Rakyat are the REAL BOSS

I refer to a recent news report on Free Malaysia Today (March 7, 2012) quoting YB James Masing saying that the rakyat are not the “boss” (loosely meant master) but the elected representatives. This article explains why YB Masing is WRONG. YB Masing must understand that Malaysia practices parliamentary democracy. It means that the rakyat elect their leaders to represent them in parliament. As opposed to direct democracy, representative democracy gives the opportunity to the rakyat to voice their problems in parliament through their representative or wakil rakyat. YB Masing’s claim that the rakyat are the boss before and not after the election is also seriously flawed and shows his lack of understanding of how our political system works. The rakyat are the boss before and even after the election. YB Masing is an elected representative chosen by the rakyat who are his boss. Just because he is a YB (read YANG BERKHIDMAT) and holds a ministerial position in the state cabinet does not mean that the rakyat are subservient to him. Respect to the YB and being subservient to him are too different matters. Respect is earned and no rakyat should be subservient to their YB as they are not slaves. If YB Masing wants the rakyat to respect him, he must first respect the rakyat who are his boss.

YB Masing must realise that his fate as a YB rests in the hand of the rakyat. He is no boss to anyone except to the rakyat who elected him. Another reason why the rakyat are the boss is because YB Masing is accountable to them. He is answerable to the rakyat whose votes give YB Masing the power to safeguard the interest of the rakyat. Without the rakyat, YB Masing is powerless. The rakyat’s interests should come first and not YB Masing’s. He should serve the rakyat, fulfill their needs, understand and solve their problems. Therefore, the rakyat are the boss and not YB Masing.

The problem with YB Masing including some YBs from both sides of the political divide is that, they are still caught in the feudal mentality of the past. Leaders with such a mentality are an impediment to the “People First, Performance Now” slogan championed by Prime Minister Najib Razak. The transformation agenda that the government is now promoting is doomed to fail if the rakyat are treated as slaves and not as equal partners in transforming the country. The rakyat must not be afraid of their YBs. Yes, they must respect them but they must not be subservient. The rakyat must realise that their YBs are their servants as the main role of the YBs is to serve the interest of the rakyat. It is time for the rakyat to rise and to show who the REAL BOSS are.

Pairin and Jeffrey spat does not bode well for Kadazandusun unity and progress

The recent spat between Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Joseph Pairin Kitingan and his brother Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan does not bode well for Kadazandusun unity and progress. The blame game over the 1994 incident has not ended and has revealed the deep mistrust between the two famous brothers. If one would want to blame someone for causing the Kadazandusun to split after 1994, it would be the Kadazandusun leaders themselves. But Pairin did the right thing by conceding honourably to UMNO without causing any political instability. By doing this, Pairin had shown a statesmanlike attitude that earned him admiration among Sabahans. There is no point in blaming anyone for the 1994 incident as everyone was at fault. One could give 1001 reasons for the fall of PBS but at the end of the day, the losers are the rakyat—yes, you and me. Why? We supposed to elect leaders to represent us and solve our problems but we ended up seeing them fighting each other for MONEY and POSITION! Don’t you feel cheated and treated as a servile? The Kadazandusuns have experienced this not once but many times.

It is time for the Kadazandusun leaders to stop blaming each other and start looking forward to develop the Kadazandusuns. The State Assemblyman for Kadamaian Herbert Timbun’s response to Dr Jeffrey has further aggravated the war of words between the latter and his brother. Whether the Kadazandusun leaders realise it or not, the rakyat are now getting frustrated about the kind of politics that their leaders are playing. As Malaysia marches to achieve Vision 2020 and to become a developed country, attacking each other’s personality and character is no longer relevant. The younger generation is looking for leaders who can discuss policy and have ideas on how to develop the country. As a member of the Kadazandusun community (sort of), I do not see the Kadazandusun leaders are doing anything constructive to develop their community. The Kadazandusun leaders can go on with their brand of politics but the rakyat are watching them closely. To regain the confidence of the rakyat, the Kadazandusun leaders must get out of their comfort zone and start doing something constructive for the benefit of the Kadazandusun community.

First, stop the blame game about the reasons for the Kadazandusun to split. Pairin, Dr Jeffrey, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok and Tan Sri Joseph Kurup (and those who claim to represent the Kadazandusuns) have to set aside their ego and look for solutions to solve the plights of the Kadazandusuns. They must have a plan—a practical one at that—to ensure that the Kadazandusuns can contribute meaningfully to the development of the country. One thing that they must ask themselves is: where are the Kadazandusuns in spite of the “transformational mode” the country is now experiencing. They may have different political ideologies but for the sake of the Kadazandusuns, they must place the interest of the rakyat above anything else. Do the honourable thing and you will be remembered for the rest of your life!

Second, Kadazandusun leaders must stop talking about petty issues in the media such as those concerning a person’s personality and character. They must put their qualification and experience to good use such as debating policy and finding practical solutions to the problems faced by the rakyat. Character assassination is an outdated approach to politics in the 21st century. If the Kadazandusun leaders want to remain relevant, they have no choice but to subscribe to the political approach of the modern era. The younger generation whose votes are crucial in the upcoming election is now looking at leaders who are both technologically savvy and able to articulate issues affecting the public.

This letter is not intended to belittle the hardwork and dedication shown by some Kadazandusun leaders. Unfortunately, the number of committed and issue-oriented Kadazandusun leaders is very limited. Datuk Madius Tangau, a former MP for Tuaran and Datuk Donald Mojuntin, an MP for Penampang are some of the leaders young Kadazandusun leaders could look up too. They are many more who shun the media limelight and prefer to work unnoticed. The present Kadazandusun leaders must groom the young leaders and prepare a smooth transition plan for them. Again, do the honourable thing by preparing a way for the emerging leaders to contribute to the betterment of the Kadazandusuns. The future of the Kadazandusuns in Sabah looks gloomy. But it takes a simple step to make it bright again, that is, for all the Kadazandusun leaders to set aside their self interests and to unite the Kadazandusuns for the sake of progress.

The RCI, STAR and AMANAH: what difference can they make???

The RCI: mother of all “campaign” issues

With the general election scheduled to be sometime early or mid this year, the country’s political landscape is fast changing. In Sabah, the issue of RCI has gained momentum. It has been used as a “bargaining tool” by both the BN component parties and the Opposition. Prime Minister Najib Razak has yet to publicly announce the establishment of the RCI but some in the state’s political circles have confirmed that the prime minister has in principle agreed to set up the RCI to address the problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah. Najib cannot afford not to agree as doing so may risk the BN’s chances of retaining Sabah. Indications are strong that if the RCI is not established, at least two of BN component parties, PBS and UPKO will leave the ruling coalition. For Sabah UMNO, in particular, PBS leaving the BN could weaken its support among the Kadazandusuns. Sabah UMNO also cannot afford to lose the PBS as it has support across the diverse Sabah society.

The Opposition has been quick to blame Sabah UMNO for the delay in the establishment of the RCI. Perhaps due to pressures from various quarters, Sabah UMNO information chief Sapawi Ahmad had no choice but to say it publicly that Sabah UMNO supports the RCI. But again, it does not stop the speculation that Sabah UMNO is against the RCI as Sabah UMNO chief Musa Aman has been somewhat evasive when asked to comment on the issue of illegal immigrants. With Sabah UMNO’s public statement in support of the RCI, the onus is now on Najib to decide when the RCI is going to be officially formed, before or after the election. He can choose to announce it before the election to boost the BN’s popularity and to get the RCI to work later after the terms of reference of the RCI are finalised. Whatever Najib’s calculation is, he needs to ensure that the RCI’s terms of work do not put UMNO’s head on the chopping board. Do not forget, most, if not all, of the Sabah UMNO members (including Musa) are implicated in the influx of illegal immigrants into Sabah. In the months to come, the RCI will remain an important issue and will continue to be articulated by the BN component parties and the Opposition.

Can Jeffrey’s STAR “shine” this time?

The maverick politician, Jeffrey Kitingan, who left the PKR in 2010 yet again made everyone surprised with his decision to lead the dormant Sarawak-based party STAR in Sabah. Close to 3000 people attended the party’s launching at the KDCA on January 6, 2012. Jeffrey made it clear that STAR will be an equal partner in the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in the race to topple the BN in Sabah. This means, instead of contesting under the PR, STAR will lead another opposition coalition consisting of state-based parties in Sabah. Some have called Jeffrey power crazy and a “frog” but no one should underestimate his influence in particular among the Kadazandusuns. When the PKR came to Sabah in 1999, it was not well accepted by the electorate. As a small party with little clout, it lost badly in the 2004 election. When Jeffrey joined the PKR in 2006, he was able to “re-package” the party according to the general sentiments of the Sabah electorate. Jeffrey’s effort paid off. In the 2008 election, the PKR’s popular votes especially in the Kadazandusun areas had increased tremendously. Surprisingly too, the PKR obtained more popular votes than the PBS in the Kadazandusun areas. Unfortunately, Jeffrey, seen as a rising star in PKR was regarded by Anwar and the PKR federal leaders as a threat to their interests in Sabah. Jeffrey’s Borneo Agenda was also not wholly supported by Anwar. This disappointed Jeffrey and he did not wait long to leave the PKR and to establish the UBF (United Borneo Front). But the UBF could not be registered as a political party. Some said that the ROS (Registrar of Societies) was not happy with the word “Borneo” as it carries a strong regional outlook. Now with STAR, Jeffrey is set to provide a strong challenge to BN and PKR. If the PKR fails to strike an amicable deal with Jeffrey, its chances of denying the BN’s two-thirds majority would be substantially reduced. Simply put, the PKR cannot exclude STAR in its plan to topple the BN. And STAR’s chances of making an impact depend largely on Jeffrey’s ability to re-articulate his Borneo Agenda through his new party.

AMANAH, a third force in Sabah?

What’s with the AMANAH (Angkatan Amanah Merdeka) spreading its wing to Sabah? So far, AMANAH is not regarded as a potential threat, both to BN and the Opposition. It is an NGO led by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. AMANAH’s aim is to return Malaysia to where the founding fathers wanted it to be. In the past months, talks have been rife that Tengku Razaleigh will turn AMANAH into a political party. But this depends on whether he will be retained as a candidate in his constituency. Tengku Razaleigh himself is unsure about AMANAH’s future. In Sabah, AMANAH is led by Wilfred Bumburing who is rumoured to leave the BN. When AMANAH deputy president Sheikh Fadzir came to Sabah to meet with AMANAH members, most agreed that the NGO be turned into a political party. But then again, it all depends on Tengku Razaleigh’s next move. Even if AMANAH becomes a political party, it will not be able to give any strong impact nationally and in Sabah. Given the sentiment towards semenanjung-based parties in Sabah, AMANAH moving in would not change the state’s current political landscape.

So, one could expect that more new parties will emerge in Sabah soon, not to mention a swarm of individuals offering themselves to contest. Sabah recorded a record number of independent candidates contesting in the 2004 election. It is likely that such a trend will happen again in the upcoming election. There are too many “political heroes” in Sabah wanting to make a difference but only a handful have seriously shown that they have a strong policy platform to execute real change.

The PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) is struggling to stay relevant. There are ways to revive the party. Here's how.

For many Sabahans, the PBS is synonymous with state rights and autonomy. Its establishment in 1985 came after the PBS leaders fought to restore state rights from the pro federal the BERJAYA (Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah) led by Harris Salleh. At the 26th PBS Annual General Meeting (AGM) held at the Hongkod Koisaan on 30th October 2011, the PBS once again renewed its regionalist stance in front of the Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. Only that this time it was done in a rather non-confrontational style by Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the PBS President and Huguan Siou of the Kadazandusun community. Pairin, now at 71, stole the show with a “pantun”. But this was not Pairin more than 20 years ago. Due to age and diminishing health, Pairin was not as aggressive and combative as he used to. But his husky voice and charisma filled the packed hall. Even though the PBS has gradually lost its multi-racial appeal, the crowd who came to the AGM consisted of members from various ethnic groups.

At one corner, one could see a group of Chinese supporters wearing red and waving the national and state flags. At another corner, one could see a group of women supporters wearing pink “tudungs” (one might easily mistaken them for Puteri UMNO members!!!). A “pak cik” with a “songkok” nodded his head thoughtfully whenever he got excited with Pairin’s speech. The multi-racial atmosphere was evident throughout the AGM. What was missing, however, was the presence of the younger members. Reading from a text, Pairin’s speech revolved around the issues of illegal immigrants, Borneonisation, jobs for Sabahans, and opportunities for Sabah-born teachers and contractors. It was not really a policy speech in the strictest sense of the term. When Pairin mentioned these issues, Muhyiddin was seen jotting down some notes. On the illegal immigrant issue, Pairin once again demanded the Federal Government to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI). Stating that the proofs are sufficient for an RCI to be established, Pairin urged Muhyiddin to bring the illegal immigrant issue to the attention of the cabinet. While no details on the progress of Borneonisation was given, Pairin said it is important for the pre-Malaysia policy to be observed.

When it was Muhyiddin’s turn to deliver his speech, the delegates were all eyes and ears. Muhyiddin responded to all the points raised by Pairin except for one thing—about oil royalty—which he considered as “sensitive”. On the illegal immigrant issue, Muhyiddin, as in the case of most federal leaders, was non-committal but promised to bring the case to the intention of the Federal Government. Muhyiddin’s response to the Borneonisation policy was a slap on the face for Pairin. Toying with the Federal Government’s meritocracy policy, Muhyiddin said posts in government departments will be filled by qualified Malaysians irrespective of states of origin. While Muhyiddin was “positive” on the last two issues raised by Pairin, the delegates were disappointed as they did not get any constructive feedback from Muhyiddin on the contentious Sabah issues for which the PBS has been fighting for since its inception.

If the atmosphere of the official launching of the PBS AGM was anything to go by, it showed that the PBS is a party of choice for race and religious blind Sabahans. One could see the Muslim Bumiputeras, non-Muslim Bumiputeras, and the Chinese singing PBS’s official anthem in unity and cheering at the mention of Pairin’s name. As mentioned, missing in the event of course were the younger members of PBS. Most who attended the AGM were those in their 40s, 50s and 60s. All the talks that the PBS is having a serious problem in keeping its younger members are real. Most of the younger Kadazandusun are more attracted to the UPKO (United Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Organisation). This is understandable as the UPKO appears to be more successful in enticing the young generation through its programmes such as the “Komulakan”. Unlike the PBS, the UPKO has young cadre of leaders to take over the party.

It cannot be denied that the PBS remains a popular multi-racial party in Sabah. Even though its multi-racial make-up has slowly diminished, it remains a party of choice for many Sabahans who believe in the principle of multi-racial politics. The PBS, however, is in danger of losing its multi-racial appeal and electoral support if it does not take drastic and strategic actions.

First, the PBS has to quickly fill the leadership vacuum in the party to allow the younger members to contribute meaningfully and to prepare a smooth succession plan. The old guards must be prepared to groom young leaders. These young people must come from different races. It is not clear if the PBS has such a plan now. The UPKO seems to have one through its Komulakan to win the young generation. In the Peninsular Malaysia, the PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) and the DAP (Democratic Action Party) have taken the same approach. Recently, the SUPP has also realised the need to include more young and professional members to contribute to the party. The PBS is no exception if it wants to stay relevant.

Second, in order to continue to enjoy its multi-racial appeal, the PBS must increase its multi-racial members especially among those from the Muslim Bumiputera and Chinese communities who have now looked at UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), DAP, LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) and SAPP (Sabah Action People’s Party) as the alternative to the PBS. Greater role must be given to the Muslim and Chinese members in PBS so that the party is not seen as too Kadazandusun. In essence, the PBS must prove itself that it is a multi-racial party committed to promote multi-racialism in Sabah.

Third, apart from projecting itself as a strong local-based party championing state rights and autonomy, the PBS must look beyond state-centrism as its main struggle. The PBS must start focusing on bread-and-butter issues such as the increase in cost of living, increase in prices of houses, race and religious issues, and so on. The PBS must reduce its regional rhetoric and transform itself to become a party accepted by all including those in the Peninsular Malaysia. For instance, the 2011 Budget recently tabled by Prime Minister Najib Razak should be critically assessed. Rather than accepting it at face value, which Pairin did when delivering his speech, the PBS should form a working committee to critically assess its relevance given Malaysia’s economic reality. And how about the recent Auditor-General’s Report which reveals misappropriation of government’s funds? Where is the PBS? What views does it give? The point is, the PBS must look beyond state issues and broaden its policy proposals.

The SUPP (Sarawak United People’s Party) a popular Chinese-based party in Sarawak faced an embarrassing moment during the by election in Sibu in 2010 and the Sarawak State Election in 2011 after losing many of the crucial Chinese seats. Its president George Chan was even defeated in Miri. The reasons for the SUPP’s dismal performance vary from its failure to connect with the electorate and its inability to reform according to changing times. The PBS risk of facing the same if it does react to the wishes of the electorate. The PBS supporters have grown weary of the party’s snail-paced action to reform. The PBS’s contemporaries the USNO (United Sabah National Organisation) and BERJAYA were disbanded after failing to sustain the electorate’s support. But the PBS must not wait until it is rejected by the electorate. Some have chosen to remain in the PBS and others wait for the right time to leave. If the PBS wants to keep its supporters, it has no choice but to act—and now.

How Old Is Malaysia? 54 years or 48?

Many people are arguing that Malaysia achieved its independence 48 years ago and not 54. The argument is that 48 years ago, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak agreed to form a new country called Malaysia. These people say that 54 is not correct noting that it only indicates the independence for Malaya and not the whole of Malaysia. So, which one? Well, there are two issues that we need to tackle here to prevent distortion to history and to avoid further confusion to the matter.

First, the issue of independence for Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak were still under the colonial rule when Malaya achieved its independence on 31 August 1957. So technically, Sabah and Sarawak were not yet independent. Remember that Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were different entities ruled by the British. Sabah became a British protectorate in 1888 and a colony in 1946. The British granted Sabah independence on 31 August 1963. Note that when Sabah achieved its independence on 31 August 1963, it was not yet part of Malaysia. We could say that Sabah was an independent country much like Malaya after 31 August 1957. Sarawak has a different history altogether. It fell into the rule of James Brooke who went on to establish the “White Rajah Dynasty” which ruled Sarawak for more than 100 years. James’ successor, Charles Vyner, however, surrended Sarawak to the British on 1 July 1946 and Sarawak became a Crown Colony. Unlike Sabah, Sarawak achieved its independence much earlier on 22 July 1963.

Second, the issue of when Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence. The independence of Sabah and Sarawak must be seen within the context of the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. A United Nations (UN) report through its Secretary-General concluded that:

“Taking into account the framework within which the Mission's task had been performed, he had come to the conclusion that the majority of the peoples of Sabah (North Borneo) and of Sarawak had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and to the implications for them of participation in a Federation of Malaysia. He believed that the majority of them had concluded that they wished to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they felt ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives. Not all of those considerations were present in equal weight in all minds, but it was his conclusion that the majority of the peoples of the two territories wished to engage, with the peoples of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, in an enlarged Federation of Malaysia through which they could strive together to realize the fulfillment of their destiny”

So, the three different entities Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence separately. Malaysia was not born in 1957 nor achieved its independence in the same year. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak combined to form Malaysia on 16 September 1963. The Malaysia Act 1963 states that:

“For the purpose of enabling North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as "the new States") to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as "the Federation"), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States”

It it clear that Malaysia became a NEW and INDEPENDENT nation on “the appointed day”, that is, on 16 September 1963, when the new country called Malaysia was declared. Even though it should have been declared earlier on 31 August 1963 to coincide with the Malayan Independence, it was postponed to 16 September due to the opposition from Indonesia and the Philippines to the formation of Malaysia. The fact that the British through Her Majesty agreed to relinquish Her “sovereignty” and “jurisdiction” over Malaysia revealed another strong point about Malaysia’s independence on the day it was born. So, the historical documents are sufficient to clear our confusions about the country’s age. The conclusion that we can derive, therefore, is:

1. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were different entities which achieved their independence separately. Even though Malaya (now generally known as Peninsular Malaysia or “Semenanjung Malaysia”), Sabah and Sarawak are still DIFFERENT as far as their political and cultural backgrounds are concerned, they all belong to the same country called Malaysia.

2. Malaysia was born out of the willingness of the people of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to federate and subsequently to form Malaysia. The people of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak must be willing to integrate and embrace their religious and racial differences in the spirit of the formation of Malaysia.

3. Malaysia, as a NEW and INDEPENDENT country, was therefore born on 16 September 1963 and this makes Malaysia 48 and not 54 years of age.

4. If the government is to unite the country and its people, it should appreciate and give more value to 16 September 1963 as it was the year Malaysia was born. Politicians—especially from Sabah—must stop harping on the issue of independence day for Malaysia but looking for concrete solutions to unite Malaysians of all races and religions.

5. While the significance of 31 August 1957 cannot be ignored, national leaders must also give emphasis to 16 September 1963. To appreciate the country’s history and to unite Malaysians of all races and religions, the government must decide to celebrate the country’s independence within the context of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The decision of the Najib Administration to make 16 September every year a national holiday is a step in the right direction. While the decision is seen as “cosmetic” by some, the challenge for the government is to put into place policies which could draw people from the Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak to work together to develop the country.

Outcomes of the Sarawak election: Some key observations

Now that the results of the Sarawak election have been released and that the BN has managed to re-capture the state with more than two-thirds majority. Pundits have predicted earlier that the BN will not be able to retain its two-thirds majority and that the Opposition will trail from behind very closely. But if the results are anything to go by, they prove the pundits wrong and many have under-estimated the onslaught of the BN’s election machineries especially in rural Sarawak. My prediction that the Opposition will win handsomely in urban and Chinese-based areas proved to be correct. And the biggest casualty for BN in these areas was George Chan the Deputy Chief Minister and President of SUPP. SUPP could have also lost in Senadin but thanks to postal votes its candidate there Lee Kim Shin survived. While it is too early to tell the reasons behind SUPP’s misfortune, it is clear that the Chinese voters are not happy with the party’s performance all these years. It seems that the rural people have renewed their support to the BN except in Ba’Kelalan where they voted for the PKR candidate Baru Bian. After a third attempt, Baru finally managed to win in Ba’Kelalan. But his dream of becoming the Chief Minister has not materialised as Sarawak PKR has failed to live up to expectation. Here, the role of a candidate’s personality and character is important. Baru is a former church elder who has a strong following among the SIB-professed Lun Bawang and Kelabit voters. I wrote before that prior to polling, Lun Bawang and Kelabit voters had been receiving smses persuading them to vote for Baru. Apart from Baru’s religious affiliation and personality, the SPDP election machinery in Ba’Kelalan is partly to be blamed for the BN’s loss. Until the nomination was made, no one knew for sure who was going to take on Baru. Lack of preparation as well as failure to counter Baru’s NCR land abuse allegations contributed to the BN’s failure in Ba’Kelalan. Quite simply, no one in Ba’Kelalan is willing to take on Baru. This is understandable as almost everyone in Ba’Kelalan is related and where social cohesion is strong. Baru will remain a headache for the BN until the next state election. His presence in the state assembly will surely boost the Opposition’s credibility but the extent to which he will measure up is yet to be seen. Overall, however, Sarawak PKR’s performance has been disappointing. Winning just three seats out of 49 contested is rather too negligible to “ubah” the landscape of Sarawak politics. This means depending on Anwar’s “ceramahs” alone will not suffice to jolt the rural voters. Sarawak PKR has to do more in Sarawak. Grooming young and potential leaders is one thing and encouraging its members to fight for real issues is quite another if PKR wants to “ubah” Sarawak politics. The “star” of the election is the DAP who managed to win 12 seats out of 15 contested. SNAP has failed miserably in the election failing to win any seat even in areas it was tipped to win. All the key Iban leaders of SNAP lost in the election. This shows that some voters placed more emphasis on the personality of the candidates than their party affiliation. So, why did the BN win in rural areas and where had the Opposition gone wrong? Many have blamed money politics for the Opposition’s loss in the rural areas. While this might be the case, factor such as strong affinity to the BN also played an important role. The rural voters have been long associated with the BN and it takes more than just monetary benefits to break their loyalty to the ruling party. Lack of access to the alternative media and the culture of dependency that prevails in the rural community also ensured the BN’s comfortable majorities in the rural areas. As we can see, the Malay-Melanau and Bidayuh seats were won by BN, as expected, so were the Iban-majority seats. It is, however, too early to tell about the overall outcomes of the election as more in-depth analyses are needed to examine the voting pattern. Personally, I am interested to study Ba’Kelalan where Baru Bian won after a third attempt. Did the Lun Bawang, Kelabit and other Orang Ulu tribes in Ba’Kelalan reject Taib Mahmud’s “politics of development”? If most of the rural areas rejected the Opposition, then, why was it accepted in Ba’Kelalan. What was the message that the voters in Ba’Kelalan want to show? More to come...

A David and Goliath Battle in Ba' Kelalan

The guessing game continues The BN kept the people guessing when it left the BN candidacy in Ba' Kelalan vacant. Ba' Kelalan is one of the hot seats contested in the upcoming Sarawak election. When the list of candidates was announced, no name was mentioned to represent BN in Ba' Kelalan. And the speculations about Idris Jala's first foray into the political arena were squashed after he denied that he was the BN candidate to be fielded. The reason behind the incumbent Balang Rining's exclusion remains unclear but many have speculated that the BN cannot afford to field a less politically savvy person to take on Baru Bian who is a popular NCR (Native Customary Rights) lawyer in the Lun Bawang heartlands. A source related to me that the BN candidate who will fight Baru is a young lawyer from Ba' Kelalan. Until the final candidate is announced nothing is really certain. Whoever the candidate is, he must be willing to debate with Baru about the contentious NCR issue. Baru has long established himself as a native lawyer "fighting" for the people's land which he believes to have been "robbed" by the State Government for development purposes. He invited Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud to debate the issue but the latter had shown no interest to argue with Baru in public. He did respond to Baru's allegations of the NCR land abuse but some were not happy because Taib failed to raise doubts in the issues brought against him. Are the evidences too overwhelming for Taib to counter-argue? Or, is Baru too smart to debate with Taib? I, for one, is doubtful that any debate will ever take place in our elections, what more in Sarawak. It will come as a surprise to me if debates are slotted by the aspiring candidates in their campaigns. The Idris Jala factor It is not just the NCR land issue that has established Baru's leadership among the largely Lun Bawang community in Ba' Kelalan. His characters and Christian faith are also among the factors that make him the most likely candidate to win. The two previous elections (by election in 2004 and state election in 2006) are a testimony to Baru's popularity in Ba' Kelalan. Among the interesting issue to see is whether the Kelabits--the Lun Bawangs' "cultural cousins"--will vote for or against the BN this time around. They have been known as staunch supporters to the BN. The famous Malaysian Kelabit Idris Jala's prominence as a government troubleshooter and a business maestro will further boost the Kelabits' support to the BN. Had the plan to field Jala as a candidate materialised, it could have spelt trouble for Baru as the former is also an equally popular figure among the Kelabits and the Lun Bawangs. But Jala has denied that he is the "mysterious" candidate to represent the BN. And he is tactful enough by not associating himself with the Sarawak election. Jala so far has maintained a high level of professionalism and that he knows where his real calling is. However, it remains to be seen if Jala will go down to the election ground to campaign for the BN. If he does then Baru will have a tough time convincing the Lunbawangs and Kelabits to change their minds. Whoever the BN candidate in Ba' Kelalan is, he must be shrewd enough to overcome Baru's combination of wit, charisma and religious passion. Some of the Lun Bawangs and Kelabits are not easily duped into accepting the politics of development. The Lun Bawang and Kelabit communities have produced a substantial number of professionals and have strong middle class societies. The professional and educated Lun Bawangs and Kelabits will play a prominent role in determining the winner and loser of the election in Ba' Kelalan. The role of religion Another factor that will also determine the outcome of the battle in Ba' Kelalan is religion. Prior to the announcement of the candidates, the Lun Bawangs and Kelabits received messages via sms containing persuasive calls for the two communities to vote for Baru. Some even conducted prayer rallies to ensure his victory. For those who know Baru, he is a staunch Christian and an elder at an SIB church in Kuching. Apart from conducting a regular Bible study at his house, Baru is also active in church and gives sermons regularly. Prospect for the BN candidate In the final analysis, Baru's opponent will have to look into the former's track record in order to dislodge his influence. But no matter who the person is the battle in Ba' Kelalan will see a showdown between David and Goliath. Read more: "Whither Representative Democracy in Malaysia? The Ba' Kelalan By Election" by Arnold Puyok, Contemporary Southeast Asia (Singapore) "Voting Pattern and Issue in the Ba' Kelalan State Election" by Arnold Puyok, Asian Political Science Journal (UK) *Both articles are available upon request