GE13: Democratic nations gloss over Malaysia’s fraudulent elections

Tags

13th General Election, democracy, EU. electoral fraud, Katherine Ashton, President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, US, White House petition

Now that the elections are over, world leaders have rushed to congratulate Prime Minister Najib on his electoral victory while  glossing over irregularities that have rendered the elections suspect.

It is quite clear to anyone who cares to look that the 13^th general elections were the most fraudulent elections in our history. It failed, by any measure, to meet the minimum standards of free and fair elections.

Of course, one would expect the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad to praise Najib for his leadership and for “the strong backing” he received. Undoubtedly, Iran now feels an extra special affinity for Malaysia given Iran’s own penchant for skewing the electoral process.

What is surprising, however, was the reaction of other democratic governments. One would have expected that they would have, at least, expressed serious concern about the conduct of the elections instead of falling over themselves to congratulate Najib on his dubious victory.

While the international media highlighted the persistent reports of electoral fraud with the Economist describing Najib’s victory as “tawdry,” western democracies in particular mostly ignored it as nothing more than, well, an “irregularity.”

President Obama’s spokesman noted the obvious – that the elections were the most competitive in the nation’s history and that  opposition parties faced significant restrictions. Referring to the reported election “irregularities”, he said it was important that they be addressed and that the US looked forward to the outcome of the investigations. He concluded by saying that “The United States looks forward to continuing its close cooperation with the government and the people of Malaysia to continue to strengthen democracy, peace, and prosperity in the region.”

Translation: the Americans know there’s no chance at all that an impartial investigation will be conducted. And neither will one be demanded. As far as they are concerned, the lack of electoral integrity is just a minor and inconvenient fact that hopefully will be quickly forgotten. After all, there are arms to sell and the Trans-Pacific Partnership to seal.

Catherine Ashton, the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, took basically the same approach. She congratulated the Malaysian people for their peaceful and enthusiastic participation in the elections, as if that was any surprise. She then went on to congratulate Najib for having won another term. Noting concerns over “irregularities” in the electoral process, she naively expressed the hope that the competent authorities would investigate the complaints, never mind that the authorities are neither competent nor capable of an impartial investigation. It’s like expecting the cat to investigate who ate the canaries.

British Prime Minister David Cameron and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard telephoned Najib to congratulate him on his victory. No indication that either of them took him to task over the electoral fraud. It’s business as usual.

Najib, in any case, professed himself “satisfied with the process and the credibility of the elections.” Message to the rest of the world: don’t hold your breath waiting for an investigation.

Given the critical importance of free and fair elections, other democratic governments  have no right endorsing the outcome of elections in the absence of independent verification. If they themselves don’t have monitors on the ground, they should at least differ to independent local monitoring groups like BERSIH.

Besides, there were so many warnings of electoral fraud before the elections but no expressions of concern from the international community.

Clearly, western democracies are great at trumpeting lofty ideals but terrible at putting them into practice. Profits take precedent over principles. Better the dictator you know than the democrat you don’t. All talk about strengthening democracy are empty words and meaningless rhetoric.

In the aftermath of GE13, Malaysians, in the their frustration, petitioned the White House. According to the Associated Press, the petition drew more than 220,000 signatures within a week, making it the second most popular issue on the site.

While it helped draw international media attention to the issue, it is, of course, an  exercise in futility.

Malaysians must know that in the struggle for freedom and democracy, they are very largely on their own. They must look to themselves, to what they believe in and find the strength, courage and determination to press on until Malaysia is truly free.

Taking back our democracy post GE13

Tags

Ambiga Sreenevasan, Anwar Ibrahim, Barisan Nasional, corruption, elections, Elections Commission, Khalid Ibrahim, Lim Guan Eng, Lim Kit Siang, Najib Tun Razak, Pakatan Rakyat

Former U.S. Vice-president Al Gore said recently that “American democracy has been hijacked.” He said his country needs to wake up to the special interests that have a grip on the levers of power.

The same could well be said about Malaysia following the 13^th General Elections.

There can be little doubt that there was widespread electoral fraud during the elections. The Election Commission’s much touted indelible ink, for example, turned out to be a joke. The only indelible stain, as far as most Malaysians are concerned, is on the reputation and credibility of the EC itself.

Until these reports are properly and  transparently investigated and put to rest, it is reasonable for Malaysians to question the validity of the elections and the continuing legitimacy of the Barisan Nasional (BN) government. Clearly, BN has lost the support and confidence of the majority of Malaysians.

Our options, however, are limited. The BN government has a strong grip on the levers of power; almost all national institutions function as little more than appendages of the ruling party. No fair process of appeal is therefore available or possible.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have to resign ourselves to the hijacking of our democracy. Citizens actually have enormous power and there are a number of things we can do and must do.

We can, for example, work to change the media environment and promote independent journalism by boycotting government-controlled media like the New Straits Times, The Star and Utusan Malaysia, and subscribing instead to online media like Malaysiakini which tend to report without fear or favour. It’s high time we leveraged our collective economic strength to send a strong signal to the media barons of Malaysia that we will no longer accept one-sided and fawning news coverage.

We can continue to support BERSIH and let the Elections Commission know that we won’t accept anything less than a clean, credible and fair electoral system. BERSIH  has indicated that a tribunal will be set up to investigate electoral fraud. All those who have evidence of electoral fraud of any kind should come forward. Together, we can expose what really went on during the elections and hopefully prevent it from happening the next time.

We can also continue to expose corruption, the abuse of power and misgovernance. If we can’t trust the system to put an end to this cancer in our society, we must do it ourselves. We have already seen the impact that exposés of corruption and the abuse of power can have. If we blow the whistle on corruption and wrongdoing whenever and wherever we find it, we can put the corrupt on notice that there is a good chance that they will be discovered and shamed if not prosecuted.

Pakatan Rakyaat (PK) leaders, especially in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan have done an outstanding job in showing the nation what good and responsible government looks like. In many ways, they have already set the benchmark for good governance in Malaysia. We must support and encourage them  further. We must become even more active participants in the political process because the future of our democracy will be determined in no small way by what happens in these states during the next five years.  

Most of all, let us build upon the spirit of national unity and common purpose that is already in evidence throughout the country. An immense psychological barrier was broken when the people of Malaysia rejected the old paradigm of racial and religious division and distrust. The ghost of May 13^th has been finally exorcized despite the best efforts of racist and morally bankrupt politicians to keep it alive. It is now incumbent upon us, the ordinary citizens, to build upon this and deepen the roots of unity, tolerance and respect. We don’t need, and cannot expect, politicians to teach us about national unity; we just need to begin with ourselves and practice it as a way of life.

We have already come a long way. Despite the electoral fraud and the hijacking of our democracy, our nation has irrevocably changed for the better because of the commitment and activism of millions of ordinary citizens. We finally have a credible two-party parliamentary system. We have found our common purpose and reaffirmed our common identity as Malaysians first and foremost. And just as exciting, the youth of Malaysia have become agents of change.

As well, we have served notice on the BN elites that we can’t be fooled by empty promises, that we won’t be divided by race or religion, that we refuse to be cowered  by threats and intimidation, that we reject entirely the sleaze, corruption and the abuse of power they have foisted upon our nation for so long.

If BN wants our support and allegiance, if they really want to promote reconciliation and demonstrate their worthiness to govern, let them compete with PR in good governance, in service to the people, in sound policies and proper implementation, and in respect for the dignity of the people they govern. If they want our respect, let them emulate the integrity and humility of Tok Guru Nik Aziz, the selfless service and commitment of Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang, the economic stewardship of Lim Guan Eng and Khalid Ibrahim, and the zeal for democracy of Ambiga and her colleagues in BERSIH.

Malaysia’s 13th General Elections: A Time of Hope Or A Day of Shame?

Tags

corruption, democracy, elections, human rights, Malaysia, Transparency International

On Sunday, May 5^th, Malaysians will go to the polls to elect a new government.

On the surface, Malaysia is often seen as a prosperous and thriving democracy but underneath the rot is as serious and as it is deep.

Over the last few decades, Malaysia has sadly descended into a culture of  corruption, abuse of power and misgovernance. Transparency International ranked Malaysia as the most corrupt country in the world to do business. And, according to US-based Global Financial Integrity, Malaysia ranked second in the world, after China, in terms of the outflow of illicit funds. Over the last ten years alone, more than USD 285 billion has been transferred out of the country illegally, a staggering indication of the plunder that is taking place.

As well, most of the nation’s institutions and the mainstream media have become little more than party political organs of the governing party which has been in power for more than 55 years.

Understandably, many Malaysians desperately want change – peacefully and through the ballot box. Indeed, there is now an unprecedented level of citizen engagement in the political process aided by social and online media which has put the lie to government propaganda and cover-up and short-circuited the system of censorship and control.

Malaysians are turning out by the hundreds of thousands to demand free and fair elections and to cheer on those who are committed to reform and change. Often, they have stood courageously but peacefully against official intimidation, chemical spray and razor wire. They have also given millions of dollars to support reformist candidates, something that is again without parallel in the country’s history.

Despite the ruling party’s efforts to sow disunity among Malaysia’s diverse ethnic and religious communities, ordinary Malaysians have held fast, displaying respect and tolerance towards each other.

The elections on Sunday will, therefore, be a defining moment for Malaysia. There is great expectation that Malaysia will finally emerge from the long dark night of corruption, abuse of power and misgovernance and forge for itself a bright new future based on democracy, accountability and respect for diversity.

The ruling party, however, appears determined to hold on to power by all means necessary. Many credible local and foreign observers have already concluded that free and fair elections might no longer be possible.

The electoral roll, for example, has exploded in recent months with thousands of dubious voters who cannot be traced or accounted for. In some cases,  hundreds of these new voters often share the same address, a sure sign that  something is amiss. The indelible ink that is to be used in the elections has now been found to be easily removable. There is even some indication that the government is illegally organizing charter flights to bring in foreign workers (non-citizens) from different parts of the country to vote in order to shore up their support especially in opposition strongholds. And all this comes on top of the fact that the opposition has been denied access to national newspapers and television while the ruling party uses the full scope of government resources to sustain its own election campaign.

The political playing field is, therefore, far from level. Malaysia’s elections commission, for its part, has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the public for the partisan way it is discharging its responsibilities.

Significantly, no less a person than Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, has felt compelled to issue a statement stressing that free and fair elections in Malaysia are imperative.

The ruling party has also gone out of its way to stir up racial and religious dissension hoping to continue its divide and rule approach to politics. Recent billboard advertisements have appeared suggesting that the Christians (who comprise less than 10% of the population) are somehow a threat to Islam, the official religion of the country. Some politicians aligned to the National Front have even called for bibles to be burned. Not so long ago, a church was attacked and firebombed. Malaysia’s Christian leaders have strongly condemned these offensive and insensitive political advertising.

In an effort to further intimidate voters, various government politicians have also warned that there could be racial and religious violence should the ruling party lose the elections.

The situation is therefore fraught with much danger. May 5^th could be Malaysia’s shining moment or it could be Malaysia’s day of shame. It could be the day when justice and righteousness triumphs or the day when corruption, bigotry and tyranny advances.

To my fellow Malaysians, I salute you for your courage and resilience in fighting for justice, for change and for a better future. On May 5^th, the future of our nation will be in your hands. Vote wisely, vote early, vote carefully.

No matter what happens, however, our country will never be the same again because the people are now alive to their destiny and to their power under the constitution. If justice is somehow denied us this time, it will come another day. And come it must. As the great American civil rights pioneer, Martin Luther King, was fond of saying: “the moral arch of the universe is long but it bends towards justice.” 

To Malaysia’s friends abroad, I encourage you to continue to walk with the people of Malaysia in their long quest for justice and democracy. Please do whatever you can to inform others about the situation here and press your own governments to hold Malaysian authorities responsible for the conduct of the elections and what happens afterwards.

GE13: Democratic nations must hold a watching brief

Tags

Anwar Ibrahim, Australia, Bersih 3.0, corruption, democracy, Malaysia Elections Commission, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak

As Malaysia prepares to go to the polls, democratic nations must help ensure that the elections are free, fair and consistent with internationally accepted standards

Any time now, Malaysians are expecting parliament to be dissolved and general elections to be called. It comes at a time when Malaysians have grown increasingly concerned about the state of their nation after over 55 years of one-party rule.

Rampant corruption and gross abuse of power  have wrought untold damage. The institutions of our democracy – parliament, the justice system, the civil service and the media – have been rendered dysfunctional by an overbearing executive.

Predictably, respect for human rights has deteriorated; billions have been lost to corruption and the country continues to slide in terms of key benchmarks on transparency, corruption, press freedom and good governance. More than 300,000 Malaysians migrated in 2008/09 alone.

While the government has publicly committed itself to liberalizing the public square, its actions have left much to be desired. Political reforms have merely altered the letter of the law while leaving intact the spirit of repression and control behind them. In short, the reforms are nothing more than an exercise in deception.

If nothing changes, Malaysia could well find itself a failing state. 

In recent years, Malaysians from all walks of life have come together like never before to signal, in no uncertain terms, that they want change. Last year, hundreds of thousands of citizens turned out across the nation to demand free and fair elections. They were greeted with tear gas, chemical spray, razor wire and riot police. [Left: 2012 BERSIH rally calling for free & fair elections]

Other citizen initiatives have also received hitherto unheard of levels of support.

This rising political activism is profoundly encouraging and can only be good for democracy.

Hopes and fears 

Now on the eve of the very critical 13^th general election, both hope and fear abound.

The hope is that change can be effected in a peaceful and democratic manner through the ballot box and that we can reclaim our democracy, regain respect for human dignity and rebuild our nation.

The fear, on the other hand, is that the will of the people will be thwarted by massive electoral fraud or by other means.

In the last general election, the government was clearly unprepared for the huge swing to the Opposition and the corresponding loss of key states. This time around, their actions suggest that they are not going to take any chances.

Thousands of dubious voters, for example, have suddenly been registered with many sharing the same postal address.  Migrant foreign workers also appear to have been illegally added to the electoral rolls. These concerns are so widespread that 92% of Malaysians surveyed recently wanted to see the electoral rolls cleaned up before the elections. Clearly, the Elections Commission no longer enjoys the confidence of the electorate.

Indeed, there are already so many discrepancies and inconsistencies in the electoral roll that some consider it almost impossible to have free and fair elections.

The Elections Commission, of course, denies these allegations but refuses to carry out an  open and transparent investigation.

To all this may be added the gerrymandering that has gone on for years as well as the government’s near total control of television and the print media. The electoral playing field in Malaysia is, therefore, anything but level.

The Prime Minister has called on the Opposition, as well as all Malaysians, to accept the results of the elections. It is a reasonable request provided that the elections are conducted properly.

In any case, he himself has not given a firm commitment that he and his party will also respect the results of the elections and facilitate the peaceful transfer of power to the Opposition, should it somehow win.

Democracies must hold each other accountable

Malaysia’s partners abroad, particularly other democratic governments, are no doubt already fully aware of the situation in Malaysia. Their ambassadors and high commissioners stationed in Kuala Lumpur would have surely briefed them concerning the unfolding situation here. Besides, many heads of government, foreign ministers and others have also visited Malaysia over the years. Hopefully, they saw more than gleaming towers, shiny new cars and easy pickings.

Regrettably, democratic nations all too often put strategic and business interests ahead of the very principles of freedom and democracy upon which their own nations are premised.

The question is what will other democracies now do at this critical time in Malaysia’s history? Will they stand on the sidelines or will they stand up for democracy?

No one is suggesting, of course, that they send in the marines, impose sanctions or plot regime change; the struggle for democracy in Malaysia is ours and ours alone. It will be won or lost on the strength of our own courage, conviction and determination to bring about peaceful change.

There is much, however, that other democracies can legitimately do to help. They can, for example, insist that the government conducts the elections according to internationally accepted democratic standards and in an open and transparent manner consistent with our constitution. They can shine a spotlight on the whole electoral process and, if it proves to be fraudulent, deny  the government the legitimacy that it seeks within the community of democratic nations.

Democracies must hold each other accountable, must they not?

International Election Monitors needed

Democratic nations can also press the government of Malaysia to accept real election monitors, not the ones from non-democratic nations that the government tends to prefer. Malaysia has, after all, sent election monitors to other countries and should be open to receiving them as well.

In fact, parliamentarians from all democratic nations, and particularly from the Commonwealth, should visit Malaysia in one capacity or another during the elections whether or not they have been invited. They might suffer the same fate as Australian Senator Nick Xenophon (picture right) who was deported from Malaysia recently as a “security risk” for coming to talk about electoral reform, but at least it draws attention to the situation in Malaysia.

Western democracies in particular have  tremendous leverage. They have used it many times before to secure defence and other contracts or gain strategic advantage. They ought to use that leverage now to help ensure free and fair elections. 

Change will bring stability and prosperity

Perhaps, events elsewhere in the world – especially the sudden rise of more radical, anti-western regimes – have caused democratic nations to be wary of change. As the argument goes, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Those in Malaysia who seek to resist change are counting on that.

The situation in Malaysia is, however, completely different. We now have in place a united, credible and viable democratic alternative to the governing party and the beginning of a genuine two-party system that is a fundamental prerequisite to a functioning democracy. This is an exciting political development in itself with far-reaching and positive implications for Malaysia’s future. [Left: Prime Minister Najib and Opposition Leader Anwar]

Contrary to official propaganda, therefore, change will not bring chaos and uncertainty but real stability, prosperity and greater freedom for all.

A free and truly democratic Malaysia can, and will be, an inspiration to other developing countries. Malaysia can be that role model for democratic transition and change that is much-needed in the world today. Democratic nations have an obligation, therefore, to hold a watching brief as Malaysia prepares for elections.

Dennis Ignatius – Malaysiakini 23rd February 2013

GE13: A defining moment for Malaysia

Tags

Anwar Ibrahim, Bersih 3.0, brand Malaysia, corruption, democracy, human rights, Najib Tun Razak, UMNO

No matter how often one reads about the sordid corruption and abuse of power in Malaysia, one can never get used to the staggering scale of betrayal by those we trusted to govern in our name.

The latest scandal, that certain political leaders illegally and secretly manipulated citizenship grants in order to shift the balance of votes in their favour, is beyond outrageous. The full scope of their treachery might never be known.

What is particularly galling is that despite all the publicity, despite the fact that we are about to head to the polls, it’s still business as usual. It speaks of an overbearing sense of impunity and an utter disdain for the people of Malaysia.

It is mind-boggling, as well, that Malaysia, according to the international financial integrity watchdog Global Financial Integrity, is now second only to China in the outflow of illicit funds. Untold billions have been looted and squirreled abroad even as our nation sinks further into debt. At this rate, the day of our economic reckoning, a reckoning that will fall primarily upon the shoulders of the common people, cannot be too far off.

A government which allows these things to continue unchecked year after year surely loses all its credibility as well as its moral legitimacy.

The carnage that decades of misrule has wrought is now evident in nearly every area of national life – the justice system, the police force, the civil service, the Elections Commission and the Anti-corruption commission.

Abroad, meanwhile, Malaysia is increasingly seen as a nation in decline. Each year we sink lower and lower in critical benchmarks for corruption, transparency, good governance, education, human rights and press freedom. Where once we ran with the best, we now hunker with the outliers; where once we benchmarked ourselves with the finest, we now settle for being a cut above the worst.

Part of the problem is that we, as a nation, have for too long put our trust in personalities and political parties rather than in the kind of institutions that alone can guarantee our democracy and help ensure good governance. So enamoured were we with personalities that we did little as the caudillos undermined our national institutions and weakened the fabric of our nation. We unwittingly traded our fundamental freedoms for short-term prosperity and stability.

And now, we, like many other nations before us, have discovered the truth of Benjamin Franklin’s axiom that those who trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

Only strong democratic institutions can help ensure that a nation survives the corrupt or ineffectual leaders that democracies tend to throw up from time to time. America, for example, could survive Nixon because its democratic institutions were strong, whereas the Philippines collapsed into chaos together with Marcos because its institutions were weak.

The reality is that power is always highly corrosive and corrupting, and must be kept in check by strong democratic institutions and traditions. History clearly shows that, absent an effective system of checks and balances, today’s reformers could well become tomorrow’s abusers.

While the upcoming general election will, in the first instance, be a contest between personalities and coalitions, their respective policies on the central issue of democratic reform will be the key to our future.

The task is, admittedly, huge – dismantling institutionalised cronyism and injustice, re-establishing standards of good governance, rebuilding all our national institutions and forging a new national consensus.

Happily, there is now a resurgence of confidence and optimism that it can be done, that we are possessed of the resilience, fortitude and basic solidarity necessary to overcome the challenges that years of misrule and division have wrought. The mass outpouring of support for BERSIH and other citizen initiatives clearly demonstrate that people are not going to keep silent anymore, that enough is enough.

Equally important, there is now, in the PR, a genuine, viable and credible alternative to BN. They have already far surpassed the BN in their transparency, management and good governance in the states they now rule despite harassment, sabotage and black propaganda.

The choice before Malaysians is, therefore, both clear and stark – we either vote to rebuild our democracy or vote to diminish it further. The choice we make at this election will forever define our nation.

Those who want to maintain the status quo are, of course, hoping that fear will keep us from reaching for hope. They have invoked the spectre of racial and religious strife, of foreign meddling and economic ruin. This calculus was recently summed up by the cynical remark: “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”

It is an utterly false posit, for the choice before us is not between two devilish alternatives but between fear and hope, between tyranny and democracy, and between our worst instincts and “the better angels of our nature,” to quote Abraham Lincoln.

In his Merdeka speech, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the father of our nation, said, “At this solemn moment therefore, I call upon you all to dedicate yourselves to the service of the new Malaya: to work and strive with hand and brain to create a new nation, inspired by the ideals of justice and liberty — a beacon of light in a disturbed and distracted world.”

It’s time to rededicate ourselves to that unfinished task.

Dennis Ignatius

[Published in Malaysiakini, Wednesday 13th February 2013]

Rebranding Malaysia

Tags

brand Malaysia, corruption, Malaysia, Nation branding, racial intolerance, religious extremism

The government’s rebranding exercise should focus on the root causes of our blighted global image

According to Datuk Seri Idris Jala, Cabinet minister and CEO of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit, the Government is in the midst of a major exercise to rebrand the country and promote a more vibrant image abroad.

A national branding unit with a RM30mil budget and a dedicated team of officers has been established in the Prime Minister’s Department to spearhead the project.

International management consultants have also been hired to give strategic advice and assist in the rebranding exercise.

Malaysia has undoubtedly had its successes. Dynamic development strategies, successful investment promotion, innovative tourism marketing, a reputation for racial and religious tolerance, an innovative foreign policy and world-renowned corporations like Petronas helped make Malaysia a respected name globally.

However, during the past decade in particular, a series of unfortunate developments has left brand Malaysia in tatters, as I noted in this column more than two years ago (“Brand Malaysia reeling from a thousand cuts”, Feb 4, 2010).

Racial and religious extremism, corruption scandals, significant outflows of local capital and talent, a lack of transparency and accountability, intense and highly divisive politicking and a perceived democracy deficit have taken a ruinous toll.

And all this at a time when it has become far more challenging to sustain national brands.

In a world of real-time communications and social media, global opinions are shaped before local policy makers can even react.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for example, recently expressed concern that xenophobic comments and postings on the Internet by Singaporeans were damaging Singapore’s international reputation.

Furthermore, where previously national branding was centred mostly around tourism, today a cutting-edge global reputation hinges upon quality of life, business environment, justice and good governance as much as anything else. Orang utans and pandas don’t cut it anymore.

Malaysia has not fared too well in this new branding environment. We were ranked 43rd out of 113 countries that were measured for brand strength by FutureBrand, one of the branding industry’s pioneers and a collaborator in the Malaysian rebranding exercise.

With the exception of culture and tourism, Malaysia did not score highly in any of the other categories (value system, quality of life, good for business, etc.) that FutureBrand considers in assessing a country’s overall brand.

The Government’s move to take stock of how we are presently perceived by the world at large is, therefore, timely. We might also need to consider repositioning our nation beyond the “Malaysia, Truly Asia” tourism specific brand that served us well these past years.

To be effective and productive, however, the rebranding exercise must be grounded in a realistic appreciation of what branding is all about.

Branding can help focus and project the essence of a nation, its values, its culture and the unique qualities it brings to the world. It cannot serve as a substitute for sound policy or camouflage obvious weaknesses. Merely developing a nice jingle or a catchy phrase by itself will not substantially improve a nation’s image.

It should come as no surprise that the countries with the best and most recognisable brand names are countries with free and open societies which have found a way to empower their people, ignite their creativity and marshal their talents.

As FutureBrand explains on its website, “from progressive politics to a sense of openness and freedom of speech, a country that is geared around its people … will always score highly”.

Countries like Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, the United States and Sweden, therefore, did well while Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Cambodia did poorly.

We don’t, of course, need expensive foreign consultants to tell us all this; it’s common sense and already obvious to most Malaysians.

What we do need, more than anything else, is the political will to address the underlying causes of our declining national brand.

There can be no doubt that if we seriously tackle the very issues that regularly make headlines in our own media, our international image will improve dramatically. The unique and amazing strengths of Malaysia, after all, remain undiminished; they just need to be given proper expression.

We also need to keep in mind that building and sustaining a successful national brand requires long-term consistency, commitment and attention to detail, something that we don’t seem to be particularly good at.

Take, for example, the KL International Airport (KLIA). We spend time and money to promote it as a world-class airport only to see these efforts undermined by repeated heists at the airport. According to local media reports, there were three major heists at KLIA in the last few months alone.

It doesn’t take an expert to tell us that if KLIA is perceived as lacking in security, it will never realise its full potential as a competitive regional hub.

The bottom line, therefore, is that if we want a better international image we must start by cleaning up our own act. Foreign consultants can help with spin, packaging and presentation, but it is up to us to make the policy changes that alone can build and sustain a successful national brand.

[Dennis Ignatius, Diplomatically Speaking, The Star, 30th August 2012]

 

 

 

America’s deadly love affair with guns

Tags

Colorado shooting, gun lobby, gun violence, guns in America, violence, Wisconsin shooting

Barely a month after the deadly shooting in Colorado which killed 12 people, six more lives were lost to another maniac with a gun, this time at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

Yet, like the earlier shootings, the whole episode is destined to quickly recede into the background.

For all its greatness, America is a nation that is easily distracted by the trivial at the expense of the critical, a nation that can barely hold its collective attention much beyond the 30 second sound bytes of its newscasters.

It is one of the many paradoxes of America.

Consider, for example, that the death of 3000 people on 9/11 became the jumping-off point for more than a decade of war that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, whereas the 140,000 or so lives lost to gun violence since then has elicited no corresponding outrage or demand for action.

I suppose it’s always much harder to confront the enemy within than the enemy without, easier to go after strange men in far away places than face an ugly truth closer to home.

Besides, the gun culture is so much a part of the American fabric that to confront it is to challenge the way America thinks about itself. Almost all of America’s great heroes were gunslingers or men who cut their teeth in war. Guns are so much a part of society that pastors preach about the right to bear arms while banks give them away to good customers.

Even the courts have let stand the so called “Stand Your Ground Law” which basically gives citizens the right to use deadly force when confronted by an assailant even when such force is unnecessary. Talk about a licence to kill.

Perhaps, there is a certain fatalism as well; a resignation that such senseless killings are the necessary price Americans must pay for their cherished right to bear arms.

What is incomprehensible, though, is the frequently used  argument that a well-armed population is the best protection against government encroachment of  individual freedom. It might have been an appropriate response in the aftermath of their war of independence 236 years ago but it makes no sense today.

The gun culture is largely sustained and promoted by the all powerful gun lobby and the arms manufacturers who fund them.  Guns are a USD 31 billion industry that brooks no interference.  Their power to destroy anyone who challenges them is legendary. Even simple calls for more stringent background checks on prospective gun buyers are enough to send them on the offensive.

Unsurprisingly, most politicians go out of their way to avoid offending the gun lobby, especially in an election year.

President Obama, for example, has offered communities affected by recent gun violence the sympathy of his heart but not the power of his office.

Even his prospective Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, one of whose signature achievements as governor of Massachusetts was a ban on assault weapons, has been cowered into silence.

And so they talk endlessly about the need for better mental healthcare for troubled young men or promise to begin a “conversation” about guns in America instead of actually taking the bull by the horns.

It is escapism and denial on a staggering scale.

The gun lobby, meanwhile, continues to push the asinine argument that it is not guns but people who kill.

Society has long recognized that cars, for example, can kill and maim if not used properly and have come up with stringent regulations replete with a licencing system to control and regulate its use.

No such rules apply to guns which can be bought legally by just about anyone and carried just about anywhere. And not just handguns but assault rifles and other military-type weapons. There’s also no limit to how much weaponry a citizen can amass.

It is estimated that there are more than 300 million privately owned guns in the US (population 314 million), making it the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. Most Americans, however, do not own guns; the numbers are skewered because most gun owners tend to stockpile them.

And perversely, every time there is another mass shooting, gun sales actually explode, as people rush out to buy yet more guns. Indeed, gun sales rose 40% in the aftermath of the recent Colorado shooting.

The other thing about such shootings is that it shines a spotlight on the deep alienation of a rootless and disconnected generation brought up on video games, movies and music that glorify gratuitous violence and anti-social behaviour. When unstable young men, to whom killing is probably just another video game, have unlimited access to the most  lethal weapons, can there be any doubt that carnage is inevitable?

We shouldn’t be surprised, therefore, to see more and more heavily armed gunmen emerge from the shadows of their dark and dreary lives to carry out mass murder as the ultimate thrill, the final expression of their banal existence.

Until Americans are willing to confront the power of the gun lobby and demand that their leaders show some political courage on the issue, America will remain a killing field.

Cavemen in cars

Tags

culture of disrespect for the law, driving habits, Malaysia, traffic rules

There has been a lot of discussion in the press lately about the sorry lack of courtesy and manners in Malaysia.

Allow me to jump in with my own pet peeve – the culture of indifference and disrespect for traffic laws.

We seem to have this notion that traffic laws can be overlooked when it is inconvenient or ignored when there’s little chance of being caught. It’s breeding a sense of lawlessness on the streets and highways of our nation.

Travel anywhere in the country at any time and you’ll find indiscriminate parking everywhere. Single or double lines, white or yellow lines, no parking signs or emergency exits, corners or fire hydrants, it makes no difference: there’s always someone who thinks he’s entitled to flaunt the rules and redefine what “Malaysia Boleh” means.

In Bangsar (my favourite haunt), indiscriminate parking is something of a competitive sport. In front of one shopping centre, a warning sign that illegally parked cars will be towed seems to be an open invitation for everyone to park illegally.

Clearly, most drivers long ago concluded that the authorities are not serious about enforcing traffic regulations. Cars are, for example, illegally parked right in front of the pondok police in Bangsar but the cops don’t seem to notice or mind.

In any case, if you are unfortunate enough to get ticketed whenever officialdom stirs, a few dollars should settle it; more if it’s near a festive season. It’s called an out of court settlement.

And then there are the red light runners to whom amber is the signal to speed up and red is but an opportunity to test the pickup. Stopping at red lights, in an any case, appears to be discretionary, especially if it’s late at night or early in the morning. “It makes no sense to stop at a red light when there is no traffic”, one friend explained to me.

Motorcyclists, for their part, don’t think that traffic lights (or any rules for that matter) apply to them.

Pedestrian crossings, as everyone knows, are actually kill zones; step on to a crossing and you are fair game for both cars and motorcycles.

Worst of all are the owners of those expensive and flashy cars with fancy number plates and windscreens covered with club stickers. They seem to think that they are entitled to special privileges including parking in front of hotel lobbies, mall entrances or restaurants.

It doesn’t help that our police and security guards suffer from big car phobia, which can be defined as undue submissiveness to owners of big cars.

I once saw a traffic warden in Bangsar ticket a whole row of Protons, Kancils and other plebeian vehicles but skip over a black Audi SUV with tinted windows. When I asked him why, he shrugged and walked away. Best not to mess around with those guys, I suppose; might be the son of a minister.

On the nation’s highways, owners of expensive cars seem to think that all other vehicles must immediately make way for them. If you don’t get out of the way quickly enough, be prepared to be tailgated, flashed, honked, and on occasion, given the mean finger. They obviously take their privileges very seriously and are easily offended when lesser mortals in toy cars don’t give them the honour that their inflated egos and big cars demand.

You won’t be surprised to learn that my favourite bumper sticker reads: “I brake frequently for tailgaters.”

“Orang putih” and diplomats, of course, get a free pass when it comes to traffic rules; the old “tuan” mentality is apparently alive and well despite over five decades of independence and constant reminders by our politicians that we are now masters of the universe.

Undoubtedly, the authorities must share much of the blame for this culture of lawlessness. Their inconsistent, selective or non-existent enforcement of traffic rules only encourages disregard, and even contempt, for the law. Poor urban planning and overdevelopment further compounds the problem.

There is no escaping, however, our own responsibility. After all, we are the ones who put our own convenience above respect for the law. We won’t pay to park and we won’t park more than a few feet from our destination. We complain about corruption but think nothing of offering a bribe when we get caught. We grumble about what’s wrong but we won’t do our part to help make things better.

Interestingly, when we travel to the US, Britain, Australia or even Singapore, we suddenly become very law abiding. We would never think of parking illegally in those places because we know we would quickly get ticketed and ticked off, Datuk or not. Offer a bribe and you might end up in jail. Amazing what a little enforcement and honest policing can do for law and order.

It’s about time we cultivated a healthy respect for the law and learn to take our obligations as citizens and drivers more seriously. As Ghandi once said, “We must be the change we want to see.”

Until we do, we will be little better than cavemen in cars.

US elections: The best candidate money can buy

Tags

big business, campaign finance, democracy, money politics, US elections

It’s election season again in the United States. Although election posters and campaign signs have yet to occupy the lawns and street corners of America, the battle for money, a mainstay of the electoral process, is well underway.

While Americans like to think of their democracy as a great equalizer where anyone can run for high office, it is no game for men of little means and weak connections. Running for president of the United States is, in fact, a game for millionaires. Both President Obama and his rival, Mitt Romney, are Harvard educated millionaires.

Part of the reason for this is that politics has become a hideously expensive affair. Television advertisements,  for example, which are the principle medium of political mass communication in America, cost millions of dollars. President Obama has already spent more than RM300 million (USD100 millions) on attack ads. As well, potential candidates often have to fight it out state by state, at a cost of yet more millions, before they can hope to win the endorsement of their own party.

The first priority of a candidate, therefore, is to attract wealthy donors and fundraisers to underwrite his or her campaign and to work assiduously at raising money.

President Obama reportedly attends at least three fundraising events each week and has now built up a sizeable war chest. His main challenger, Mitt Romney, is, however, steadily closing the gap as conservative groups desperate to deny Obama another term open the spigots.

By the time this election season is over, a scandalous RM21 billion (USD 7 billion) (more than the budget for health and education of the entire African continent) would have been lavished upon political candidates.

Given that only a small percentage of Americans actually donate to political causes and that the average donation is just over RM150 (USD 50), candidates have increasingly turned to big corporations, wealthy elites and special interests groups for campaign support.

Big corporations and vested interests, in turn, have been happy to oblige.

There is, of course, no such thing as a free lunch. Campaign donations are not about democracy or altruism but about owning a bit of the next president or senator or congressman and about buying influence and access to power.

Big donors expect big returns on their investments – pharmaceutical companies want less stringent drug testing rules, oil companies want  drilling rights and approval for oil pipelines in sensitive ecological areas, bankers want less oversight and greater flexibility, arms manufacturers want to sell the latest and most expensive weapons, business groups want tax breaks and subsidies, and so forth.

Major contributors and fundraisers also expect to be rewarded with ambassadorships and other key appointments. America, unsurprisingly, has the most sophisticated patronage system of any democracy.

Thoughtful Americans have worried about the effects that such a system of campaign financing would have on their democracy.

One commentator noted, for example, that the system “undercuts a basic pillar of [our] democracy – that elected officials are representatives of the people who vote for them and should respond to their needs, not to the demands of a few wealthy contributors.”

Another complained that it makes Washington dysfunctional because it gives a small coterie of contributors the power to thwart the overall interests of the majority.

Efforts to limit campaign financing have, however, been struck down by the US Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates constitutional guarantees to free speech and unhindered advocacy.

In 2010, the courts cleared the way for individuals, corporations and unions to spend without limit on independent political initiatives. This has resulted in a number of “public affairs committees” springing up with millions of dollars at their disposal to sway public opinion and influence voter perception.

Billionaire oil barons Charles and David Koch, for example, have spent more than RM300 million (USD 100 million) to attack President Obama hoping to tilt the balance in favour of his rival.

What it means is that the views and voices of ordinary Americans are increasingly drowned out by the coin of big business and wealthy elites. Ordinary citizens cast their vote but cannot count on the integrity of those they vote for. Rival candidates stress their different approaches during the campaign but end up beholden to the same corporate interests when they take office.

It might explain why so many Americans are disenchanted with politics these days and why nearly half of all eligible voters don’t even bother to vote.

The influence of big business in American politics has become so pervasive that commentators like renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs argue that America is now more a “corporatocracy” (a political and economic system controlled by big corporations and corporate interests) than a democracy.

It is a shame, of course, that Americans should allow their democracy to be bought and sold this way. It is a stark reminder of the dangerous and pernicious effect that money can have on any political system.

If democracies are to remain responsive to their real stakeholders, the people, a more transparent and accountable campaign financing system must be put in place that would limit the power of big corporations and special interests groups. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen any time soon in America.

Diplomatically Speaking, The Star (M)

[Footnote: When looking at the whole issue of  money politics, let us not forget about money politics in Malaysia. 

An FMT (16^th July 2012) report quoted a Sarawak politician as saying that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has “given every Barisan MP…  some RM3.5 million to carry out minor rural development projects.” 

Where does this money come from? What kind of accountability is there to ensure that these funds are spent correctly? Is it proper that government MPs should be given such large amounts of money to disburse as they see fit in their constituencies? What about opposition MPs who are also elected by tax payers? 

And while we are on the subject, why isn’t there a system that requires political parties in Malaysia to declare how much money they spend on the elections and where it comes from? Do government ministers use public funds to campaign? 

Campaign spending in Malaysia has always been a murky affair with all sorts of shady things going on. Until we get this matter sorted out, it will be possible for votes to be bought and sold with impunity while government MPs could use the full resources of the state in their own election campaigns. It does not make for a level playing field.]

Pastor bashing: a politically safe sport

Tags

City Harvest Church, Malaysia, mega churches, pastors, Singapore

Over the last week, the ongoing case of a Singapore pastor and his colleagues who were charged with conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and misuse of church funds have attracted a lot of attention in the local media.

I suppose when pastors get embroiled in scandal, it becomes big news because there is still the expectation that pastors need to live up to higher standards of morality and ethics than the rest of us. Fair enough.

In any case, pastors, like most of us, are not above the law and must suffer the consequences if they run afoul of it.

The pastors involved, from City Harvest Church, insist that they are innocent of the charges and have vowed to defend themselves in court. We shall have to await the outcome of the trial to hopefully know the truth.

Coverage of the story, however, went beyond the normal reporting of events and became an opportunity for pastor bashing and the journalistic equivalent of church burning.

While insisting that the pastors should have their day in court,  one Malaysian newspaper  boldly proclaimed that he was “guilty in the court of public opinion” and proceeded to skewer him, as well as mega churches in general, on a whole range of issues.

Much was made, for example, about the church’s “money generating prosperity gospel.” The pastors were literally accused of worshipping money and “cajoling” their congregation into donating generously so that they could live luxurious lifestyles.

The so-called prosperity gospel is undoubtedly a deeply divisive issue within the Christian community but the last time I checked, it was not against the law. If some people want to believe in the old adage, “give and it will be given you” what is that to the rest of us? Whether or not it is theologically sound, and I personally am not convinced it is, should the media set itself up as judge what constitutes biblical heresy? Who decides which gospel is right – the government, the court of public opinion, the media? Will it apply to all faiths or just the Christian one?

In a free society, individuals get to choose who, how and where they worship subject to the laws of the land. If people choose to attend City Harvest Church and support the church with their tithes and offerings, why should anyone be offended or upset? If they are fools to dispose of their hard-earned wealth in such a manner, what is it to the rest of us? Its their money after all.

Furthermore, while the alleged excesses of the pastor and the wealth of the church was played up, no mention was made of the sterling community work that the church is involved in both at home and abroad or the millions of dollars spent on charitable work and global missions. I guess these things are inconvenient facts when one is trying to pillory a pastor.

The pastor’s wife was also said to be wearing “sexy outfits” and, heaven forbid, a bikini even! The Taliban would no doubt be happy to join this conversation but since when has it been a crime for Christian women either in Singapore, Malaysia or elsewhere  to wear sexy outfits or bikinis? I myself would prefer more modest dressing but again, should a newspaper editorialize about what a pastor’s wife can and cannot wear?

Even the style of worship was somehow deemed to be wrong and made out to be  manipulative, hypnotic and somehow sinister. It was mentioned that church meetings were more like rock concerts than church services, that bright flashing lights, loud music and modern stage technology were used “to appeal to young Singaporeans bored by the quiet sermons of traditional churches.”

Again, what’s wrong with that? Is there an approved way for Christians to worship?  Must churches stick to pipe organs and solemn music to be acceptable? The fact is that Christian worship encompasses a wide range of formats from traditional to more contemporary. Worship is an intensely personal matter and worshippers are free to choose which style is best for them.

One person was quoted as saying that he was “shocked” by the deafening music. 24,000 members regularly attend service at the church in question but the negative comments of one man who didn’t like the music is highlighted. Is this fair reporting?

Mega churches in a multicultural society

It was even suggested that “mega churches posed a potential problem for a multi-religious country” like Singapore [and, I suppose, by extension, Malaysia]. So, now mega churches are somehow a threat to racial and religious harmony? Does this mean that mega churches should be closed down? How big can a church be to be acceptable? 

Perhaps the most surprising thing was the incitement to church members  to rise up against their pastoral leadership. Obviously upset and disappointed that the congregation choose to stand in solidarity with their pastors, a crusading journalist reminded congregants that pastors are mere mortals, that under their religious garb lurked sinful, greedy and selfish human beings. Accordingly, it was suggested that while the congregation should “stand firm in their belief in God, they should not be afraid to challenge their religious leaders if they are wrong.”

What business does a secular newspaper have inciting rebellion and discord in a church and suggesting that church members are somehow misguided, timid or immature if they don’t immediately turn against their pastor?

Besides, if members of a political party are free to not only stand by a leader who was caught in an adulterous sex scandal but elect him party leader as well, why shouldn’t a church congregation stand by their pastor at least until the court decides his guilt or innocence?

I cannot recall a major Malaysian newspaper ever reacting with such crusading zeal when it came to  corrupt local politicians and abusive public officials.  It is telling that a newspaper that has remained largely quiet over the loss of billions of ringgit of public funds to fraud at home should now rise up in holy anger over the alleged misuse of church funds in a foreign land.

I can only conclude that great courage is required to take on powerful public officials whereas none is required to pillory pastors.