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/

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/

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

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.

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 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.

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