Reject the Stadium Solution

Every single time an NGO wants to stage a protest, the immediate reaction is to first deny permission and then to suggest that the protest be held in a stadium.  This stadium knee jerk reaction has become the hue and cry of many a commentator, and surprisingly, even some who are for the cause of such protests also support the stadium solution. 

The common refrain comes in three forms. First, critics point to the convenient nature of stadiums that can hold large capacities of people without causing obstructions on the road, or having the risk of car accidents. Second, critics look no further than the successful Kelana Jaya Stadium and Stadium Negara protests and say: “There you go, everybody is happy that way.” Last but certainly not least, there are supporters of the cause who prefer not to break the law or whatever arbitrary regulation the authorities have thrown at people, and thus say: “Aiya…Just follow law la. They let us protest there, so let’s just protest there la.”

Protest organizers have been more or less quite adamant in not giving in to such demands, with exception of the immediate post-GE 13 stadium rallies. And every time organizers reject the “Stadium Solution” (I call it the SS), there’s a huge backlash from ordinary citizens who view their constant rejections of government “compromises” as unreasonable. Yet, for all this hue and cry, there has never been an articulation, a strategic evaluation of why it is so important for protests to be held on the streets and not in a stadium. As someone who has been an organizer of protests, this is very frustrating. So this piece sets out to articulate such a position and hopefully the rakyat will be more supportive and understanding of organizer’s woes when the next street demonstration comes along. 

The post-election Kelana Jaya Stadium Rally. From Harakah Daily.

1. Stadiums are limiting factors

By their very nature, stadiums limit the number of participants. If a stadium’s capacity is 120,000 people, then you are surely not going to get more than that number of participants. Any excess crowd will gather on the outside of the stadium, and not being able to enter the stadium to hear the speeches, or participate in any collective action, will eventually just subside away. This runs counter to the number one objective of any protest: which is to get as much mass support as possible. Simply put, it’s like going to a buffet, and being told you can only have one plate of food, that’s all. Add that to the fact that you never know for sure how many people are going to turn up, and that’s a big problem. 

Numbers are the lifeblood of protests. The more people that turn up, the more powerful the impact of a protest. Many people point to Kelana Jaya and tout it as a success. I beg to differ. Kelana Jaya reached perhaps 120,000 people, but there were thousands more stuck in traffic jams or milling about outside the stadium. Had it been held on the streets, with multiple meeting points converging on a large urban space, it potentially could have had the impact of a BERSIH. 

Not only are the number of protestors limited, the other most important factor in a successful demonstration, media coverage is also limited. Going back to the Kelana Jaya stadium protest, the Al-Jazeera reporter was stuck outside the stadium, doing live coverage of basically a few people milling about outside. Imagine the media impact lost because of that. Media impact is particularly important for protests to garner awareness, not just internationally, but also to inspire and to spur on fellow citizens who may be sitting at home wondering whether it was worth going. 

Stadiums are also a geographically limiting factor, because, let’s face it, there are not that many that can comfortably hold more than a hundred thousand people. Many stadiums also fall under the purview of federal government agencies or private corporations, for which letting an “anti-government” organization hold a demonstration is a big no-no. So the stadiums that are viable, are often those in opposition held states, where public transport is less well developed, and are often magnets for traffic jams even on the best of days. They also tend to spill out into residential areas. So if you did not want to join a protest in the heart of the city, you simply stayed back home and relaxed. Now, because the only viable stadium is in Petaling Jaya, it now restricts access for residents themselves. 

The 2012 Bersih 3.0 Rally. From Global Bersih.

2. Street protests may be inconvenient, but that is part of the point

This is in response to those who would rather follow police directions and stick to stadiums if need be. A protest, especially in an authoritarian political setting, is by its very nature an act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a purposeful act of breaking a particular law, in order to expose its arbitrary and unfair nature. This is what Mahatma Gandhi did in leading the Great Salt March from Sabarmati to Dandi, and making salt in defiance of the British Raj Salt Laws that outlawed any such endeavor. By doing so, he sought to show the injustice of the salt laws and demonstrate that salt belonged to all Indians. By protesting on the streets, Malaysians demonstrate the injustice of SOSMA and the Peaceful Assembly Act.

Of course, each one of Gandhi’s protests presented huge inconveniences to both the authorities and ordinary citizens. His call for a national day of prayer and fasting to protest the Rowlatt Act, put into context, was more than a massive inconvenience. Imagine, one man essentially declared a public holiday, and put the entire nation on standstill. Trains stopped working, shops closed, packages and deliveries delayed. 

A ruling coalition only stands up and takes notice when it is hit where it hurts. The inconvenience of it all is a purposeful material and symbolic signal to the government to take heed of the rakyat and “Listen, listen, listen”. If street protests were so easy and free of consequences, then activists could protest 365 days a year without any effect, and the government could afford to ignore such pleas. 

By making stadium protests a contained event, the ruling government also contains the impact of any such action. 

People arrested at a parliament protest I was present at. Luckily it was not an enclosed space.
 From Keow Wee Loong Photography.

3. Stadium protests are not only limiting, but downright dangerous

By far the most important reason to avoid a stadium, or any enclosed area at all costs, is the potential danger such spaces entail. Look no further than the annual deaths during the Haj in Mecca on the risks huge crowds in small spaces bring. Not to forget the various stampedes in football stadiums from the 2009 Houphouët-Boigny Arena stampede where 19 people died, to the 2013 Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny New Year stampede where 60 people died. 

The above are religious and sports festivals, but imagine how much more tense the situation is at protests, where the threat of police action is always over the heads of protestors. Emotions run high, and the slightest spark can trigger panic. Imagine if police fired tear gas into Kelana Jaya stadium that night. Thousands of people, rushing to get away from the debilitating gas might have trampled all over each other. Or what if there is a threat of a bomb, some unbased rumor as is common in such incidents? This is exactly what happened when 147 people were killed during the Chamunda Devi stampede at the Chamunda Devi temple in India, caused by a rumor that a bomb was planted in the temple complex.

Unlike street protests where participants have dozens of avenues of escape should there be any incidents, stadium often only have a few narrow exits. The slopes and benches do not help either. Unlike street protests where the only obstacle might be a road block (and this can be circumvented too), all that needs to be done to hem protestors in is to simply lock the doors. 

This risk to human lives is by far the most concerning facet about the Stadium Solution. It is an unacceptable risk that should be avoided at all costs.

Reject the Stadium Solution

No doubt, the ruling government is probably perfectly aware of how stadium protests are limited, less impactful and more dangerous than street protests. Like a noose that seeks to strangle, the stadium is a tool of encirclement that seeks to corral the efforts of protestors.

I hope, especially for those who have always wondered “What’s wrong with a stadium?”that this articles lays it out clearly and concisely why the stadium is an ineffective and risky venue for any sort of mass demonstration. Reject the Stadium Solution. The streets are paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of all Malaysians, it is high time we claimed them to assert our independence from unjust laws. In the words of St. Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.” 

Also published on Loyarburok, MalaysiaKini, Malaysia Today, The Malay Mail, Malaysian Insider, MSN News Malaysia, and Yahoo! News Malaysia.

Another May 13 in the Offing?

May 13 has arrived and passed with no major incidents. For many Malaysians who sit uneasily with the date, there is a culpable sense of relief. However, is the threat of a nationwide disturbance over? Is it possible still in this day and age for something on the scale of the May 13 riots to reoccur?

Before moving on let me just clarify that this analysis is not meant to monger fear or accuse the government of anything. It is a hypothesis based on my historical analysis of post-election trends in Malaysia, and as with all hypotheses, is unproven and certainly not set in stone.

This article seeks to analyse and answer two main questions:

• How possible is it to have some sort of disturbance that will spark unrest?
• What form might it take?

Through a careful examination of past incidences of civil unrest in Malaysia, 3 incidents in particular stand out for their scale, their impact on the political narrative of Malaysia, and their nature. The 3 incidents I speak of are the May 13, 1969 riots, the 1987-1988 Operation Lalang and judicial crisis, and the 1998 sacking of Anwar Ibrahim and the subsequent Reformasi movement. In considering the events leading up to, during and following the events, 3 key traits stand out.

1. Internal UMNO struggle

Firstly and perhaps most importantly, all 3 incidences have taken place in the foreground of internal UMNO struggles. In Dr. Kua Kia Soong’s thesis of May 13, he posits that the riots were in fact a coup d’état initiated by the ascendant Malay capitalist class under Razak to replace the Malay aristocratic class lead by Tunku Abdul Rahman [1]. The validity of Dr. Kua’s statement is subject to debate, but the swift and stunning reversal of fortunes that Tunku Abdul Rahman suffered cannot be discounted as coincidence. Even if the riots were not facilitated by the top leadership of the right wing of UMNO, Razak certainly made full use of the opportunity to grab the reins of government. Recently, Gerakan veteran Dr. Goh Cheng Teik and ex-UMNO strongman Mohd Tamrin Abdul Ghafar came out to clarify that May 13 was indeed an internal coup orchestrated by irate UMNO members against Rahman [2][3].

The 1987-1988 Operation Lalang also had similar internal rumblings. In fact, the judicial crisis roots lay in the dismissal of UMNO as an illegal organization due to complaints from Tengku Razaleigh’s UMNO Team B [4]. The same goes for the mass arrests that followed the Reformasi movement. Again, it was an inside UMNO fight between then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Mahathir Mohamad [5].

Time and time again, UMNO leaders especially those from the right wing have shown that they are more than willing to externalize internal struggles to distract people from the real issues and to eliminate opposition. Come this October, UMNO internal elections will be held, and it will be a titanic clash between the reformers under Najib Razak and the Mahathirists under Muhyiddin’s tutelage. The first shots have already been fired by Mahathir, calling Najib’s performance a “disappointment” and openly stating before elections that given a slim victory Najib should give way to deputy Muhyiddin [6].

2. Need for consolidation of power

The second trait is a need for constitutional/ law changing. As we all know, the last time UMNO was in government with a minority of the popular vote was in 1969 [7]. Post-1969, constitutional amendments made the EC beholden to Barisan Nasional and various laws such as the Sedition Act were strengthened (See Andrew Yong’s article in Loyarburok for easy understanding) [8]. Similarly, in 1988 the threat from the Semangat 46’ coalition formed posed enough of a threat to the UMNO hegemony of power that the Mahathir felt it necessary to cripple the judiciary and rob it of its independence[9].These changes in law to consolidate UMNO dominance have however, often been met with significant opposition. It is because of the backlash that comes with these changes in the institutions and dilution of the rule of law that such exercises have needed to be preceded by mass arrests/ unrest preventing any coordinated response. The Reformasi movement of 1998 was rife with similar arrests, but with a firm 76.56% of seats BN could comfortably continue its gerrymandering, mal-apportionment exercises [10] One must also bear in mind that due to 1998 being led by Anwaristas, it took on a different nature.

At the end of this year, there will be a re-delineation exercise that threatens to entrench BN firmly in power, no matter what the popular vote turns out to be in GE 14 [11]. Civil society, opposition politicians and proactive citizens have already begun raising awareness of the exercise. The rakyat, especially urban folk are acutely aware of their rights and attendance at rallies such as the 8^th May Kelana Jaya rally have shown that from here on escalation of civil action can be only grow [12].

It would require a major distraction on an unprecedented scale to divert attention away from the re-delineation exercise.

3. Incitement of racial sentiments

The third trait that has preceded such incidents is the exacerbation ( or in some cases manufacturing) of racial sentiments. This has largely been the domain of the government-controlled mainstream media. In 1969, the mainstream media reported Labour Party processions as shouting “Malai-si!” and provoking the Malays [13]. However, such accounts are doubted and are contradictory to the foreign press accounts that reported the procession as a show of “discipline” and “genuine restraint” [14].

In 1988, Utusan Malaysia blew the issue of Chinese educationists out of proportion. What followed were the mass arrests of not just prominent members of Dong Zong but also of activists and opposition politicians [15] In 1999, BN blew up fears of Islamization, loss of non-Malay rights etc to secure a win despite losing the popular vote of Malays to the Barisan Alternatif [16].

Now the racist rhetoric has reached an all-time high. From Utusan Malaysia’s “Apa Lagi Cina Mahu” (What More Do The Chinese Want?) , an ex-judge’s warning of backlash against the Chinese, to PM Najib’s “Chinese Tsunami”, all UMNO media seems to be blasting out racism at every avenue. [17] [18] [19]

A Negative Cycle

The need to change laws, racial sentiments and UMNO internal struggles are all interlinked and form part of a negative cycle that has occurred since May 1969. The government starts to lose popularity and its grasp on power starts to loosen, thus facilitating the growth of opposition movements. The government then needs to consolidate its position, and the bending the law to suit such needs is its ultimate tool. To bend the law however is to invite dissent. At the same time, the loss of popularity also sparks internal divisions within UMNO itself. Faced with signification obstacles, such power struggles are then externalized in the form of a national crisis to distract from the real issues and to decapitate any unified response. To provide a raison d’etre for such a national crisis, the mainstream media exacerbates and incites racial rhetoric. And when the so-called “spontaneous chaos” ensues, fear takes hold of many and allows the ruling coalition to remain in power. This standard operating procedure is not endemic to Malaysia but is something common in the politics and history of many other Southeast Asian countries with similar problems with diversity and nation building such as Indonesia and the Philippines (See People Power revolution and the fall of Suharto’s regime) [20].

It is my view that given the volatility of the current political position and the fulfillment of all three key traits, a national incident is bound to happen. However, despite the incitement of racial sentiments, it is my opinion that any unrest will not be of a racial nature. Unlike in 1969 and 1988, the issues raised by the opposition and civil society have been part of national consciousness and not ethnic-specific [21]. The opposition platform is also multiracial, unlike in 1969 where it was largely non-Malay, and has enjoyed multiracial support [22]. The racial baiting by UMNO-controlled media has also been met with incredible shows of unity from Malaysians from all walks of life [23].

Therefore any incident will take on the form of mass arrests in the name of stability and national security. Already 28 Pakatan Rakyat leaders who spoke at the Kelana Jaya rally have been/ are going to be called up on charges of sedition [24].  Yesterday, a group of NGOs lead by Haris Ibrahim’s ABU has called for a 1 million Malaysians to rally against electoral fraud in Kuala Lumpur (Note: Contrary to what was reported, in his official statement Haris Ibrahim never called for toppling of a government, see his blog for details)[25]. This is the Catch 22 situation faced by every pseudo-democratic government, where in order to remain in power they dilute the institutions of democracy, but in so doing radicalize the populace and further erode their mandate to power. Faced with an escalation of civil disobedience on this scale, it would be an easy thing for the government to crackdown on activists, politicians and intellectuals in one fell swoop.

Many a politician used to justify any repression including use of the Internal Security Act by stating that the majority of people in Malaysia seemed not to mind as most people voted BN in elections. In the days of Operation Lalang, this was the case. But this time any action by the BN government will be without the support of the popular vote.

There is a word used to describe the act of a minority cracking down on freedoms without consent of the majority: tyranny. Whether or not such tyranny will continue to work in this day and age, will depend on the strength of will of the rakyat. Not the work of NGOs, not the ceramahs of politicians, but the voice of the ordinary citizen in speaking out against injustice.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part but is nevertheless based on a close analysis of long term historical trends in Malaysia and throughout the SEA region. In fact, for the sake of this country, I hope that this entire analysis is rubbish, and that I will be proven absolutely wrong and a pessimistic idiot. One can only hope.

References

[1] Kua, Kia Soong. May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969. SUARAM, 2007.

[2] “May 13 was not an ethnic phenomenon. It was a political occurrence, only those who were members of Umno or associated with it were involved.” – Dr Goh Cheng Teik

“Ex-Gerakan stalwart backs Hadi's May 13 stand” Malaysiakini. May 1, 2013. Available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/228701.

[3] “…the incident was a mini coup planned by Umno men.” – Mohd Tamrin Abdul Ghafar.

Kuak, Ser Kuang Keng. “Ex-UMNO man defends DAP against May 13 charge” Malaysiakini. April 30, 2013. Available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/228497.

[4] [9] Means, Gordon P. Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation. Oxford University Press, 1991.

[5] Hartcher, Peter. "Outdated political thuggery embarrasses Malaysia". The Sydney Morning Herald. February 23, 2010. Available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/outdated-political-thuggery-embarrasses-malaysia-20100222-ornl.html.

[6] Zurairi, Ar. “Dr M questions BN strategists, says Umno to decide Najib’s fate”. The Malaysian Insider. May 7, 2013. Available at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-questions-bn-strategists-says-umno-to-decide-najibs-fate.

[7] Drummond, Stuart & Hawkins, David. The Malaysian Elections of 1969: An Analysis of the Campaign and the Results. University of California Press, 1970.

[8] Rachagan, S. Sothi. Law and the Electoral Process in Malaysia. University of Malaya Press, 1993.

[10] Swee-Hock Saw, K. Kesavapany. Malaysia recent trends and challenges. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006.

[11] “Constituency redelineation to be done at year end, says EC”. Malaysiakini. May 10, 2013. Available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/229751.

[12]Su-Lyn, Boo & Ding, Emily. “Thousands pack Kelana Jaya stadium for Pakatan rally”. Malaysian Insider. May 8, 2013. Available at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/thousands-pack-kelana-jaya-stadium-for-pakatan-rally.

[13] Abdul Rahman, Mohd Daud. Ke-Arah Keharmonian Negara. (Towards National Harmony) Jabatan Kerajaan, 1971. (State Department)

[14] “Malaysia: Requiem for a Democracy?” Far Eastern Economic Review May 24th, 1969.

[15] Kua, Kia Soong. 445 Days Under the ISA- 1987-1989. Suaram Komunikasi, 2010.

[16] Lin, Juo-Yu. A Structural Analysis of the 1999 Malaysian General Election. Tamkang University, 2002.

[17] Zulkiflee, Bakar. “Apa lagi orang Cina mahu?” Utusan Malaysia. May 6, 2013. Available at http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Pilihan_Raya/20130507/px_03/Apa-lagi-orang-Cina-mahu?.

[18] Aw, Nigel. “Ex-judge warns Chinese of backlash for 'betrayal'”. Malaysiakini. May 12, 2013. Available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/229909.

[19] “Malaysia GE13: PM Najib blames polls results on 'Chinese tsunami'”. Straits Times. May 6, 2013. Available at http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/malaysia-ge13-pm-najib-blames-polls-results-chinese-tsunami-20130506.

[20] Slater, Dan. The Architecture of Authoritarianism: Southeast Asia and the Regeneration of Democratization Theory. Stanford University Press, 2006.

[21] Among the issues brought up were corruption, high cost of living etc.

Manisfesto Pakatan Rakyat.  Pakatan Rakyat website. April 19, 2013. Available at http://www.pakatanrakyat.my/files/ENG-Manifesto-BOOK.pdf.

[22] Ong, Kian Ming. “Here’s proof: It's a Malaysian tsunami, not Chinese only”. Malaysia Chronicle. May 10, 2013. Available at http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=98901:heres-proof-its-a-malaysian-tsunami-not-chinese-only&Itemid=2.

[23] “Youths point the way towards unity” The Star. May 12, 2013. Available at http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/5/12/nation/13102027&sec=nation.

[24] Ramendran, Charles. “Cops to haul up rally organisers and speakers”. The Sun Daily. May 9, 2013. Available at http://www.thesundaily.my/news/692938.

[25] Anand, Ram. “1 million street rally planned for KL”. Malaysiakini. May 14, 2013. Available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/230049. 

Sometimes I Hate Being Chinese

The current trend of racialising election results is extremely worrying. 

• PM Najib: "Elections results... due to a Chinese tsunami."
• Utusan Malaysia headlines: "Apa lagi Cina mahu?" (What more do the Chinese want?
• Mohd Ali Rustam, ex-Melaka MB: "The Chinese are ungrateful and racist!"
• Papagomo, influential pro-BN blogger also today called the Chinese ungrateful, implying Chinese should go back to China. A reader whose comment was liked by many also commented that the Chinese should be slaughtered like pigs.

The truth is that statistics show that the urban Malay vote also experienced a huge shift to PR, and since PR actually won the popular vote, 3.1 million of those votes were actually Malay.

A Malay friend of mine actually messaged me to apologise on behalf of the Malay community. I told him there is absolutely no need to apologise. Unlike some people in power, I know better than to stereotype people based on the color of their skin. Unlike some people in power, I know better than to emulate Hitler and condemn a whole ethnicity. And unlike some people in power, I know Malaysia, now more than ever, needs unity.

Sometimes I can't help but hate being Chinese. Why can't I just be Malaysian?

Democracy Is Not Dead, You Just Haven't Found It Yet

Dear all,

I must say that I'm as appalled as anyone else about the allegations of massive electoral fraud. So many people are incredibly upset and I understand. But mourning and being angry is not enough. In fact, I find all the black profile pictures in a sad way rather amusing. And I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I see people giving up, or looking ahead to the next elections in another five years to push for change.

I find all this rather morbidly amusing because the people being incredibly upset, many are also the ones who on a normal day, would rather go to a music concert than a protest, would rather watch the Sports news than update themselves on Malaysiakini, would rather stay at comfy urban homes lamenting the "stupidity" of the rural folk while never bothering to visit them or reach out to understand. 

Even better yet are those who look forward to next elections in 2018, resigning themselves to “Lain Kali Lah”, as if democracy consists of a once-in-five-year vote and nothing else. 

For god's sake wake up. Democracy is messy. Democracy can be deeply flawed or a tyranny of the ignorant masses. But one thing democracy is not is a hollow, rare concept. 

Democracy happens every day around us. Start caring about the issues, start advocating and educating people about them. And I don't mean clicktivism. The urban-rural divide needs more than Facebook statuses and black profile pictures (though it doesn't hurt). Go to Sabah and Sarawak and feel just how separated and marginalized they feel when they speak of the Peninsular. Go to the kampongs and help the folk realise why even though all seems hunky dory and life goes on, change could mean longer term benefits for all. If you’re not the activist type, then do something else. Volunteer for PACABA and get everybody you know to register as a voter. A cook? Bring some food for the PACABAs and campaigners. Do anything but do something! And come on, demos kratos, people power is not contained in a tampered, delible ink-stained, pencil written ballot paper! 

"Democracy is dead!" some proclaim. No, Democracy is very alive. You just haven't discovered what it really is yet.

ROJAK Awards 2012

REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

Special Feature: The ROJAK Awards for 2012

As the year draws to a close, and Christmas looms ever nearer, gifts, company dinners, bonuses (and, no doubt, bribes!) are being dished out left, right and centre. In honour of that grand tradition, and to recognise those who have left significant marks on society, be they imprimatur-spots or unpleasant stains, REFSA presents its own ROJAK* awards to Malaysia’s top newsmakers of 2012.

9. Starting off, the Sour Mangoes Merit Prize goes to the sourpusses and turncoats we’ve seen these past few years. From dear Hassan Ali, to the Terrific Turncoat Trio who handed over the reins of Perak to the opposing side via defections, there’s been no end to the puckering and posturing from these ‘frogs’. What a bunch of sour grapes mangoes!

8. Sweet notes are heightened following sour sensations; and theCool Cucumbers Award goes to the new political leaders that we see emerging today. From Saifuddin Abdullah to Nurul Izzah Anwar  to Tony Pua, these individuals not only keep cool, fact-based minds in fiery debates, but also exhibit a willingness to engage in all platforms, be they public forums or social media. Politics is the new cool.

7. The Crunchy Jambu Trophy belongs to the alternative media, who give airtime to our Cool Cucumbers, whistle-blowers such as Rafizi Ramli of cows-and-condos fame and extensive coverage of events such as BERSIH which are peripheral in the world of the mainstream media. For bringing to the forefront the news that matters, this award goes to alternative media outlets like Malaysiakini.

6. When it comes to the Limp Kangkung Gift, there is none more deserving than the mainstream media. In fact, the mainstream media wins hands down (or should we say butts up?). Censoring the British Broadcasting Corporation (another worldwide first for Malaysia, we believe), deviously and deliberately mixing up the words Islam and Scientology in Australian Senator Xenophon’s speech, calling crime a perception problem, … there seems to be no limit to their ability to bend to their masters’ wills.

5. In stark contrast, the Crispy Crackers Cup is awarded to the various bodies who have made us laugh in spite of, and sometimes because of, all the daft comments, scandals, disappointments, and atrocities. From the brave political cartoonists of the likes of Zunar and Johnny Ong, to the netizen-run memes of pages like Curi-curi Wang Malaysia, thank you for cracking us up, and subtly ‘cracking’ irresponsible politicians’ heads with wit and humour derived from their (all too many) foibles.

4. Coming up, by unanimous vote (alright, maybe just 5 people), is the Styrofoam Box Bonanzawhich goes to LYNAS for all its environmental nastiness and suspicious secretiveness. I mean, it’s not the Cold War; it’s not like they are building some radioactive facility for some oppressive, authoritarian government….

3. On the other side of the Styrofoam fence, is the Satay Stick Honour, and this is bestowed upon the Anti-Lynas movement, for, literally and figuratively, walking the talk. These ordinary but gutsy people banded together and walked 300km in 2 weeks on their Green March for a healthy and safe environment. India had its Salt March, Mao Ze Dong had the Long March, now Malaysia has its own Green March. The walk to freedom is long indeed.

2. The Rojak Sauce Salutation goes to the BERSIH movement, for bringing all the disparate flavours of Malaysia together. From old to young, from Malay to Chinese to Kadazan, BERSIH united Malaysians all over the country, in fact, the world, for a just cause. Honourable mention goes to organisations like Tenaganita, the Bar Council and Tindak Malaysia, who advocate, fight for, and defend our rights as citizens of Malaysia and turn the spotlight on incidents of repression and abuse. Working tirelessly, while being paragons of humility, they ensure the weak and oppressed do not stand alone.

1. Last but not least, we have the Order of the Rubber Band. You can have the best rojak sauce in the world, you can have all the freshest fruits of the rainforest, you can have the sticks ready and the box closed, but without a rubber band, that box of rojak may be all for naught. So this award goes to you, the Malaysian voter. We know you are flexible, we know you are adaptable, and we know you recognize that everything has a limit.  So make your choice judiciously, cast your election vote wisely, and take responsibility in protecting and preserving our wonderful, mixed-up, diverse country.

And that’s a wrap.

*ROJAK Awards has neither international accreditation nor the endorsement of local authorities; it is a purely home-grown, cottage industry to give due recognition to all deserving awardees, worthy, or unworthy, of mention. We await an ‘entrepreneurship’ award for our efforts.

-------
As published by REFSA.

5 Things Worth Celebrating for Merdeka

 REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

Malaysia turns 55 this year, and a generation is retiring – a generation for whom a mouse was definitely not something you wanted in the house, a generation for whom Emergency was when communists came knocking on your door and not when you lost your smartphone, a generation where “tweets” were only for twits.

As that generation passes the mantle to the next, it is time for reflection upon our yesteryear. Though our beloved nation has seen its fair share of controversy and angst over the years, there are certainly things for which we can be happy about. And so today, REFSA Rojak puts aside its usual cynical self, and celebrates those things that give us hope, things that unite us as a nation and as one people. Five things stand out as we turn 55…

5. Exorcising the ghosts of May 13, 1969

May 1969 no longer conjures the same feeling of dread it used to. It has become like the bogeyman in fairytales of yore – used only by people who think they know what is best for us, to scare ‘ghoul-able’ souls! This spectre of fear tried to rear its ugly head after the 2008 political tsunami. However, the attempts to stoke ethnic tension – cow heads in Shah Alam, church arson, pig heads in mosques, JAIS raids on church dinners, bible-stamping – fizzled out when ordinary Malaysians rose above the fray. With Bersih being the most ‘muhibbah’ event of recent years, and inflammatory film trailer Tanda Putera receiving a red light sabre of dislikes on youtube, it looks like this May 13 ghost has truly been busted.

4. A new breed of young political leaders

With the dead having been taken care of, let’s focus on those who are breathing new life into the nation. From the ever purr-fect and CAT-chy Lim Guan Eng and latest clean-and-lean analytical machine Dr Ong Kian Ming, to the Rambo-brave Rafizi Ramli, the blossoming Nurul Izzah and the far-sighted Saifuddin Abdullah, to name a few, a new breed of political leaders have emerged, leaders who stand up for what they believe in and kneeling only in service of the rakyat!

3. The blooming of grassroots movements

While young politicians at the top are spreading the spirit of nationhood down, grassroots movements from the rakyat are also spreading their roots all the way up! Civil society movements have burst forth these past few years. Many, such as UndiMsia, Loyarburok, Bersih, Stop Lynas and Tindak Malaysia have received overwhelming support from ordinary Malaysians. They are truly organisations by the people for the people!

2. ‘Jalan-jalan cari makan’

At the end of the day there is one thing in Malaysia that can stop FRU units mid-charge, blow away placards and banners, and unite the entire country against ‘Singaporean culinary culture thieves’- FOOD. From the divine balance of spice and fragrance in that Mak Cik’s nasi lemak, to the joys of chomping on a dhal-flooded roti canai from that machaar down the road – Malaysia is truly the land of Makanmania. All things point to the possibility of eating our way to inter-cultural harmony, and this may well be the foundation to restore inter-ethnic interaction and understanding.

1. The freedom fighters

No, we’re referring to not just the soldiers who fought in the Emergency, not just the leaders who claimed independence from the British, not just the entrepreneurs who made it big on the world stage, but people like you and me. We celebrate the parents who lay for us the foundations of freedom that shape our character and sense of right and wrong, the teachers who give us the beginnings of the freedom of thought, and the friends who teach us the meaning of freedom to be who we are. Today, as we remember our day of Merdeka, that fight for freedom continues.

Fifty-five years on, let’s recognise that there is much to celebrate. The things that really matter are really right before us.

“A great nation is not one which, like Russia, has an enormous territory; or, like China, has an enormous population. It is the nation which gives mankind new modes of thought, new ideals of life, new hopes, new aspirations; which lifts the world out of the rut, and sets it going on a cleaner and brighter road.”

                                                            L.E. Blaze, Lecture at the D. B. U. Hall, November 26, 1926

———————

As published on REFSA.

Internal Disagreements Are Like Ginseng

The Malaysian media encourages the misguided view that differences of opinion among members of political parties are unhealthy. Differing views are often portrayed as ‘squabbling’ or ‘spats’ or ‘rifts’ between members of the fraternity and indicative of weakness and disunity.

The contrary is true. Firstly, the ability to accept differing opinions is a sign of maturity in political parties or coalitions. Every person is unique, and that uniqueness includes our worldviews and of course, our opinions on matters. Even people in the most intimate of relationships do not agree on everything. Lovers fight. Married couples argue.

Some of us are more opinionated (or if you prefer, stubborn) than others, and when it comes to political parties... well you can expect a much higher concentration of strong-willed, passionate people who have their own take on things. The important thing is that the disagreements are in pursuit of a higher cause. The point of debate goes beyond demolishing the other person’s arguments and proving yours are better. Constructive debate and discourse which involves different viewpoints often results in a compromise that is agreeable to most. And isn’t that the point of a democracy - to reflect the views of the majority?

But even when the middle path is not taken, and when different factions with irreconcilable differences emerge, it can be for the better. Take for example the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. The business-friendly  Republicans  believe people should be as free as possible to pursue their own best interests and government should play a minimal role in the economy. The Democrats have a broader social agenda and believe government is crucial in creating a fairer society.

Many would be surprised to learn that these polar-opposites today share the same roots in the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson. Differences of opinion within led to a schism in the 19^th century. In the short term, this split certainly was destructive - the Democratic-Republican party ceased to exist.  But in the long term, it created two powerful parties that now dominate politics in the richest country in the world.

Disagreements still rumble internally within the parties. Just consider the race to be the Republican candidate for president of the United States. Rick Santorum, the previous front-runner who recently pulled out, is a very conservative Christian focused on social issues. Mitt Romney, the present front-runner, was a successful venture capitalist and presents a more moderate face. All the candidates have hotly debated, and indeed, attacked each other. But the internal competition creates a dynamic in which the strongest, most ‘winnable’ candidate survives, behind which the entire party then closes ranks.

Notice the difference between these mature parties and the immature, insecure ones in our country? The losing candidate is not demonised as a traitor to the party, ostracised or expelled. Neither does he storm off if a huff or retreat to sulk in a corner. He and his followers are absorbed back into the fold and continue the fight for the greater good as the party sees it. The different opinions expressed during the campaign are not viewed as detrimental or bad for the party. Rather, they are recognised for what they are: just different viewpoints. And the winning candidate may well absorb some of these viewpoints.

Rick Santorum.

This brings us to the very important point that successful political parties recognise constructive dissent as not only natural, but also necessary for rejuvenation. The Democratic and  Republican parties in the United States have now been in existence for nearly two hundred years. The fact that they are still relevant is testimony to their ability to absorb and accept new ideas and evolve to meet the changing needs and demands of the people they seek to govern. New ideas, and change, by definition, require freedom to dissent and debate. 

The real problem is not dissent. It is suppressing dissent. UMNO for example, has not seen a contest for its presidency for a quarter of a century - ever since the titanic battle in 1987 between Tunku Razaleigh and Dr Mahathir which lead to Tengku Razaleigh leaving UMNO to form Semangat 46 and a sycophantic culture developing in the new UMNO. Dr Mahathir recently admitted that UMNO faces a scarcity of competent leaders at the top^[1].  The shortage is so severe that the UMNO now cannot find a woman capable enough to helm the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development.

Take this test yourself. Name the vibrant young leaders in UMNO, MCA and the MIC, the bulwarks of conformity and ‘unity’. Next, name the vibrant young leaders in DAP and PAS[2], the parties often portrayed by the mainstream media as riven by disagreements.

Differing opinions are simply a natural democratic process, are in the bigger picture constructive, and a mark of a mature, strong parties. So the next time the mainstream media highlights another intra-party ‘spat’ within Pakatan Rakyat, think of it as Ginseng- it is bitter-sweet but is natural and rejuvenating!

---

[1] Dr M: Field talented outsiders. The Star, 29 Mar 2012.

[2] We deliberately avoid mentioning PKR as it is a relatively young party.

Originally published on REFSA, an independent think tank's website.

http://refsa.org/comment/internal-party-disagreements-are-like-ginseng-bitter-but-natural-and-rejuvenating/

The Terrible Word

There is a word that is hated by many. Politicians hate using the word, though reluctantly they usually have to; the rich, middle class and poor equally detest it; companies balk at it and cry for mercy. The word I am talking about is TAX.

Yes, I am talking about the recent hoo-hah over the 6% prepaid tax that telcos want to pass on to consumers. There have been countless allegations, as well as extremely flawed and fundamentally wrong arguments coming from both sides of the political divide. Even more appalling is that some of them come from our Finance Minister.

In this article, I will systematically address some key issues that have cropped up in this fiasco, and show you how misleading the mass media has been over this. Bear in mind I will be trying to explain this in plain English and not economic jargon, so pardon me if I sound less “sophisticated” or “academic”. Anyway, moving on…

1. If the corporation absorbs the tax, I don’t have to pay it

This is one of the greatest myths in economics: that if we tax corporations, and they absorb it, we do not have to pay for it. Let me ask you a simple question. Who pays taxes? The floor? The company table? People pay taxes.

Taxes are basically an extra cost. Let’s say I make a packet of nasi lemak for RM 1. My cost of making one packet is RM 0. 50. Therefore I earn RM 0.50. What happens if the government says I have to fork out 10% in taxes. So that means now, I have to pay a tax of RM 0.10 (10% of RM 1). This means my profit has reduced from RM 0.50 to RM 0.40.

My next question to you is what does a mak cik selling nasi lemak do when her profit is reduced? She can do two things: raise the price, or try to reduce the cost. In the case of reducing cost, it would means either using cheaper ingredients, or hiring less workers. In any case, someone else suffers along with the nasi lemak mak cik: people – us.

The telco situation is exactly the same. By asking the telcos to absorb the tax (i.e. not allowing a raise in price), and telcos being profit-oriented companies whose ultimate goal is to maximise their profits, they will do one of three things: (i) they will have less dividends to pay out to investors, who poured their hard earned money in the enterprise; or (ii) they will reduce their workforce, depriving of people like you and me of jobs; or (iii) they will cut down on the quality/ maintenance/ bonuses that their customers receive, resulting in worse service for everybody; or they will try to raise prices in indirect ways such as a higher registration fee, and some other type of implicit cost. In any case, who really ends up paying for the tax? The rakyat.

2. It’s the corporation’s fault, they’re earning so much anyway

A lot of anger has been directed towards these telcos, saying how they should be happy with what they have, and not burden the rakyat.

I have three responses to that:

Firstly, the tax is government imposed. The government is trying to shift the blame from themselves to the telcos. It’s like this: I make you pay, but I do so through another person. The other person then gets the blame for making you pay, and then I say how I’m such a great guy for helping you, and then get the money I made you pay in the end anyway. Now I do admit this is a rather simple illustration that does not take into account the uses of tax revenue (I will address that later), but in a nutshell, this is exactly what is happening!

Secondly, I have illustrated how the rakyat still ends up paying for the tax one way or another. In one case, it is kept hidden; in the other, you know what you are paying for. Is it not better to at least be mindful of the real costs involved and be able to adjust one’s spending accordingly? Also, companies are ultimately made out of people. If I told you, you’re earning too much, you should absorb someone else’s taxes in addition to your own income tax and for Muslims, in addition to zakat, would you be willing to? I understand that perhaps there are cases of very kind people, but the majority would deem it unfair because you’re paying for other people from your own hard earned money!

Thirdly, telcos also have a particular need for more money since it is a technologically based industry which is constantly developing and improving. We’ve had EDGE, 3G, 4G, god knows how many other Gs there are. Telcos need the money to expand, and relentlessly improve their services to consumers. Without that revenue to invest, their service will not improve and they will be far behind in terms of world competition. Do you want faster and better service, wider coverage? Then your telco needs profits – in the billions – to be able to provide all this expensive infrastructure and technology for you!

3. Government needs that revenue from taxes

Many have come up and defended the need for government revenue from taxes. Agreed, there is a need for income tax, but is there really a need for this prepaid tax, especially when many prepaid users come from the lower income bracket?

The lower income bracket can benefit from this tax revenue if it is put to good, responsible, and efficient use – especially in the case of education programs to uplift the poor. However, I’d like to point out how this has been a consistent argument for high taxes, yet till today, 4 out of 5 of working Malaysians only have up to SPM education, while much of taxpayers’ money has been channeled towards mega projects such as Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ). Simply put, it’s not that we don’t have enough tax revenue, it’s that it is not being utilised properly.

It is my humble suggestion to abolish the prepaid tax altogether. Abolishing it would free telcos to lower prices to be more competitive (since now their cost is lower) thus benefiting all prepaid users. It would also potentially free up some income, especially for poorer groups where phone usage is a substantial part of their expenditure. This would allow them to use that saved money in a way that they would like to use it best, whether it be food, or education for their children; it would give them more control over their expenditure, rather than relying on state welfare programs where there is often inefficient administration.

This would allow politicians to bring up two words that people love and not hate: NO TAX.

All in all, I urge you: please think of the big picture before condemning telcos.

As published on September 23rd 2011 on LoyarBurok and the Malaysian Insider.