Analysing Politics in Malaysia: Introduction
Written by johnleemk on 8:43:39 am Dec 25, 2006.
Categories: Malaysian Politics
I am avowedly non-partisan when it comes to Malaysian politics. I may be political, but I do not have any political affiliation. This is mainly because, as I have said before, none of the parties currently in existence are particularly appealing. At the same time, it strikes me that there is a bit of a void to be filled when it comes to political analysis in this country.
The void I am referring to is analysis of the electorate - of what the people (or more precisely, the voters) want. In advanced democracies, this is quite the industry - just look at the proliferation of books in the US about seeking the presidency, or the reporting about the legislative elections. Polls and surveys are conducted, trends are found, demographics are delimited, and eventually, you come up with a report about why the elections turn out this way or that.
Perhaps (un)surprisingly, this sort of analysis is almost non-existent in Malaysia. Everyone professes to know what the rakyat want, but nobody has taken the trouble to prove this. Bloggers can expostulate on end about the evils of the Barisan Nasional, and the wonders of the DAP/PAS/Keadilan, but in the end, how much will this affect the result of an election? How much of this has anything to do with an election in the first place?
In order to remedy this lacuna, I will attempt to analyse the political situation in Malaysia based on my (admittedly) limited understanding of the trends and issues. I will be operating from (relative to political analysts in other democracies) a bare amount of data. I will be forced to make assumptions to fill holes where the facts are not readily accessible or available, and my analyses will of course be coloured by my own political views. Nevertheless, something is better than nothing - and in my view, we currently have nothing when it comes to serious political analysis.
I will be conducting my analysis over the period of a few weeks (possibly months) in a series of articles to be published here on Infernal Ramblings. If you, dear reader, have any questions, ideas, comments, or criticisms (especially criticisms), please don't hesitate to contact me through the form at the end of each article. I have a very thick skin (and I also consider myself a bit of a masochist), so I especially look forward to criticism, because criticism is the bedrock of improvement. If you're told you have done something great, you have learnt nothing - we all assume whatever we do is great. If you're told you've done something wrong, you've learnt something - even if you don't know what's wrong, you at least know to look instead of patting yourself on the back. And so it is that I hope my mailbox will get at least a couple of heated critiques concerning my views and analyses of the politics in Malaysia.
To date, the following parts in the series have been published:
- Part 1: Why the Void?
- Part 2: Demographics and Statistics
- Part 3: Playing the Racial Game
- Part 4: The Role and Influence of Islam
- Part 5: Good-For-Nothing Grassroots
A thread on the forum has been opened for discussing and debating this series. Registration is required to post.
Here are the most popular articles in Malaysian Politics:
If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "Analysing Politics in Malaysia": | |
|---|---|
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 953 IP Logged | Posted at 11:45:06 am Jan 7, 2007
This is a thread for discussing the current series being run on Infernal Ramblings: Analysing Politics in Malaysia. If you have any public comments to make, feel free to give your two sen. Unfortunately, I have made it mandatory for users to register before they can comment, in order to crack down on spineless cowards willing to take irresponsible potshots from the sidelines. If you want your opinion to be heard, back it up by being willing to give a name to the opinion. Registration is quick and simple, and will allow you to post new threads, forum polls, and reply to existing topics. You will also be able to vote for polls on the main site. (I currently do not run any polls because we have very few active registered users.) An interesting topic related to the series that you might like to discuss is whether the opposition is effectively utilising political analysis in its campaigns. BN seems to be an efficient player - it knows what issues are close to the hearts of the electorate, and how to play off the voters against each other. Has the opposition been effectively applying political analysis as well? |
| Last five replies (0 comments not shown): | |
|
freelunch2020
Member Posts: 17 IP Logged | Posted at 8:35:21 am Jan 8, 2007
 hey there john, what is your response to my comment? would like to know what u think. tks.  here's to our friendship and to a transparent and clean govt  |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 953 IP Logged | Posted at 9:55:01 am Jan 8, 2007
You can find my reply here.  |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 953 IP Logged | Posted at 2:45:21 am Jan 9, 2007
I think it'd be a bit less cumbersome to argue here...and it'd also probably allow others to chime in as well. If you don't mind, I'll quote your email and include my response here. "What this argument does not take into account is the opposition's manifesto. Even in times of prosperity, the opposition can make a case for bringing even further development to the country (naturally by voting the opposition in)." Well, I never said that BN had a superb track record on the economy. (I think I used the term "mediocre" at least once to describe it.) The point was that there's a general perception that BN has successfully developed our country, and BN has constantly capitalised on that perception, even if it lacks much grounding in reality. (It's not really commonly known, but many of Mahathir's economic projects were either planned by earlier PMs, such as Putrajaya and possibly KLIA, or turned out to be complete duds such as Proton. Mahathir also didn't have to do much to develop the country - we would have been carried along by the rising tide in Asia prior to 1997/98, regardless of what he did, unless he closed off all doors to the world.) It is of course correct that PAS has lost much ground because of the perception that it is too fundamentalist. I've heard that it's not as bad as it used to be, but I don't know enough to say if this perception is still true. At any rate, this is something we can agree on. "And in a time of economic crisis, it should be a natural response to promise to address the grave situation. The opposition, however, has consistently focused on what are essentially non-issues for most Malaysians." These issues are relevant to people like us, but not necessarily to other people. Talk with the typical Malaysian about the ISA, and he will of course agree that it is terrible, draconian, and probably unnecessary. But is campaigning against the ISA alone going to win his vote? The DAP has brought up a number of issues - there is nothing wrong with this, as I said - but these do not coagulate to form a coherent and unified platform. Lim Guan Eng bravely went to jail for exposing the rape of a young schoolgirl by the Melaka Menteri Besar, but this in itself would not win many votes because: 1. Many voters never heard of this issue in the first place; 2. It simply was not a bread and butter issue, except possibly to people in Melaka. For many people, they would not care too much about the personal crimes of a politician in some other state. What they would care about is whether they can earn a decent living, and the like. The DAP should criticise the government and hammer away at its indiscretions. However, it must remember that BN = bad does not mean DAP = good. The DAP has to assert both equations - it has to make it clear that not only that BN is bad, but that the DAP is good, and can run the country better than BN has. That is the main thrust of my argument. these oppression of these rights HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT on the bread and butter of normal malaysians, eg. corruption --> our police: can we really trust them? so many will be willing to close-one-eye if paid off. just take a look at the high-profile murder cases. This is exactly what I have been saying, and I have not said that these issues shouldn't be brought up. My point is that we should not focus on the weaknesses of the current government alone, but also focus on the strengths of the opposition. Running on the platform of not being BN is not going to be enough to persuade voters who are naturally inclined to vote BN out of habit. "However, the average Malaysian couldn't care less - all he wants is to drink teh tarik and drive around in his car. Infringe on these sacred rights, and even the most docile voter can become an enraged tiger." That is exactly what I have been getting at - there is a natural wellspring of energy and anger when the government hurts us economically, but the opposition cannot capitalise on it because the government is perceived as the lesser of two evils! The DAP/Keadilan/PAS need to not only tear down BN, but build themselves up in the public eye. It is not enough to criticise the government - one must also show how the opposition will be superior to the government. Otherwise, the case for the opposition is left hanging because only one side has been presented. "In the long run, I believe this will materialise. However, as John Maynard Keynes memorably said, in the long run, we are all dead. The point is not to ignore the long run - the point is to make sure that we aren't dismissing a problem by suggesting it will simply vanish given enough time." Hehe, I am a political pragmatist. I have ideals, but (speaking hypothetically since I don't plan on being a politician) I will only apply those ideals once I am in office. On the campaign trail, I will do whatever is necessary to get elected (provided this will not hamstring me once I enter office - it would be insane, for example, to run on a campaign of Islamic values, and once in office, make it a crime to be a Muslim, just to take a ridiculous example). Lee Kuan Yew applied this tactic in the early days of the PAP - he played to the communist audience to get into office, and once in office, sold out the communists - although this is obviously not an example that should be followed blindly. In short, the thing about politics is that it is by nature very short term, because what you are doing is running for election. It is statesmanship that should take the long term view into account. A statesman who wants to get elected cannot be a statesman while stumping for votes - he has to be a politician. I am currently focusing on the political aspect - I am not saying that we should put aside the long term altogether. "The centrepiece of any platform should be economic development, reform, and a master plan for our country's future. It is not enough to suggest that the government's plans are lacking - we must present alternatives of our own." Yes, I personally would be quite interested in seeing the plan once (if?) it is ready. I understand the basic ideas presented by Anwar, but I want to know how he will implement them. The devil is in the details. "(Oh yes, and incidentally, I can't see how corruption is causing "a general stagnation of wages" - perhaps someone could explain this to me?)" I wasn't being sarcastic - I was sincerely asking for an explanation, which you graciously provided. My understanding of the issue is based on macroeconomic theory, which suggests that even if the money is siphoned by some useless subcontractor, it does not vanish. It has to go somewhere. Let's say Ali gets that extra RM20 million for doing nothing. What will he do with it? He can put it in the bank, where it will be invested in the economy, and balance out the lost wages in a different sector. He can spend it on buying a new fleet of foreign cars with his APs, which would raise the wages of the employees of the foreign automaker, both in Malaysia (e.g. the salesman) and in the home country of the firm. The money does not simply disappear into thin air - it has to reappear in another sector of the economy, where the losses will be balanced out. That's why I find the explanation a bit confusing - I was able to infer your point #1 originally, but it didn't make much sense to me because of the macroeconomic principles concerning the flow of money. Unless Ali just puts the RM20 million under his mattress, it has to reappear in another part of the economy, where some of it will be turned into wages and offset the losses in the sector where he siphoned money from. The point about corruption is very true - but at any rate, the only people being hurt would be those who got their jobs because of corruption, so I hardly think that it would be appealing to them to run on an anti-corruption platform. :p "Recruiting big names is of little use unless the big names craft an actual policy document which is then given wide circulation." Haha, that is so true. The reason I say that the opposition needs solid policies is that it needs to create this perception that it is more competent and capable of running the country than BN. There needs to be a policy document in order to satisfy this - there's nothing like a thick stack of paper to show that you know your stuff. There has to be some reality behind the mirage as well. john, it's invigorating to debate with you but i do prefer a less antagonistic approach. let's debate with civility. visit intellectualinsurgent.blogspot.com to have an idea of what i am talking about. :D Well, unfortunately I tend to be quite abrasive when I debate - it's nothing personal (just ask any of my friends...). If anything I've said has rubbed you the wrong way, I apologise. |
|
tealeaf
Member Posts: 6 IP Logged | Posted at 1:27:52 am Jan 18, 2009
I think that you are right in saying the opposition has to get its act together and actually come up with real policies of more substance. Pakatan have yet to provide a real alternative view on many federal policies and government positions. They need to do more than disagree and say that they'll abolish this policy or replace it or do the complete opposite of the government. They really need to tell us what they're going to do and show us how they're going to do it. Though, I still think the opposition is the better choice now, because it likely won't be as bad as BN - they're smart enough to realize what's turning the people away from BN in the current situation. But they're nowhere near as sophisticated as I'd like. Shadow cabinets, a real Pakatan Rakyat manifesto...these things have been long overdue. That's what I like about the US, that they have a real two-party system, without one party having too much power. It's a sort of check-and-balance system, and when one party screws up, they get relegated to the sidelines for a while till the other party messes up. And whichever party is the opposition, they are much more coherent and sophisticated about their politics than over here. So yes, Pakatan remains the better option, but if they want to be governing for a long time, they have to actually form something more than a loose coalition. Or it will be a matter of time before some other party takes their place. |
