the way the present government rules, it should be more effective in playing its role as opposition especially in the parliament. It should questions the government policies and identify loopholes in them. It should also gives recommendations as to how this country can be managed much better.

I don’t really buy the idea of toppling the present government through party hopping. This will only mean that the opposition is just as power crazy. The government should not take its time too much in investigating something which is based on innuendoes and wild allegations, for example, the sodomy case described above. It should be serious in preventing a certain group of people from using the government instrument to further their political agenda.

Having said all the above, I bet we all know who the clowns are and what sort of drama they are up to; but they are not those who want to entertain us as real clowns normally do in a circus. They are more dangerous and bent on destroying our country. It is true that politics is about power but sadly a lot of people use their power for evil means and only a handful use it for good intention.

sodomy allegation againts anwar: what? again?

i do not want to say much about the sodomy allegation againts anwar. i hope the police will do their job and establish the truth behind the allegation. whether it is true or not that anwar sodomised his aide is nobody's business. but it is quite a surprise that the finding of the survey conducted by merdeka center found out that almost 90 per cent of those polled considered anwar as innocent. whatever it is, this is the opportunity for the prime minister abdullah to prove that he is fair and that he will make sure that it is not a political conspiracy to prevent anwar from making a political comeback. abdullah must also make sure that if indeed it is a conspiracy, the conspirator/s are booked and punished according to the law.

others think that this is another "wayang" played out by our politicians to survive. please let me know of your thoughts.

excerpts of election results and analysis in sabah

here's my analysis of the recent elections. note that my analysis is only confined to sabah. elsewhere, i write a bit about the scenario in peninsular malaysia. please do not quote this piece unless you have permission to do so strictly for private purposes. wait until it is published then you can cite it for academic purposes and public discussion.

by way of introduction and the main argument ...

The 2008 Malaysian General Election saw the BN (Barisan Nasional or National Front) returned to power with less than a two-thirds majority. It has been observed that this is BN’s worst electoral outing since 1969. The situation is rather different in Sabah, one of the thirteen states in Malaysia, in which BN managed to almost making a clean sweep and thus denying the opposition any chance to making inroads. Even though it was initially observed that the opposition led by PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) could deny BN a major victory in Sabah, the election results indicate otherwise. At the outset, a major portion of the electorate in Sabah has renewed its support to BN, following the trend in 2004. The article argues that the tide of the “Peninsular factor” (i.e. the combined personality factor of Anwar and Mahathir and other contentious issues in the Peninsular Malaysia) give little impact on Sabah politics. It explains why the voters in Sabah give their support to BN and why they have abandoned the opposition.

peninsula voters looking beyond ethnic politics?

At the national level, the BN suffered a major setback since 1969 after failing to retain its two-thirds majority win. The BN even failed to obtain a majority of popular votes cast in Peninsular Malaysia It only obtained 49 per cent of the popular votes cast compared to the opposition 51 per cent (Asian Strategic Leadership Institute 2008). Of all the 140 seats the BN won, 54 came from Sabah and Sarawak. So without the contribution of Sabah and Sarawak, the BN would not have obtained a simple majority. The opposition also managed to increase its seats in the parliament from 12 previously to 82 this time around. The BN, however, won impressively in Sabah and Sarawak. Of all the 25 parliamentary and 60 state seats contested in Sabah, the BN won 24 and 59 respectively. In Sarawak, the opposition was clearly decimated where it only won one seat in its stronghold in Bandar Kuching compared to the BN 30 seats.

the analysis ...

For analytical purposes, we shall divide all the contested parliamentary and state seats in Sabah into three broad categories namely Kadazandusun (or non-Muslim Bumiputera), Chinese, Muslim Bumiputera and mixed areas. From there, we shall analyse the performances of the parties contesting with respect to the popular votes cast and the number of seats won. Where necessary, a comparison with the results in 2004 is also made.

The BN won all the six parliamentary seats in Kadazandusun areas including in Pensiangan where it was won uncontested by Joseph Kurup (BN-PBRS). In terms of popular votes, the BN obtained 58.68 per cent compared to the combined opposition votes 36.40 per cent. Both the BN and opposition had their share of popular votes dropped by 1.2 and 3.71 per cent respectively (Table 2). The BN component parties of PBS and UPKO shared the number of popular votes at 24.55 per cent and 25.33 per cent respectively while UMNO only 8.79 per cent. In 2004, PBS obtained 59.88 per cent while the opposition and independents combined obtained 40.11 per cent. The large bulk of the opposition votes went to PKR (35.02 per cent), followed by BERSEKUTU (0.86 per cent) and DAP (0.51 per cent). The remaining 4.91 per cent went to the independent candidates.

At the state level, the BN won all the 13 Kadazandusun seats, collecting about 59.81 per cent of the popular votes compared to the opposition combined, 34.56 per cent (Table 3). In 2004, the BN obtained 57.88 per cent of the popular votes while the opposition 42.09 per cent. At the individual party level, the PKR managed to collect about 33.59 per cent compared to the PBS 32.91 per cent. The share of the votes obtained by UPKO and PBRS is just 17.54 per cent and 4.82 per cent respectively. Interestingly, the opposition could have denied the BN a huge majority in a number of areas had it successful in persuading the independent candidates not to contest. For example in Tandek, the combined votes of the PKR candidate with that of the independent’s and BERSEKUTU’s could have reduced the BN’s majority to just 245. In Bingkor, Jeffrey could have won the seat had the independent chosen not to contest. The BN’s majority in Bingkor is only 122. In 2004, Jeffrey was almost able to wrest the seat from Kurup with a 143-vote difference.

The results show that the Kadazandusun voters did not totally reject the opposition’s brand of politics which some quarters say as irrelevant to local people. But one cannot deny the fact that the Kadazandusun voters want local-based parties such as PBS and UPKO to represent them at the federal level. At the state level, the opposition performed slightly better on an individual party basis, looking at the number of popular votes it obtained (33.59 per cent) compared to the major BN Kadazandusun-based party, PBS, 32.01 per cent. This could be attributed to two reasons. First, many saw PBS as gradually losing its image as “champion” to the Kadazandusun and state rights. They might also want an opposition voice in the legislative assembly which the PBS and other state BN parties failed to provide. Second, Pairin’s silence on a number of pressing local issues such as fake ICs and illegal immigrants since becoming a “BN man” (as the opposition called him) has slightly affected his reputation as Huguan Siou (Paramount Leader). Jeffrey’s scathing attack on Pairin’s character as well as his revelation of Musa’s alleged corrupt practices might also contribute to the swing of the Kadazandusun votes.

All the BN Kadazandusun-based parties campaigned along the issues of development and continuity. The PBS chose to depart from its strong Kadazandusun outlook while UPKO emerged to become a “new” champion to the Kadazandusun community. The UPKO vowed to fight for the Kadazandusun rights as it is the only “pure” Kadazandusun party in the state. It even stated that it had “[stuck] its neck out” in speaking about the Kadazandusun problems in Sabah. The PBS, long associated with the Kadazandusun, chose to play “safe politics” as it has painful experience being in the opposition until it was re-admitted into BN in 2002. The PBRS’s electoral strength particularly at the parliamentary level is generally untested because it won the Pensiangan seat uncontested. Despite the win, the PBRS president Joseph Kurup would have to face a lot of uncertainties ahead as there is a strong possibility that a by-election would be called in Pensiangan. Unlike in Pairin’s and Dompok’s case, Kurup had to choose the “hard way” to remain in power, that is, not to re-nominate the popular incumbent in Pensiangan Bernard Maraat whom he saw as the type of leader “who likes to work alone”. At one time, Maraat vowed to contest as an independent but only to change his mind later. To say which among the Kadazandusun-based parties that is more popular among the Kadazandusun voters warrant another close observation but PBS has the advantage because many Kadazandusun still regard Pairin as a symbol of unity and strength due to his role as Huguan Siou and president of the Kadazandusun Cultural Association (KDCA) (Luping 1984, p. 83-87).

The Chinese support for the opposition appeared to be strong in urban areas. The popular votes obtained by the opposition in the parliamentary seats of Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan is 57.41 per cent compared to the BN 35.62 per cent. Overall, the popular Chinese votes gained by the opposition saw an increase by 13.76 per cent (Table 2). Both the DAP and PKR candidate managed to defeat the BN candidate with a majority votes of more than 1000 and 900 respectively. Had the DAP, PKR and independent joined force to face the BN, they could trounce the BN candidate with well more than 10000 votes. The same scenario could be drawn in Sandakan which saw the LDP candidate facing a tough fight from the DAP and independent. Had the DAP and independent decided to contest as a single pact, they could have defeated the LDP with more than 2000 votes.

Even though the BN managed to win five of the six Chinese seats contested at the state level, the opposition’s performance could not be underestimated. The PKR, for instance, managed to deny a big majority to the PBS candidate in Api-Api who obtained only 174 votes while in several areas the huge number of votes obtained by the opposition showed that the Chinese voters were generally unhappy with the BN and that they were looking for a different party platform to represent them. The total votes obtained by the BN at the state level is 53 per cent while the opposition 49.99 per cent (Table 3). Following the trend at the parliamentary level, the opposition votes at the state level also registered a significant increase of 18.91 per cent.

The opposition could have won another one parliamentary seat and two state seats had it chosen to contest one-on-one with the BN. The table below explains this possible scenario (*sorry not table is included in this posting)

Clearly, the Chinese voting pattern could be partly explained by the rational choice theory. Rational choice theorists hold that “voting decisions are based on cost-benefit analyses where voters match their individual issue preferences with party platforms” (Andersen and Heath 2000, p. 3). The opposition’s promise to abolish affirmative action policy and to provide equal economic opportunities to all Malaysian irrespective of race and religion might be appealing to the Chinese community. Other than that, the opposition’s promise to reform the country and to tackle the high cost of living particularly in urban areas could also contribute to the swing of the Chinese votes. It appeared that the Chinese were not too concerned about the Ma Tzu issue because it was seen as a personal problem between Musa and Chong. Chong’s decision to remain in the BN and to leave the matter to court to decide explains why some Chinese remain loyal to the BN. Had Chong decided to join the opposition, the voting pattern in the Chinese area could have seen a swing to the opposition.
Muslim areas

The BN remained strong in the Muslim areas. It won all the 15 parliamentary seats contested (including the Kalabakan seat which was won uncontested) and obtained about 66.06 per cent of the popular votes compared to the opposition 27.25 per cent (Table 2). A major share of the Muslim votes went to UMNO 53.26 per cent, followed by PKR 24.12 per cent, and the independent candidates combined 6.67 per cent. The BN repeated the similar massive victory at the state level, winning all the 36 seats contested. The popular votes the BN obtained is 68.78 per cent while the opposition 27.58 per cent. Again, a major share of the popular votes went to UMNO 63.61 per cent while the PKR only managed to scrap through with 25.58 per cent. The Sabah UMNO really did a commendable job than its counterpart in Peninsular Malaysia which shared the number of popular votes with PAS and PKR combined at 35.5 per cent and 34.8 per cent respectively (www.asli.com.my).

Clearly, the Muslim electorate rejected the PKR as an alternative party to them. The tide of the Anwar factor in Peninsular Malaysia did not seem to give much impact. Despite the chorus of attacks on Musa’s leadership and Sabah UMNO practising blatant cronyism, the Muslim electorate solidly backed Musa and gave BN a convincing win. Apart from the explanation above, the Muslim might not have any choice but to vote for the UMNO as there is no credible Muslim-backed party in Sabah. Even though there is speculation that a group of UMNO dissenters would form an alternative Muslim party, it remains just speculation. Musa was also quick to devise a plan to ensure his position in Sabah UMNO continues to be unchallenged. This included the awards of lucrative contracts to UMNO’s divisional heads and those identified to be a threat to his leadership (Malaysia Today 2008).

Another observation is that non-Muslim voters become the decisive factor in ensuring the victory to non-Muslim parties contesting in Muslim areas. For example in Putatan, Batu Sapi and Tawau parliamentary seats. Putatan has a significant number of Kadazandusun and Chinese voters (roughly 36.72 per cent) while Batu Sapi and Tawau have a substantial number of Chinese voters (37.33 per cent and 44.37 per cent respectively). These reinforce the claim once again that the Kadazandusun and Chinese voters outside the urban areas clearly rejected the opposition particularly the PKR. The same pattern is also obvious at the state level. Non-Muslim parties such as PBS and UPKO managed to wrest the Tanjung Aru and Kuala Penyu seats respectively. Tanjung Aru has strong Chinese population at 36.59 per cent while Kuala Penyu has a large number of Kadazandusun voters at 38.77 per cent.

A mixed area can be loosely described as an area where there is no one particular ethnic group commanding a population majority of more than 50 per cent. The BN obtained about 62.14 per cent of the votes in mixed areas compared to the opposition 36.27 per cent at the parliamentary level (Table 2). A major share of the popular votes went to UPKO and SAPP in Tuaran and Sepanggar respectively while PKR obtained about 29.59 per cent. While the battle in the parliamentary mixed seat is not as decisive, the situation is different at the state level. The opposition could have won in Inanam and Kapayan if DAP and PKR had not contested against each other. In Inanam, for instance, the combined votes of the DAP and PKR candidates could have easily toppled the BN’s candidate by well over than a thousand votes. In Kapayan, the opposition could have won the seat by a convincing majority of a thousand or so votes had it decided to contest one-on-one with the BN candidate. Overall, the BN obtained about 51.24 per cent of the popular votes while the opposition 40.69 per cent in all the mixed seats at state level. On an individual party basis, the PKR fared relatively well, obtaining about 27.18 per cent of the votes, followed by its counterpart DAP 13.28 per cent.

post election scenario in sabah

sabah and sarawak the power brokers

one cannot deny the fact that sabah and Sarawak have contributed immensely towards bn's victory in the 2008 election. going by the number of seats contributed by sabah's and sarawak's bn component parties, they deserve better attention by the federal government. the stark difference between the two states is that sarawak has not been that demanding as has been sabah. two of sabah's mps recently resigned as a mark of protest to abdullah's decision not to give more representation to sabah's mps particularly those from UMNO. sarawak, on the other hand, has been somewhat measured and has so far not demanded any strong demands--except for a few dayak leaders who wanted their community's presence in the federal cabinet be more recognised.

resignation on a matter of principle or personal agenda?

there are two ways to explain why the sabah leaders have not been satisfied. first, sabah umno leaders have enjoyed strong patronage relationships from their peninsular counterparts. sabah umno's massive win in the 2008 election has given the party more bargaining power than ever before. in politics numbers make a lot of difference. in 1994 for example the pbs government fell from power when a number of its assemblymen crossed over to umno and to other federal-initiated political parties. the bn then had the numbers and pbs had no choice but to give up power in another attempt by the powers-that-be to deny the democratic decision of the electorate. some were quick to say that the reason for the two mps to resign was because they were not happy with the way the federal government has treated sabah. a retired senior government officer whom the writer interviewed said that one of the mps told him that sabah has been turned into a "fool" again after the entire episode. simply put, what the mp was trying to say is, sabah has always been sidelined in a number of pressing issues such as the illegal immigrant problem and the oil royalty.

another retired senior government officer gave a different perception. he believed the two mps resigned simply because they were not happy that they were not getting what they wanted. one of the mps said that he has been in his former position for too long and that it is about time to give way to the younger generation. no matter how you interprete it, it might mean that he's tired of waiting to move up to the ladder of power. seen from this light, the resignation of the two mps could be both driven by principles and personal agenda. so which one do you think they may be falling into?

second, the two mps might want to trigger the defection of the bn mps into the pakatan rakyat led by anwar. anwar has been criss-crossing the country trying to lure bn mps to join pakatan rakyat. again if anwar gets the number (30 seats to be exact), the abdullah administration could easily fall from power and thus signalling the end of bn rule in malaysia for the first time. but whether the two mps are really serious in joining anwar is everyone's guess. and the fact that there's no strong "signal" from sabah bn mps to jump ship only indicates that sabah bn remains a formidable party in sabah.

beware of the opportunist politicians

abdullah's indecisiveness proves to be one of the factors contributing to the calls for his resignation. his decision to come down to sabah himself to hear the grouses of sabah leaders shows that abdullah's is giving to much ear to a bunch of opportunist politicians whose motive could be personal rather than rakyat-driven. for sure, abdullah's collective approach to politics could backfire on him as sabah umno leaders are waiting for the right time to demand something from him, however questionable that demand might be. demanding for a more representation in the federal cabinet is one thing, demanding for the federal government to take the sabah problems seriously is another matter. what is pressing at this point of time, to my mind, is not the former but the latter. numbers make no different if they do not translate into concrete action and solution. so it is better to have only one effective mp in the parliament than many mps if no practical solutions are offered.

perhaps it is too late for abdullah to check who are really figthing for the rakyat and who are not. this is because his visit to sabah to persuade the sabah leaders to stick with bn shows the obvious indecisiveness on the part of abdullah's leadership. when one is indecisive, it is said, one could be easily trapped into the dirty political game of the political opportunists. abdullah has to be careful in dealing with some sabah politicians who have been in the state's political scene for too long but have contributed little, or none at all, to the state's development. in order to put his leadership back on track, abdullah has to do two things: to be firm in whatever decision he has made and to put his house (i.e. UMNO and its coalition allies) back into order. a way to deal with the political opportunists in sabah is to regularly check their performance and to reprimand them if they under-perform.

where should the pakatan rakyat in sabah go from here?

a few pakatan people i met are quite excited about the fact that pakatan rakyat would form the government soon when it could convince bn mps to cross-over. so excited they were that they forgot that the rakyat had made a choice in sabah, that is, they wanted bn to lead the state for another term. forgive me for sounding a bit pro-government. this is not actually my attention. i think what the pakatan should do is to form a formidable alliance and to convince the rakyat that they could be the better alternative to bn in sabah. grabbing power from the bn would not only be ethtically wrong, it would also deny the voice of the rakyat who had made their choice. though there is only one opposition adun in the state assembly, again this should not make the pakatan feel inferior. the pakatan leaders should begin from now on visiting affected areas that need attention, i.e. those areas which are underdeveloped and are isolated in the mainstream economic progress. the pakatan leaders should ask themselves: what can we do for sabah that the bn leaders cant or choose not to do? when the rakyat feels confident that they have the alternative, i am surely it will not be impossible for the pakatan rakyat to take over the government from bn. simply put, you need to show us your worth first then we will give our vote to ensure your victory in the coming elections. crossing party does not reflect the rakyat's democratic decision, as it will erode their convidence in the democratic institution that we long want to uphold.