Negara Hikayat

Pada suatu masa dahulu, ada sebuah negara yang mempunyai rakyat yang baik-baik belaka, tapi berbilang pendapat. Ungkapan yang mereka sering guna lebih-lebih lagi untuk menunjukkan peradaban mereka ialah, “Agree to disagree,” mereka bersetuju untuk tidak bersetuju.

Maka mereka mencipta demokrasi. Masyarakat majmuk pendapat ini memberi suara mereka tentang pelbagai perkara, adakah kesihatan satu hak atau perlu dibeli, bolehkah masjid membina menara, adakah lelaki dewasa boleh berkahwin dengan kanak-kanak perempuan. Mereka juga menetapkan peraturan bahawa undi mestilah rahsia, kerana jika undi angkat tangan, ramai akan mengundi bukan mengikut pendapat sendiri, tapi mengikut apa yang mereka rasa orang lain mahukan mereka undi.

Satu lagi peraturan yang mereka tetapkan ialah setiap pengundi hanya boleh mengundi sekali untuk setiap keputusan yang ingin dibuat. Ini memerlukan senarai rakyat yang boleh mengundi (mereka bersetuju kanak-kanak tidak boleh mengundi, kalau tidak, mungkin mereka akan mengisytiharkan piza adalah hak dan tidak perlu dibeli) dan juga memerlukan satu suruhanjaya yang menjaga senarai itu. Pada awalnya, rakyat perlu mendaftar untuk menjadi pengundi.

Tapi peraturan-peraturan ini – yang undi adalah rahsia dan juga setiap individu boleh mengundi hanya sekali sahaja dan bukan seperti undian internet yang tidak memerlukan log masuk apa-apa akaun – menyusahkan rakyat dan suruhanjaya pilihanraya. Maka mereka bersetuju (atau lebih tepat lagi, majoriti bersetuju) untuk memberi amanah kepada wakil rakyat untuk membuat pilihan untuk mereka.

Mereka menggunakan sistem paling mudah yang boleh difikirkan: Mereka membahagi tanah dan setiap kawasan akan mempunyai wakil rakyat. Siapa paling banyak undi menang kerusi untuk menjadi wakil rakyat. Wakil rakyat itu, seperti gelaran mereka, hendaklah mewakili rakyat kawasan mereka. Hiruk-pikuklah dewan rakyat berbincang pelbagai isu di pelosok negara. Mereka mula menyedari lebih senang untuk mendapat kata sepakat bila mereka mempunyai sekutu. Mereka mula berkelompok dan menubuhkan persatuan yang (atas sebab yang tidak diketahui) dipanggil parti.

Namun sistem berparti ini mulai melemahkan wakil bebas, dan lama-kelamaan wakil bebas hampir tidak akan memenangi kerusi. Rakyat takut mengundi wakil bebas, kerana mereka tidak mahu parti tertentu mendapat kuasa, maka mereka mengundi parti yang mereka kurang benci, begitu juga pihak satu lagi (padahal mungkin jika mereka betul-betul mengundi ikut kata hati, wakil bebas itu mempunyai peluang).

Mereka yang dipanggil wakil rakyat ini pula semakin kurang mewakili rakyat dan semakin mewakili parti mereka.

Suruhanjaya pilihanraya berpendapat wakil rakyat tidak perlu lagi mewakili kawasan mereka, dan hanya perlu mewakili keseluruhan rakyat negara itu. Oleh itu, pengundi tidak perlu lagi membazir wang dan masa untuk pulang ke tempat undian mereka. Suruhanjaya pilihanraya juga semakin moden, kerana sudah ada akta yang mewajibkan semua rakyat perlu berdaftar dengan jabatan pendaftaran negara, maka suruhanjaya pilihanraya menggunakan senarai nama rakyat yang sudah sedia ada dan setiap individu yang memenuhi syarat sebagai pengundi (dewasa, waras, masih hidup) akan secara automatik dimasukkan dalam senarai pengundi.

Suruhanjaya pilihanraya juga faham bahawa bukan askar dan polis sahaja yang bekerja sepanjang waktu, tetapi begitu juga doktor, jururawat, juruteknik operasi loji atau pelantar atau kilang, pekerja 7-Eleven atau restoran mamak (bertaraf warganegara), dan ramai lagi. Oleh itu, suruhanjaya pilihanraya menetapkan satu lagi tarikh alternatif untuk adiwira-adiwira negara ini mengundi. Suruhanjaya pilihanraya juga memahami bahawa bukan semua rakyat faham hak mereka bahawa majikan wajib melepaskan mereka untuk mengundi, maka mereka menetapkan tarikh sesuai yang tidak membebankan rakyat untuk mengundi.

Namun, walaupun negara ini aman harmoni dan mempunyai suruhanjaya pilihanraya yang empati dan memahami, rakyat negara ini masih rasis dan takutkan warga asing kononnya akan mengambil peluang kerja mereka. Maka warga asing masih dikepung, ditangkap, dilayan tanpa rasa hormat dan tidak diberi peluang mengundi.

Bersih 4.0

I have avoided the Bersih topic of late. What is my take?

1. If you get to read this, then you and I are privileged. Privileged that we have internet access, the only free media in Malaysia. We are also privileged that you know how to access your internet, that we are open-minded enough to read materials that may or may not agree to your stand. So often, privileged ones tend to overlook things. In this case, sometimes we may feel the internet penetration in Malaysia is high, but there are still a lot of Malaysians who are not exposed to this solitary free media. That is why online surveys are always skewed.

2. Malaysia implements democracy and elections every certain period of time. If any citizen is dissatisfied with the governance of the country, one always have the right to vote and choose the government they want.

3. But what if voting won’t change anything? Too bad, because that’s how democracy works, right? The majority wins, right? But what if the playing field is not equal? Malaysia is listed as flawed democracy, I would not delve into the criteria that make our democracy flawed. But it is only righteous that any party who would rule the country shall win the election fair and square.

4. What if the struggle to achieve fair elections was repeatedly ignored? Or anyone with such concern does not have a channel to express it (despite the constitutional right to freedom of speech)? They’ll try to invoke their other constitutional right – the right to assemble. Not only they get to express their concerns and demands, they get to gather a crowd who would otherwise be scared to express it themselves when alone, they’ll get publicity, albeit at a cost of getting out of their comfort zone.

5. What if the assembly becomes ‘unpeaceful’? This is called the mob mentality or mob behaviour. An individual have their moral values and wary of public opinions toward them and the repercussions of their actions. But an individual in a crowd becomes anonymous and their responsibility gets diluted/diffused. Performing antisocial behaviour such as vandalism under anynomity is much easier, and to a certain extent may be encouraged by the mob mentality. Specifically on this Bersih issue, it can be observed on both sides, the yellow Bersih as well as the red Anti-Bersih.

6. However, this is what the Bersih organizers does not want. They have explicitly stressed that they do not welcome troublemakers as that would divert unwanted attention from their demands.

7. This mob mentality can be subdued with good planning, good management such as security. In fact, the organizers have even mobilized their own security, and on top of that, the police themselves will ensure further security. However, the security must ensure their task is always to subdue/stop any possible violence or property damage, not to intimidate or instill fear or worst, to initiate violence.

8. Unfortunately, that is what the government, government-controlled media and the authorities have done, intimidation and fear-mongering. Some media even went to the extent of hate-incitement, suggesting racial motives/agenda, and even encouraging military intervention.

The Tiananmen Square 1989 ‘Tank Man’s vivid imagery comes to mind. I thought it was a no-brainer everyone who sees that image would surely be on the man’s side. Now I realize there might be some people on the tank side.

9. Another analogy is the collective punishment I experienced at school. For example, someone vomited at the corridor and left it uncleaned. The seniors found out but no one would admit it. So they punished all juniors and will say, “Don’t blame us for punishing you, blame your friend for not admitting it.” Rather than having the resentment towards them the punishers, they tried to divert the resentment towards the punished. Back then, it did not succeed. But with powerful one-sided media, you can. I’ve seen widespread success of people resenting the assembly for causing the police to make roadblocks or unwarranted arrests (such as the non-crime of wearing yellow), when actually things can proceed just any other day, public services and even private outlets can always open if there was no fear-mongering or government instructions to halt services.

10. But do I agree with Bersih 4.0? The demands by Bersih have evolved, or rather grown. The first Bersih demanded the cleaning up of electoral poll, use of indellible ink, abolition of postal voting for military and police, and free and fair access to mass media for all parties. Bersih 2.0 said the original Bersih demands were not met, and on top of that, added a few more, including minimum twenty-one days of campaign, strengthening public institutions, no corruption and no dirty politics. Bersih 3.0 demanded the resignation of Election Commission and international observations on top of the previous unfulfilled eight demands. Bersih 4.0’s official demands are free and fair elections, transparent government, right to demonstrate, strengthening parliamentary democracy system and saving the national economy. However, it has strongly become the assembly to demand the resignation of Najib Razak. This is where I disagree. As much as everyone else, I would love to see Najib resigning, and even though public opinions are very visible toward him, I may agree that a demonstration might send a stronger message than comments on Facebook. But the demonstration had already been done on 1 Aug 2015, and it is very evident that he is not backing down. I would prefer Bersih to stay to their roots to demand a clean and fair elections. Bersih 4.0 demands are too general and vague. Specific demands they tabled on the previous versions are better, more practical to be monitored.

11. Is Putrajaya a better venue? I would say the venue is irrelevant. Things should have proceeded like any other day, had there been no fear-mongering. I’m sure the organizers preferred Kuala Lumpur (KL) due to its bigger pull factor and bigger attention.

11. Lastly, for those who do wish to join, please take uttermost care of your safety and security. I’m very concerned of their security. This time, there’s a camp out, where people will be sleeping, and very vulnerable. I pray hard that I will see the best of this country, rather than the worst.

Democracy: Choose Wisely

The last election, I was already eligible to vote, but I didn’t know who to vote, because I said both are corrupted, voting either side will not make any change for the betterment of my life.

Now I look back and notice, that is called ignorance. There are so many things I should be more aware of in terms of politics. I hate politics by nature, but I also learned to accept the fact that one cannot escape from politics. Politics affect our life.

Thankfully, our beloved country Malaysia practices democracy that we have a choice of who to vote. North Korea’s official name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which means it is actually a democratic country, but their people hardly go to elections because it’s not possible to form an opposition party. Anyone can form the opposition party there, but there’s also a good likelihood that you’ll be convicted of some crime – probably sedition or treason – and spend the winter sleeping on cold hard concrete floor.

But our Malaysia is not practicing the truest form of democracy. According to the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit, Malaysia is categorized as ‘flawed democracy’, ranked 64th in their Democracy Index, worse than Timor Leste, Indonesia or Thailand. I have a lengthy opinion on this, but later on that. (Not sure if I can spill my thoughts before the election, not sure if I can be disciplined enough to write consistently, we’ll see.)

But let’s say our democracy is perfect (I always use the word ‘our’ because I imply that my readers are Malaysians, but if you’re not, then imagine yourself a Malaysian, which I would very much welcome you), let’s assume the elections are perfectly clean and fair, everyone comes down to cast their votes, the judiciary system is independent, the freedom of speech is fully respected. Next question is, how will the elected government look like?

Democracy is just like Akademi Fantasia (if you’re familiar with this popular Malaysian reality show) or American Idol or any reality show that gives the full power of choice to their viewers. The winner is not necessarily the best singer (or comedian or cook or whatever the reality show is about) but he/she certainly is the most popular. There is no measurement of how good a singer is – it’s subjective. A good singer is not merely judged by the voice, but also appearance, showmanship, selection of songs suitable to his voice, ability to play instruments, charisma, charm to media and list goes on. Depending on what the viewers want, the results will differ. If all viewers who voted for the reality show are males, it is very likely the winner will be a female.

Same as choosing a political party. There are so many criteria to measure the competency of the party running the country. Which party can ensure harmony, unity, peace, stability, transparency, equality, justice and fairness, low crimes to the country while being ethical, virtuous, clean, down to earth? Democracy will only grant the people what the majority wants, even if the majority might not choose the best.

For example, I have a huge problem with racial discrimination in my country. Racial discrimination is not just legal, it is embedded in the Federal Constitution. But if the majority of Malaysian voters are racist, it would be a good tactic for competing parties to use that racism to their advantage. Whoever that openly opposes racism are less likely to win. It is noticeable that neither of both sides have ever mentioned in their manifesto or anywhere else – even informally – that if they win two-thirds majority in Parliament, they will try to amend the Federal Constitution to remove any form or racial preference or unequal rights. It is because, even if all non-Bumiputeras would vote them, there’s a possibility that all Bumiputeras would not vote them, they would still lose. Therefore, rather than, “Let’s fight for equal rights for Bumiputeras and non-Bumis,” it would be safer to say, “We care for the welfare of Bumiputeras and also non-Bumis.”

Another example, you know Pareto principle? Say, there’s this country where the 20% of the population – the elite – enjoys 80% of the country’s wealth, while the remaining 80% of the population only enjoys 20% of the country’s wealth. If a party promised them subsidies and all sorts of tax cuts to these 80%-class people, and these people believed those promises would be beneficial to them and vote for that party, that party could win, even if it might not be in the best interest of the country’s economics.

That is how democracy works. Everyone has equal voice. One cannot say, “I have a degree, I am more educated, I should be able to cast more votes than those drug addicts or illegal street racers.” My point is, democracy, even at its finest, is only as good as the people casting the votes.

So do choose wisely. Know what we want, and then we’ll know who to vote. I used to say, “I vote for this party or that party, what difference does it make?” I was wrong, there is a difference I can make. I just need to see the difference in them.