dealing with malaysia's religious and racial diversity...part 1

it is said that multi-ethnic diversity is malaysia's strength, more than anything else. but it has also become the country's liability, as current events suggest. when ahmad sabri said that the chinese are "pendatang' and thus do not deserve equal status as the bumiputeras, he was summoned by the prime minister and a scores of other malaysians demanded a public apology from him. sabri said that he was being misquoted by a chinese newspaper and what he said was based on historical fact. as the dust of the ahmad sabri saga has about to settle, the outspoken mp for seputeh teresa kok angered the muslim community in selangor when she lodged a complaint on behalf of her constituents about the "nuisance" created by the azan prayer. teresa was then arrested under the controversial isa but only to be released indefinitely later. what do these episodes tell us and what lessons can we learn from them?

first, the ideal of creating a bangsa malaysia will remain an elusive dream as each of the ethnic groups still insists on defending its own religious and racial characteristics. the bangsa malaysia dream, if achieved, will see malaysians of all races putting their religious and cultural differences aside while at the same time recognising themselves as a one "race" called "malaysian race". by race here i do not mean that we abandon our racial distinctiveness and "embrace" a new one. i mean how many malaysians out there are willing to put their beloved country, malaysia, first, then after that, their own ethnic group? may be we should learn from the indonesians. during my recent visit to jakarta, i came across with a few chinese who conversed in indonesian languange among themselves. and it is quite rare to see a chinese using his/her chinese name as the indonesian name is preferrable, may be for integration purposes. it is indeed an envious sight to begin with. in malaysia, one normally shifts to english when meeting with the chinese; and the chinese to bahasa malaysia when meeting withnon-chinese. may be we should re-look our language policy and use it as a tool to unify malaysians.

second, "change" is not forthcoming in malaysia for there are certain people who still think along the ethnic and religious lines. while other countries are in the aggresive drive to modernise their economies, educate their people to be competitive and to accept each other's differences with an open mind, malaysia is still grappling with the ethnic and religious issue. if nothing concrete is achieved to tackle this malaise, i am afraid that malaysia would not be able to move forward, what more achieving the visions 2020 (do not forget that the first challenge in the vision is to create an integrated and united society that shares a common vision). while the word "change" is a powerful mantra in the united states nowadays, it is, however, seen in the negative light by some especially those in the corridor of power. this brings me to my next point.

while much has been said about the need to reform the judiciary and to tackle the problem of corruption and inefficiency, little attention has been given on the issue of how to educate malaysians to think beyond the ethnic and religious lines. the government's decision to come up with an act (race relations act) is laudable but its details must be thoroughly debated and scrutinised before it is passed. some in sabah and sarawak have lamented that there is no need to come up with a law to regulate race relations; in fact these people say race relations in both states have remained all time high. the problem i see here is not one of legal or lack of spaces to inculcate the spirit of acceptance and tolerance among races. but what is lacking is the political will of those in power to effect changes. it is sad that zaid ibrahim had to quit the cabinet after his plan to reform the judiciary was seen as too radical by his comrades in the government. the crucial question that needs to be asked here is: are our political leaders willing to abandon their exclusive ethnic and religious thinking and start fighting for other races?

the pensiangan woe

when the high court declared joseph kurup’s victory in pensiangan null and void, there is a sense of euphoria among some segments of the society. this would perhaps be the second straight mother of all by-election (if kurup fails in his bid to appeal against the court’s decision) in malaysia after the permatang pauh by-election. why? a party president will have to defend his seat against a more popular opposition figure. losing the seat will mean a possible disbandment of pbrs and winning it will give a boost to kurup--the only sole pbrs representative in the parliament.

already, jeffrey kitingan—kurup’s arch-rival who almost defeated the pbrs president back in 2004—has lobbied himself to be selected as candidate should there be a by-election. if jeffrey and kurup contested, chances are high that jeffrey might be able to wrest the seat from the latter by means of individual popularity.

andipai, the disgruntled pkr candidate whose nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer has shown interest to contest, saying confidently that the candidate must be someone who understands the pensiangan constituency better. if there is such thing as a better candidate, then, it might be bernard maraat who was dropped from the pbrs list due to his conflict with kurup. the sentiment on the ground indicates that maraat is strongly tipped to contest under the pbs ticket (after withdrawing from pbrs, maraat chose pbs as his new party).

if maraat is selected, then pkr’s desire to make inroads in pensiangan would be difficult. surely, top bn leaders will have a hard time deciding who should stand representing the bn in pensiangan. if kurup is dropped for fear of losing face to pkr, then it would probably be the end of the road for the veteran politician who is struggling to survive amid dwindling support. the beneficiary will be pbs though pkr will also stand a chance to winning pensiangan. so far, upko, the second biggest kadazandusun-based party has been silent. the bn and pkr will brace for another new round of political battle. it is a battle that everyone cannot wait to watch; it is also a battle that allows pensiangan voters to decide who should be voted in and who should be voted out. this is democracy sabah style!

anwar won permatang pauh...what would be his next course of action? part 2

anwar is surely now busy criss-crossing the country, trying to entice bn mps to change party. but he may find the effort difficult as some of the bn mps have been brought to a "study trip" somewhere in taiwan. again, supporters of anwar believe that he is not telling jokes and the change in government will materialise come september 16. i received an sms from someone yesterday asking my opinion about anwar's move. my response--which will be the subject of my entry today is--"i do not support pakatan rakyat taking over from bn through party crossover as i would prefer anwar playing his role as strong opposition leader in the parliament and convince us that he and his pakatan people can lead this country. but if the bn does not wake up from its slumber, what choice is there left for us?"

i am happy that anwar won in permatang pauh. not that i am a supporter of pakatan nor a follower of anwar. i have seen parliamentary debates so many times but i am not satisfied with the way our mps debating about issues. i am not saying that they are all useless; some do not find debating and speaking from hard facts as serious vocation anymore. i have seen our mps reading from texts without really engaging the issues at hand. at times, some would prefer trading childish comments and belittling the other fellow mps. hopefully with anwar's return into the parliament, we would see more quality debates and that our bn mps would be much better prepared in facing the now strong opposition presence. i hope anwar and his pakatan people would turn the parliament into a forum where serious issues are debated and solutions to our country's problems sought.

simply put, anwar's return and the growing demand for "opposition politics" are good for malaysia and for open intellectual discourse. opposition politics, to my mind, is not necessarily a "bad thing" as most people think. strictly speaking, it would allow the rakyat to see two differing views and decide for themselves which one is good for the country. if handled well, the bn government under pak lah will benefit a lot by allowing the opposition parties to take part in country's development.

what do i mean when i said that the "bn should wake up from its slumber"? some of the things that the bn can do to appease anwar's rise is to concentrate on developing the people's well-being and start implementing its reform agenda. all the allegations against the bn's leadership should not be deliberately swept under the carpet through means of censorship or implementation of questionable legal recourse. doing these will only aggravate the people's ill-feeling and would reinforce the claims that bn government's determination in getting rid of corrupt elements is just a "public relations exercise". if the allegations are not true, then the bn should engage its detractors by giving facts for the people to judge themselves. if they are true, then the only thing that the bn could do is to admit its mistakes and go on with its reform agenda. pak lah has good intentions in developing and reforming this country. but what he may be lacking is the support from his inner circles who may resist changes or may not want their wrongdoings exposed. just go on with what you think is good for the country pak lah...i am sure many people will support you!

anwar won permatang pauh...what would be his next course of action? part 1

i received a message from a friend telling me anwar was leading in the vote count. i tuned in to awani astro and the commentator annouced that at press time, anwar was still leading the two other candidates. i stayed on to watch the election analysis and it was almost certain that based on the feedbacks given by on-site journalists, anwar had won the election with a bigger majority this time. at 10 p.m. something, the commentator announced the official results: anwar won with 31 000 or so votes; arif, 15 000 or so votes and the akim candidate a mere 92 votes. compared with the majority received by wan azizah on march 8 this year, anwar managed to increase the majority votes to 15 000 or so votes--to the surprise of political analysts across the country. the voter turnout was low at 65 per cent even though the star reported today that it was in fact more than 80 per cent.

what does this election result tell us? a lot. first, it tells us that anwar is still an influential figure and a force to be reckoned with in malaysian politics. the sodomy allegation launched against him did not diminish his reputation. even before the election, the merdeka centre did a survey about the sodomy allegation and found out that a considerable number (about more than 30 per cent) of those polled believed that the allegation was politically motivated. second, anwar's victory has brought him closer to the corridor of power. an insider told me that the change in government is imminent: it will happen even before 16 september this year. the only thing anwar has to do now is to convince some 30 or so bn mps to crossover. how willing are these mps--alleged to be mostly from sabah--to change party is everyone's guess. but a source told me that they are prepared to leave bn provided anwar can convince them that the "takeover"plan is not just an elusive dream. third, now that anwar is in parliament, the bn will continue with the passing of the controversial dna bill. this is the only way to get rid of anwar. when the bill is passed then anwar will have no choice but to give his dna sample failing which he will have to pay 10 000 ringgit or one year in prison. soon after taking oath, anwar did not waste time to criticise the bill. when the opposition demanded a special committee to look into the bill, the home minister syed hamid albar refused, resulting in the opposition walkout today. by convention, the bn will face no obstacle in passing the bill as it has the number to form the simple majority needed. anwar's hope now lies in the hands of bn mps who believe in his struggle and do not mind to leave the bn.

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!