Change: DENIED

Technorati tags: GE13, Post-Election Thoughts, Discontent

Well, it’s been just over a week since GE13. The net result: BN regains power at the Federal Government level, albeit with a reduced seat majority, and losing the popular vote by a good 3 percentage points.

It would have been an acceptable victory had it not been for the alleged fraud. Pakatan Rakyat improved its seat count compared to GE12, both at parliament and state levels. More telling, however, is the popular vote, of which, UMNO/BN only managed to obtain 46.5%, compared to 50.3% for Pakatan Rakyat. What this translates to is an unpopular UMNO/BN helming the country for the next 5 years.

Just how unpopular? Let’s just say that the 51% of Malaysians who voted for change are not exactly happy campers right now.

Disappointed as Walski is, however, UMNO/BN won the election. Truly fair and square is another question, but they won. And as things stand, for right now, that’s the result we’re forced to accept. Reluctantly.
(thoughts and recommendations, in the full post)

What is more disconcerting, however, was Najib’s “victory” speech. The immediate blame on what has now become a cliché, the Chinese Tsunami, and the talk about reconciliation, almost in the same breath, so to speak.

Some would say it’s an UMNO kneejerk reaction, while others (quite rightly) would place the blame squarely on UMNO/BN’s polls strategists, who weren’t exactly the most strategic, it would seem.

Dr. M, who should really do the country and himself a favor and enjoy his retirement, came out to say that it was the fault of the “ungrateful Chinese and greedy Malays”.

Utusan didn’t exactly do its political masters any favors by playing up on anti-Chinese sentiment, asking the question “what more do the Chinese want?” True to form, the Internet generation responded almost instantly. And somewhat hilariously.

Despite the overall result, there were some positives. For instance, Perkasa, represented by Ibrahim Ali (Pasir Mas) and Zulkifli Nordin (Shah Alam), lost at the polls. So too did another UMNO conservative Puad Zarkashi (Batu Pahat), overrun by a Pink Tsunami, some have said. To Walski, this is a clear rejection of ultra right-wing voices within the winning coalition.

And for the first time in history, a BN candidate lost their deposit money, not getting even 1% of the votes cast (Pengkalan Kota, Penang state seat).

So, what does that mean for UMNO/BN and Malaysia?

Well, for now as far as Malaysians are concerned, Walski thinks we need to move on with our lives. But moving on with our lives doesn’t mean conceding defeat in our quest for a better Malaysia. Not at all – the fight certainly continues.

Much commentary has been made about how the new Najib-led government should move forward, among others by The Malaysian Insider and Zaid Ibrahim.

If Najib is really serious and sincere about pushing for reconciliation in what he calls a “polarized” Malaysia, this desire needs to be demonstrated. Urgently and decidedly. Walski being Walski, he, too, has a few ideas that the newly minted government may want to consider if they’re serious about this reconciliation they’re talking about.

First Off, It’s Not About Racial Reconciliation, But Fixing the Trust Deficit
What Najib Razak is talking about when he mentions “reconciliation” is actually the reduced support for BN, perceived to be particularly from the non-Malay population and urban population. This is a perception that’s out of sync with reality, and only exposes UMNO/BN’s obsession with a dying paradigm: race based politics. What the 51% represents, dear Mr. Prime Minister, is distrust for government and its institutions, which are seen to have become overtly beholden to UMNO/BN. There is a severe trust deficit when it comes to institutions of government, and that is not at all a good thing. Not for your government, and not for Malaysia.

Make the EC truly independent
One of the biggest complaints is the Election Commission (EC) itself. It’s time to remove the EC from under the Prime Minister’s Office, and make it an autonomous entity, reporting directly to Parliament. Or some other more viable reporting structure, but certainly NOT part of the Executive. Like justice, impartiality needs to be seen, and not merely exercised. And how, by any stretch of the imagination, can the EC be perceived to be totally impartial – even IF it really is – when it comes under the purview of the PM, UMNO/BN’s president? Logically, that’s as impartial as a Manchester United game being refereed by Sir Alex Furguson! Seriously, it’s time to get jibby with it.

Instant ICs, just add Bangladeshis
The problems with the electoral roll, Walski thinks, goes beyond the EC not being totally impartial. If indeed there were foreign workers who were on the rolls and voted, and had valid ICs, this sounds like a different kettle of problematic fish. It would, for one thing, involve the National Registration Department, and possibly the Immigration Department. This is as serious as what happened in Sabah, prompting a Royal Commission of Inquiry. And without a doubt, this is a problem that needs to be looked into. What say you, Mr. Prime Minister?

Implement IPCMC as recommended
To show that you, Najib, are a Prime Minister with the Malaysian people’s interest at heart, please implement the IPCMC as recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. The half-hearted (and again, not very impartial) Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) is certainly not enough to restore the integrity of the police force in the eyes of the Malaysian people. Yes, it’s not going to be a popular move with your party/coalition, nor will it be with PDRM. But hey, you got your mandate, now it’s time to grow a backbone and a pair.

Transformation, within before without
Najib’s much touted transformation, now that he’s gotten the mandate (sort of), will be scrutinized with a fine-toothed magnifying glass. Whether or not UMNO/BN transforms, and what it transforms into, only time will tell. Perhaps the new cabinet will be an indication, but the UMNO General Assembly will be a huge indication. The early signs, however, are not encouraging. Utusan continues to play up racial sentiments, and whether UMNO likes it or not, what Utusan says is perceived as what UMNO says by proxy. Just like how charity begins at home, real transformation is only possible if UMNO can transform. Personally, Walski thinks it has no capacity to, but that’s just Walski. It’s another one of those wait and see scenarios.

There are other things to do, for sure, but act on these four areas, and PM Najib will have gone a long way to reduce the trust deficit. And perhaps demonstrate that he is serious about leading this nation towards a better future.

Needless to say, Najib has his work cut out for him. He wanted a mandate, and a minority mandate is what he got. How minority? This reposting of a Malaysiakini article by Tommy Thomas tells the full story. Yes, the parliamentary seat counts favor UMNO/BN, but the popular vote certainly does not. Even in Perak where UMNO/BN managed to retain the state government helm.

But before Najib can convince the nation, he must first ensure that his party and coalition are on the same page with him. Early indications are that many within UMNO/BN are still in denial, falling back on tired old rhetorical outbursts of race, indebtedness and betrayal.

First things first, however, is the new Cabinet. Or will it be an old cabinet with new paintjob and minor accessories? We’ll find out tomorrow. Meanwhile, a possible list has been released on the Politik Harian Media Rakyat blog. Kind of looks like… well, you decide.

Meanwhile, Anwar Ibrahim is on a roadshow to garner support for his position that the currently elected one is illegitimate, due to the alleged polls fraud. Walski has mixed feelings over this.

Bottom line, as hurtful as having the elections stolen is (if indeed there was fraud on the scale alleged), the relevant laws are there for a reason. If we are to support the rule of law, the last thing we want to do is take the law into our own hands.

Finally, GE13 has resulted in a more divided Malaysia. Not along racial lines as UMNO/BN want to believe, but along other more complex demographic lines. It’s probably going to be a bumpy ride, but Walski, for one, is here for the long haul.

And disappointed as he may be that real change was denied, the fight for a better Malaysia continues…

Click here for the full post......

Frequently Asked Questions about the 13th General Elections

Technorati tags: GE13, General Elections, Malaysia, FAQ

Finally, after months of speculation and guessing games, we’re gonna have a general election. The thirteenth in our history since independence, and one that seems, somehow, to be different from the other twelve we’ve had so far.

Why different? It looks like for the first time, there’s an acknowledgment that the possibility of regime change is certainly plausible. We’ll get back to this idea further into the post, but for now, suffice it for Walski to say that it’s different this round.

For some of you, this will be the first time you will vote. And so with that in mind, Walski thought it would be a good idea to do a quick FAQ for your benefit. We’ll start with the basic questions, then work our way down to the more inanely complex conundrums.

Even if you’re not a first-time voter, Walski hopes that you’ll find this FAQ useful.

There are, of course, many other questions that one may have but let’s focus on the ten most frequently asked. Or, at least, what Walski thinks are ten important questions you should be asking. (the FAQ, Walski's answers, and more, in the full post)

What’s all this voting business about?
To answer this question, we’ll have to digress a bit, and look at Malaysia and its system of government. Malaysia is what’s considered a Constitutional Monarchy, which means that we have a King, whose jurisdiction is limited by what our Federal Constitution allows. So contrary to what you may have been told, our King doesn’t have unlimited powers and jurisdiction.

The same constitution defines the kind of government we have, and it is modeled very closely to the Westminster parliamentary system, which is a democratic parliamentary system of government.

Contrary to what you may have been told (again), “Democracy” is the process with which we select our government. Granted, ours is not an ideal democracy (no country’s is), it still is a somewhat functional democracy, and one that’s been practiced since gaining independence in 1957.

Of course, democracy goes beyond voting, but that’s a subject for a different conversation. A Westminster system of government (or most democratic governments for that matter) splits its powers into 3 components: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.

What happens when we vote is that we select individuals to represent our voice at the state and national/federal levels of government. Essentially have a direct hand in only voting in the Legislative arm of government at both the Federal and State levels. At the Federal Legislative level, we only directly vote for the Lower House (Dewan Rakyat) of the bicameral Parliament. The Upper House (Dewan Negara) members are appointed individuals of good standing in society, selected by both the Ruling and Opposition parties/coalitions.

At the national level, we select a member of parliament – one of 222 nationwide – who will then sit as part of a democratically elected Lower Legislative arm of government. The leader of the majority grouping – party or coalition – will become our Prime Minister, who in theory, “commands the confidence” of the majority of those elected. Similarly at the state level, we select state legislative representatives.

The Prime Minister, in turn, will appoint members to his or her Cabinet. This cabinet forms the Executive branch of government. Cabinet members are called Ministers, who are then tasked to head the various ministries and departments of the Civil Service.

That, in a nutshell, is what all this voting business is about – the selection of the two arms of a democratic government – the Legislative and the Executive.

Why do we need to vote when there’s a perfectly functional government already in place?
The “visible government” consists of the Executive and the Civil Service. In the Malaysian context, the Executive is the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister. The Executive’s role is to set policy, which is then carried out by the Civil Service.

In a democratic governmental system, when a change of government happens, it’s only the Executive that gets replaced. The Civil Service, which serves the government of the day, remains pretty much constant.

A problem arises when the same party/coalition stays in power for too long. There is a tendency for the Civil Service – which is supposed to be non-partisan, and politically independent – to be beholden to not only the Executive, but also to the party/coalition the Executive belongs to. This is what’s happening in Malaysia today.

Half a century of being governed by the same coalition has blurred the lines between party and government, something that is not healthy for any functional democracy. Having the ruling party/coalition’s every whim and fancy railroaded through to become “government policy” without due process and debate (again something that is to some extent happening in Malaysia today, from Walski’s viewpoint) will be detrimental to the nation in the long run.

The “functional government” you see is the Civil Service carrying out its duties. Changing who leads the Executive does not take away the visible functionality of government machinery.

If I vote against the ruling government, am I considered unpatriotic?
Simple answer: NO. You’re not voting against the government in toto, but essentially against the political party/coalition that constitutes the Executive branch of government. And yes, the two are very different.

Because the same party/coalition has been in power for such a long time, the distinction between political entity and government to the point where said political entity (UMNO/BN specifically) can make the claim that anyone voting against it is being unpatriotic. Such a claim, however, has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. It is a fallacious claim, in other words.

I am a civil servant. Isn’t voting against the ruling government unethical and wrong?
This has been answered, somewhat, a little earlier. The answer, quite simply, is NO. The Civil Service, in a Westminster-like system, is supposed to be politically independent. The Civil Service, as a whole, cannot have any political allegiance, and therefore members of the Civil Service are free to support whichever political party best resonates with an individual civil servant’s own ideals. A civil servant’s job is to carry out the specific civil function that he/she is employed to do, and it is not their job to be beholden to any political entity, even if that political entity makes up the current Executive branch of government.

The situation in Malaysia today, however, is such that many civil servants are being told that their allegiance MUST be with UMNO/BN, because UMNO/BN is the government. Again, a result of the blurring between Executive and party, due to half a century the Executive belonging to (pretty much) the same political entity.

I am concerned about the future, and the future of my children. Wouldn’t it better to just allow the current ruling government to rule in perpetuity?
Theoretically feasible, but then we must also stop pretending that we’re a democracy. Why bother having elections, when the result must be foregone? The best selling point about a democracy is that the citizens of a country get to decide who should govern. In fact, it is one of the very few democratic actions that we’re still free to exercise, without being subjected to restrictive laws. The notion that only UMNO/BN is fit to rule is one that UMNO/BN themselves have perpetuated, because they are the only ones who have held the reigns of the federal level Executive branch of government. The idea that they’re the only ones fit to rule only holds water if there were a situation to compare with. There is none.

From Walski’s own perspective, UMNO/BN has become increasingly self-serving over the years, and the only ones who truly benefit from their continued rule are those closely affiliated with the coalition itself. The common citizen gets scraps, while those politically connected are the ones who get the 10-course meal. Plus desserts.

Another sign that Malaysia is in dire need for a regime change: when our leaders don’t even have confidence in systems they publicly tout as “world class”. One example that immediately comes to mind is tertiary education – how many of our leader’s kids have attended local public universities, versus a true quality education abroad? Think about the future of your kids, and then think about this big gap between hype and reality. Then answer why you still think we shouldn’t be considering regime change.

If a new government is voted in, wouldn’t this mean all the government departments and institutions have to be reconstructed from scratch?
As mentioned before, the answer is NO.

Should I vote for an individual based on her/his merits, or along party/coalition lines?
For a long time, self-professed and somewhat self-centered centrist Anas Zubedy was promoting the idea of voting for the individual based on his/her capability and merits. And then this statement came from our former PM: General election not a contest among individuals.

Essentially, it comes back to why you are personally casting your vote. If you think that the candidate you support and vote for will make a real difference, then vote based on the individual.

Realistically, what Dr. Mahathir said is more relevant to the current Malaysian political scenario. Sorry Anas, but the reality (and Walski has mentioned this to you before) is that no matter how capable and good an individual candidate is, his or her capabilities will matter naught in the bigger scheme of things – it is the party/coalition that goes on to form government, not the individual.

So, back to the question: how should you vote? If you think that UMNO/BN should be given the mandate to effect reforms as they have promised, then vote for them. But before you do, ask yourself why is it that all of a sudden UMNO/BN is talking reform, when they’ve had decades to exact the reform they promise.

If it is real change you are looking for, then in Walski’s opinion what you’re going to get with another 4 or 5 years of UMNO/BN rule is, at best, small change.

It’s your decision.

Can I vote for a specific person to become Prime Minister?
Unfortunately NO. Since Malaysia is modeled after the Westminster system of democracy, the constitution doesn’t allow for it. You may THINK you’re voting for Najib if you vote UMNO/BN, but in reality you’re voting for UMNO/BN. And with the increasing irrelevance of the other component parties, you’re effectively voting for UMNO. Ketuanan Melayu, Ibrahim Ali-ism, and all the warts that come with the party, as far as Walski is concerned.

Similarly, if your voting for Pakatan Rakyat, you are NOT voting for Anwar Ibrahim. In fact, you will be voting for the particular Pakatan component that’s contesting in your area. Even if Pakatan does win the general election, it’s not a given that Anwar will become Prime Minister.

That’s simply how our electoral system works.

I don’t care which party/coalition wins. Why should I even bother to vote?
Walski won’t go into the spiel about it being your responsibility, etc. He will say, however, that voter apathy usually works out better for the incumbent. Not all the time, but Walski thinks more often than not.

You may think that whichever party/coalition winning won’t make a difference, but in actual fact, it will. For both you and your children, if you have any.

Why? The winning party or coalition forms the Executive and Legislative arms of government. And governmental policies are not written in stone.

Here’s a simple rule of thumb you can follow: analyze what each side of the political divide has to offer, then DON’T vote for the evil of the two lessers. For Walski, having weighed the options, it boils down to a choice between eventual, but almost certain doom, and a glimmer of hope that the path towards oblivion and disrepair can be averted.

Basing it this way, Walski’s choice was obvious – he chooses hope. If you bother to analyze, you’ll find that there is a distinct difference between the two sides.

If, after doing all this, you still find you don’t care, then all Walski can say is that don’t complain about the government you get later on. People who don’t bother to vote deserve the government they didn’t vote for.

I only have one vote. Will it make a difference?
For a change, the quick answer is YES, your one vote does make a difference.

There used to be a time when Walski thought that his single vote wouldn’t make a dent in the outcome of the elections. Until he realized that if enough people thought the same way he did, then the difference would be non-trivial.

If you recall, in 2008, many seats were decided on the slimmest of margins. Particularly those seats where big-ticket names were contesting. The same is expected this time around. Vote fraud – and let’s not delude ourselves that it’s never happened – typically only works in cases where the vote tally difference is small.

Put simply, and this will sound cliché, every single vote counts. Unless you prefer that a slim wins turns to shit just because some people thought it best to go postal. If you catch Walski's drift.

~ ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ ~

And there you have it. The key questions Walski thinks you should be asking. Are there anymore questions that you think need answering before you cast your vote? Let Walski know.

 

Click here for the full post......

Happy 2013: Welcome to the Season of the WHICH

Technorati tags: Happy New Year, 2013, Donovan, Season of the Which

Happy New Year 2013!

If this new year were to have been tag-lined by Jon Stewart, he'd probably have called it Indecision 2013. Walski, on the other hand, thinks that this year is The Season of the "Which".

We pretty much spent a good chunk of 2012 speculating WHEN GE13 would be. No thanks, of course, to Our Dear PM, who simply wasn't inspired enough to decide when the next general election should be.

We now know it has to be this year. When exactly we still don't know and will have to wait until Our Dear PM is inspired enough, but constitutionally, it will be no later than June sometime.

But more important than "When" will be the question of WHICH.
(why it's the Which, and whatever more, in the full post)

Do we retain Barisan Nasional - essentially UMNO plus a mish-mash of hangers-on parties - to lead us into the next 4 or 5 years, or do we put our trust in leadership with Pakatan Rakyat?

That's the WHICH we need to ask ourselves, and ultimately, answer during the coming GE13. In 2013. Has a ring to it, if you ask Walski.

It's New Year's Day, and the last thing Walski wants to do is to ruminate on this question. Not today, at least. We'll have the coming weeks and months to decide. He hopes, however, that those who have been criticizing what Malaysian politics has become have taken the trouble to register to vote.

He's not sure if you still have time to register now or not, but seriously, shame on you if you haven't, and criticize nevertheless. It may sound cliche, but every vote does count, and your vote represents your say.

There used to be a time when Walski felt his lone voice wouldn't make a single splash in the sea of seemingly ubiquitous support for BN, and therefore didn't bother to register as a voter.

That changed just prior to GE12, and he's never regretted the decision to be part of the electorate. It was, admittedly the first election he cast his vote in, but he saw for himself that when millions of lone voices speak, they collectively make a big difference.

Let's be objective for a moment - both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither coalition is perfect, but the challenge is for us to decide which is the evil of the two lessers, and deny them Putrajaya, the seat of the Malaysian Federal Government.

Personally, Walski wants the change promised by Pakatan, versus the lip-service type of change - loose change, as he calls it - that Barisan has been spouting since 2008, with increased intensity in 2012.

But that intensity in rhetoric has not been accompanied by real and meaningful change. The fact that Barisan Nasional has NO intention to change became very apparent when Our Dear PM came out to say that he can only institute change if he's given the people's mandate in GE13.

Are we to believe that he couldn't do jack for the last 4+ years, and can only bring about change in the BN (and by default, the Government) with a fresh mandate? 

Allow Walski to rephrase that: Are we GULLIBLE enough to believe this?

For him, the answer is a resounding NO.

We all know the real resistance to change, even if (presumably) Our Dear PM is sincere in wanting to institute change. And that impenetrable wall is called UMNO.

But that's Walski's personal opinion, and you're more than welcome to disagree. It's a free country after all. Well, somewhat free. At the moment.

And so Walski intends to spend the rest of today NOT thinking about WHICH, because 2012 gave him an abundance of time to decide. Thinking about it more today, New Year's Day, is not going to change his decision.

The ball is in your court, good people… Happy 2013, and welcome to the Season of the "Which". 

Walski's WHICH-witch-inspired-this-post footnote: Yesterday, while Walski was around about town, this 60s psychedelic classic came on BFM89.9, the only radio station Walski listens to. Without any help from psychedelics - apart from the tune - it became apparent that 2013 would be the season…

Many thanks, Walski supposes, to Donovan for the inspiration. Oh, and belated congratulations for the 60s icon's induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Click here for the full post......