The Politics of "Cari Makan" in Sabah

Arnold Puyok

Sabah politicians have always been driven by what I call as the politics of ‘cari makan’. But before I go any further, let me first explain what the politics of ‘cari makan’ means.

For Sabah politicians, politics is not about understanding people’s problems and turning those problems into policy solutions. These are not in the Sabah politicians’ vocabulary. Politics for them is simply about finding the ways and means to get access to the state’s development resources - often, in order to gain monetary benefits quickly. So, becoming a politician in Sabah is one of the fastest ways to become rich - or an instant millionaire.

When news about a former opposition assemblyperson leaving his party came out, it was hardly news at all – at least for me. This is Sabah! Sabah politicians like to ‘jump’ to ‘cari makan’. The excuses given by the assemblyperson who used expressions such as “for the people”, “for development’s sake”, “loss of confidence”, etc, etc, are not new and have become a cliché in Sabah.

But to be fair to the assemblyperson, he may have a “strong” reason to leave his party. It is his democratic choice to decide his future political direction. It may be argued that his leaving the party was for the interest of his electorate whom he thought might be better served under a more resourceful and financially able party. So, if this is the case, the assemblyperson cannot be blamed. It is the system that forces him to leave his party.

In Malaysia, opposition leaders are often relegated to a second-class status even though they are voted by the rakyat to represent them. The system is seriously skewed in that only elected representatives from the ruling party have access to the state’s development resources to develop their constituencies. This puts the opposition parties in a disadvantageous position - without sufficient financial resources, it is rather difficult to serve the rakyat’s needs satisfactorily.

There is also a question about moral principles of elected representatives. The argument against defecting to another party is that the leader has betrayed the trust of people who voted for him under the party he represented. But it may be argued that voters’ voting preference might be influenced by the candidate’s popularity than by the party’s standing.

So, rather than questioning the moral integrity of the defecting leader, the main issue here is how to increase the accountability of elected representatives so that they will not use their political position to ‘cari makan’. I suggest a number of ways.

First, parties from both sides of the political divide must use the ‘bottom-up’ approach in selecting potential candidates to run in an election. The potential candidates must be vetted from the lowest level of representation such as the village to the highest level of representation in the party. The current practice of most political parties is to choose candidates who are closer to the centre of power instead of those who are closer to the electorates.

It is also important for the potential candidates to appear in a council-type debate. The ability to debate and to articulate issues of public interest is essential to increase the accountability of elected representatives. The final stage of this process is a vetting by an independent body within the party to choose the most suitable candidate to contest in an election. The process of selecting a candidate must be done early and not one or two days before the election.

Second, potential candidates must declare their assets publicly. Assets declaration by elected representatives is part and parcel of a functioning democratic society. By declaring their assets, elected representatives may be discouraged from using the public office to accumulate wealth or to involve in commercial activities in which they may have certain hidden interests. The role of elected representatives is to serve people and not to make money.

Drawing the line on political funding

Thirdly, a law must be enacted to prevent elected representatives from using their political position to expand the business interests of their allies, family members, or other parties with whom they may have certain vested interests with.

The law must also draw the line very clearly in respect to political donation, political funding, campaign programmes, and so on to ensure that elected representatives do no take advantage of those activities mentioned to serve their own personal interests.

Fourthly, the status and prestige of the legislative assembly must be elevated. Assembly meetings should be conducted regularly, and not a one-day sitting as in the case of the recent Sabah assembly proceeding. Assembly debates should be live telecast so that the electorates can assess the performance of their representatives.

Proposed enactments should be pre-debated and previewed before they are brought to the assembly for deliberation.

All this while, most people do not have any idea about what is going on in the assembly. The general perception about assembly sittings is that they are boring, a waste of time, and do not affect the day-to-day life of public. Elected representatives have a duty to explain to the rakyat that the legislative is an important government institution as it is the ‘brain’ that determines the future of the country.

Fifthly, political parties must conduct an empowerment session or a capacity building programme to train their elected representatives.

Most of the elected representatives think their work is done after winning the election. Some spend more time at golf courses, at hotel lounges, and at karaoke outlets than in their constituencies to serve the rakyat.

Elected representatives must be trained how to debate, how to write and evaluate policies, and how to initiate grassroots-level programmes, among other things.

Finally, the government must set up a people’s tribunal as an avenue to lodge complaints against underperforming elected representatives. Most elected representatives regard themselves as “untouchable”, “semi-god”, and worse, a “boss”.

Through the people’s tribunal, elected representatives will be made accountable to the people they serve. It is also an avenue for people to speak up openly and critically about issues which their representatives fail to address satisfactorily.

It is important for elected representatives to have the moral courage to explain to people their every action - including to defect to other party or to become an independent - as in the case of the opposition assemblyperson earlier.

But what is more important is for people to be empowered so that they can hold their elected representatives accountable. People - especially Sabahans - have had enough of leaders who become elected representatives simply to ‘cari makan’. Elected representatives who merely want to ‘cari makan’ are an impediment to the country’s progress. People of all races and religions should stand up and say ‘no’ to this kind of leaders.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/246082

A battle of wits between Musa and Shafie

Just as the dust of the GE13 settles, Sabah is once again under the spotlight of national attention.

This time it is on the race to occupy the Umno vice-president posts currently held by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Hishamuddin Hussein and Mohd Shafie Apdal.

Shafie, who is Semporna MP and federal Rural and Regional Development minister, has announced his intention to defend his post.

One of his potential competitors is also from Sabah, chief minister and Sabah Umno liaison chief Musa Aman. Musa has so far kept his political cards close on his chest, refusing to reveal his next course of action.

Many people see the race to win the vice-president post as a battle of wits between Musa and Shafie.

It is publicly known that Musa and Shafie are “strange bedfellows”.

Their battle to the pinnacle of power in Umno is seen as their attempt to consolidate their grip on party politics.

Neither Shafie nor Musa has offered any new policy platforms to contest. However, on paper, it looks like Shafie has the edge.

najib new cabinet 150513Compared to Musa, Shafie has been in federal politics for a long time and understands the dynamics of it.

Shafie also has a strong following in Sabah, which he has established via patronage support from his powerful Rural and Regional Development Ministry.

Shafie also enjoys a close relationship with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (right). Shafie is also seen as an ambitious political leader who wants to leave his mark on national politics.

Additionally, as Shafie is well-known among the Malays at the grassroots level, getting their support may not be much of a problem for him.

Musa lacking ‘Malay-ness’

However, as the Umno party election draws near, more and more Sabah Umno leaders have given Musa the go to contest.

He is the first chief minister who has managed to break the ten-year “political jinx” in Sabah.

Mustapha Harun of United Sabah National Organisation (Usno), Harris Salleh of Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Party (Berjaya) and Joseph Pairin Kitingan of Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) have all suffered from the political jinx, failing to retain power for more than two terms.

Musa has consistently delivered the seats to national parliament since 2004. Despite the criticisms against his leadership, Musa continues to enjoy strong support especially from the Muslim bumiputera voters and from Sabah BN component parties.

The way Musa responds to his political opponents has baffled many people. Instead of silencing them through legal recourse, Musa annoys them more by doing nothing and continuing to work at building coalitional support among his key supporters.

However, unlike Shafie, Musa is seen as lacking the ambition to spread his influence beyond Sabah.

And his lack of sense of “Malay-ness” is seen as a drawback in getting widespread Malay support throughout the country. Musa is half Dusun and his supporters regard him as a strong regional leader.

Maintain status quo

For the sack of party unity and as a preparation for the next general election, many BN supporters are with the opinion that it is best for Musa and Shafie to bury the hatchet and cooperate to develop Sabah.

The issue that causes the occasional conflict between Musa and Shafie is lack of coordination and miscommunication in the implementation of federal and state-initiated rural projects.

BN supporters note that instead of bringing their personal clash to the party polls, it is good for Musa and Shafie to maintain the status quo for the sake of Sabah and party unity.

However, no one can prevent Musa and Shafie from slugging it out. It is their right to push their political talent to the limit.

Come October this year, 146,000 delegates from 191 divisions will cast their votes.

The onus is on Musa and Shafie to convince the delegates that they have what it takes to bring positive changes to Umno.

------

ARNOLD PUYOK is senior lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.

Source: www.malaysiakini.com/news/238642

Malaysia's Election: Barisan Nasional's Paltry Win

The recent Malaysian election saw the ruling party Barisan Nasional (BN) retain its hold on power for another term after winning 133 out of 222 federal seats.

Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system sealed BN’s victory, despite the fact that Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the opposing coalition, won 54 per cent of the popular vote over BN’s 46 per cent.

PR’s de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has since alleged that the election was tainted with countless irregularities such as erasable indelible ink, vote-buying, unregistered ballot boxes, and sabotage by officials from the Election Commission (EC). It seems that Anwar will not concede defeat easily. He has organised massive rallies that have attracted thousands of Malaysians to protest the election results. It remains to be seen how far Anwar can go. Not all members in PR support mass rallies to challenge the election results. The new government has also warned that it will not tolerate any attempt to overthrow the government through illegal street protests. And for many ordinary Malaysians, the election is over, and it is time to move on.

The real question is why, despite the groundswell of support for PR, did it still fail to win the election? The answer lies in BN’s entrenched influence in the system.

First, BN has complete control over the electronic media outlets TV1, TV2, TV3, and to some extent ASTRO. News reports on these outlets are one-sided and often appear to be a form of government propaganda. BN-controlled print media such as Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian are also often used to attack the opposition and not to report objective news. This has left the opposition with no choice but to depend on alternative media channels such as YouTube, blogs, and social networking sites to reach the public. But in rural areas without internet coverage, voters continue to depend on information disseminated by BN-controlled media organisations.

Additionally, unlike other Commonwealth countries with Westminster systems, Malaysia does not have clear guidelines to regulate the conduct of caretaker governments once parliament is dissolved. In the lead-up to the election, BN was accused of misusing government vehicles and staff during campaigning, and disbursing government funds to entice the voters. This is a fairly ‘normal’ practice for politicians from both sides of the political divide, given that the EC appears to lack the resolve to regulate the use of money in campaigning. In the 2013 election BN supporters were allegedly given between RM50 and RM100 to vote for BN. For rural voters, who form the large bulk of support for BN, RM50 is a lot of money. Some were even promised development aid such as roof zincs and water tanks if they could ‘prove’ that they had voted for BN.

Malaysia’s electoral system is also designed to help BN remain in power. The largest party in BN, UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), knows that most of its support comes from the rural Malay voters. Through a process of electoral re-delineation — or ‘gerrymandering’ — BN has created more rural Malay areas, even though the number of voters in these areas is disproportionately small compared to urban areas. This practice of skewing electoral boundaries in favour of BN is glaringly evident in Sabah — a ‘fixed deposit’ state for BN. UMNO needed to win more Malay seats to strengthen its grip on Sabah. Thus, more Malay seats were created at the expense of the non-Malay constituencies. All UMNO needed to do to form a government with a simple majority in the 60-seat Sabah Legislative Assembly was to win the 32 Malay-majority seats.

It is still possible for BN to win back the support of disgruntled voters who feel as though BN’s victory was improperly obtained.

First, BN has to address the alleged fraudulent practices in the electoral system. Asking the voters to leave the country if they are not happy with the way things are done in Malaysia is certainly not the way to improve the system’s weaknesses. Second, rather than attributing the major swing of Chinese support away from BN to ungratefulness and racism, BN should try and find out why Chinese voters are dissatisfied. In tackling this issue, BN must not neglect those who voted against it in Sabah and Sarawak. Cutting development funds and withdrawing infrastructural projects in areas where BN did not win — a practice of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s administration — is childish and runs counter to BN’s ‘People First’ pledge. Third, BN must act swiftly to initiate the various reforms in its election manifesto.

If BN can address all of these three issues boldly and effectively, it might be accepted by Malaysians as the ‘legitimate’ winner of the election. Otherwise, Malaysians have every reason to challenge the election results.

Source: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/29/malaysias-election-barisan-nasionals-paltry-win/#more-35974

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.