Dr Chandra Muzaffar invites Dr Lim Teck Ghee to debate with him
Written by Dr Chandra Muzaffar
Sunday, 06 May 2012 15:36
Commentary
Dr Lim Teck Ghee’s attack on me (CPI, 4 May 2012)
does not come as a surprise. I would not have bothered to respond to
him except that he has raised a couple of points about political change
in the country and my stand on the electoral process that need to be
rebutted.Are the political changes that are taking place meaningful?
They are. When a decades old law like the ISA which provides for detention without trial is abolished, it means that the Executive is prepared to surrender a crucial dimension of its power and authority. This does not happen every day even in established democracies let alone emerging ones. This is why the government in Singapore – a much lauded model nation-state for many in Malaysia – refuses to yield even a millimetre on the question of ISA.
It is not just the abolition of the ISA which deserves commendation. The annual renewal of the license to publish under the Publications Act – an albatross around the neck of freedom of expression – has been abrogated. Executive authority vis-a-vis publications is now subject to judicial review. As I have stated in public, I would like to see the law itself rescinded since it does not really serve any purpose in the cyber age.
There are other important changes that have taken place in recent months which should be recognised for what they are, including the right of students to participate in party politics and the right of citizens to assemble peacefully as provided for in the law. The 32 recommendations adopted by Parliament on electoral reform come within the same category of fundamental changes to political and civil liberties.
Have these changes impacted upon society? Peaceful rallies have taken place in Pahang on the Lynas issue and in Kuala Lumpur on Labour Day. Peaceful Bersih gatherings were held on the 28th of April in a number of both BN and PR ruled states. The rally in Kuala Lumpur may also have been peaceful if Bersih organisers had not been obstinate about Dataran Merdeka. Now we know – from police intelligence – that they had an ulterior political motive.
Even the huge Chinese turnout at the Bersih 3.0 rally compared to Bersih 2.0 and Bersih may have something to do with the new political environment in the country. Though there are many reasons that explain the community’s participation, it is quite conceivable that the Minister of Home Affairs’ constant assurance to Bersih that the freedom of peaceful assembly would be upheld and that the government did not view Bersih 3.0 as a security issue – in contrast to his rhetoric before Bersih 2.0 – and the abolition of the ISA, gave some confidence to the Chinese to step out. The Chinese media too, pre-Bersih 3.0, was very vocal in support of the proposed rally partly because of the changes to media laws.
Based upon these changes and the way they were beginning to impact upon society, I made a policy judgement on them. Of course, these are still early days. We will have to assess the situation again as time goes on but as a citizen, I have every right – indeed a duty – to judge the changes that are happening in my country.
The electoral process
Dr Lim suggests that my stand today on the electoral process is diametrically different from my position in the past. I had never at any point in the last 40 odd years condemned the Malaysian electoral process as fraudulent. My concern has always been with improving a process which I have always regarded as functional but flawed in certain respects. The failure of the BN government to appreciate its caretaker role during elections and the lack of opposition access to the public media were among the issues I highlighted in the eighties. In the last few years I have continued to bring these and other electoral concerns to the attention of the authorities.
I challenge Teck Ghee to show a single sentence in any of my writings which hints at the total rejection of the outcome of Malaysian elections because I had suspected that there had been gross, massive cheating. There is a reason for issuing this challenge. Teck Ghee had in a public forum organised by the NGO, PCORE, on the 16th of November 2010, alleged that I had once described Malaysia as a “Police State”. Since I was also on the panel, I refuted his allegation at once and asked him to provide proof. He couldn’t and apologised. Later he sent me an article written by a local academic who had made the same allegation without any evidence. This is why I insist on academically acceptable evidence and attribution on my stand on the electoral process.
Indeed, my stand on the electoral process in Malaysia – functional but flawed – is an example of how consistent I have been over the decades on most major issues facing the nation. If I do not adopt public postures on some of them, because my focus since 2002 has been on global challenges, it does not mean that I am any less committed to justice and human dignity in Malaysia today compared to yesterday. I have often conveyed my concerns through various formal and informal channels to the powers-that-be. The truth is I have changed my position on only two inter-related matters –Anwar Ibrahim and the political opposition. In both cases my two and a half years in Parti KeADILan and the Opposition altered my perspective.
In fact, even when I was in KeADILan, I was not prepared to lend legitimacy to baseless allegations that some opposition politicians were only too happy to propagate. When I lost narrowly in the Bandar Tun Razak Parliamentary constituency in the 1999 general election, many of my KeADILan colleagues and supporters told me that fraud was the reason for my defeat. I asked them to provide me with incontrovertible proof. No one came up with even an iota of evidence.
The 1999 election was an eye-opener for me on how unfounded allegations sometimes shape our perceptions of the electoral process. Before the election, I believed that the BN government would ensure that all postal votes would go to the BN candidate. I was pleasantly surprised therefore when I witnessed with my own eyes during the vote count that I had secured the majority of postal votes.
It is for this and other similar reasons, that I have always felt that the question of the electoral process should not be subjected to the pulls and pressures of party politics. I was pleased when an all-party Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) was established to enhance the electoral process. Who can deny the significance of its 32 recommendations? Isn’t it our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the recommendations which have been adopted by Parliament are implemented? Should this be our main concern?
On both the electoral process and political changes, Teck Ghee and I, it is obvious, have different approaches. Instead of continuing to air our views through the cyber media, I invite him to debate with me in public on what I think is the most fundamental question facing Malaysians today. Are the political changes that are taking place in Malaysia today significant? We can frame this question in the form of a debating topic. The debate should be in the national language. But if Teck Ghee prefers English, I have no objection.
This is my invitation to my friend, Teck Ghee. I expect him to respond within 48 hours.
|
Note by CPI admin Dr Chandra's response to Dr Lim was received by the CPI administration on Saturday evening (May 5). It was forwarded to Dr Lim immediately and Dr Lim's reply was provided to CPI on the morning of May 6 and was to have appeared together with Dr Chandra's article. The slight delay in this CPI posting is due to the 6th being a Sunday.
We are posting Dr Chandra's piece in toto despite it prematurely
appearing in another website. It had been our understanding that the
CPI was the first choice of portal for Dr Chandra's piece and that it
would appear together with Dr Lim's reply.
|
Dr Lim Teck Ghee’s reply to Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s invitation
Written by Dr Lim Teck Ghee
Sunday, 06 May 2012 15:52
Commentary
I thank Chandra for responding to my commentary on his lambasting of Bersih 3.0.Although the Center for Policy Initiatives (CPI) is reproducing his response in full, there is really very little new in the engagement.
Basically Chandra has rehashed his arguments on the far-reaching changes to human rights and political and civil liberties that he sees taking place in the country.
In his initial article he was very emphatic on these changes maintaining that
“[I]t is an irrefutable fact that through these legislative reforms [Peaceful Assembly Act, ISA repeal, etc] the space and scope for the expression and articulation of human rights has been expanded and enhanced as never before.”
Disappearance of “Irrefutable Fact”
I had challenged this argument and pointed out that these reforms need implementation and confirmation from the ground to ascertain what has been gained and whether they are substantive in the context of a regime which has an extraordinary capacity for employing dirty tricks in order to remain in power, including manipulating the electoral process.
I had proposed that should Chandra, after conducting rigorous social science research – publish the results confirming this “irrefutable fact”, it may perhaps help convince sceptics that there have been “far-reaching changes to political and civil liberties”.
Although he has not yet conducted the necessary research, it is good to note that the term “irrefutable fact” has now disappeared in his latest opinion piece. Perhaps Chandra now realizes that his initial depiction was not only inappropriate but also indefensible.
Meaningful political change
Chandra now terms the political changes as “meaningful” and has invited me to debate with him on the subject “Are the political changes that are taking place in Malaysia today significant?”
His new suggestion touches on an important topic and I welcome it. My own position is that it is premature to read too much in the changes to date. There are many examples from history of authoritarian regimes taking one step forward and two backwards, and engaging in foot dragging, sabotage and even more extreme forms of resistance in response to democratization pressures.
Our own history has taught us to be cautious in being over-optimistic with the current reforms. The Prime Minister (see my article: Peaceful transition of power: Open letter to all political parties), senior Umno leaders, and other extremist nationalists have served notice – sometimes subtly; on other occasions more openly – that all means may be used to prevent the peaceful transition of power. The possibility of these political reforms being tactical and a ruse aimed at buying time is entirely plausible.
Many other political analysts and ordinary citizens have also been sceptical that these changes that Chandra has written about are sufficiently deep and game-changing. Questions have been asked if they have fundamentally altered the authoritarian system imposed by the Barisan Nasional and if they reflect changes in the anti-democratic character of some of the BN’s leadership. It is here that Chandra and I differ profoundly but unlike him, I do not think it is an issue that can be resolved over the debating table.
I must also put it on record that even if the opposition were to come to power during the next elections, pressure would have to continue to be exercised on the new government to build a more robust parliamentary democracy.
In the Spirit of Merdeka declaration of 2007 which was endorsed by a large number of civil society organizations, there was a call for the establishment of a strong democracy in which the separation of power of the executive, legislative and judiciary is maintained, and checks and balances preventing the monopoly or abuse of power by the executive branch are in place.
The declaration also called for the enhancement of human rights and basic freedoms that are based upon values of participation, accountability, transparency, equality and diversity. Six major areas of reform were identified.
If we compare the reforms undertaken recently with the full list identified in the declaration, it can be seen that we have a long journey ahead in the struggle for human rights and democracy. In particular, areas such as the establishment of political and administrative neutrality in key institutions such as the judiciary, the civil service, police, Election Commission, the Attorney General’s office; and ensuring independence in a host of other institutions and processes in the society, and not just the electoral process, are still lagging.
How useful would an open public debate be?
Chandra has noted that “on both the electoral process and political changes, Teck Ghee and I, it is obvious, have different approaches. Instead of continuing to air our views through the cyber media, I invite him to debate with me in public on what I think is the most fundamental question facing Malaysians today. Are the political changes that are taking place in Malaysia today significant?”
Frankly there would be very little value added in a one-off public debate. In my view, an open debate as a one-time event is too fleeting to permit substantive discourse – witness the Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek exchange. Also there may not be much interest in just the two of us flogging our views to an audience. What differences we have towards political change is clear from our commentaries. Our opinions have already reached Malaysians through the cyber media. In fact Dr. Chandra, through his favoured status with the mainstream media, has had much greater print and electronic coverage for his views than I can ever hope to achieve.
This is not to say that I am averse to scholarly discussion and analysis on the breadth and significance of the political reforms undertaken. I have never run away from a good scholarly discussion. If Chandra is insistent on having this exchange take place, I would like to propose a more intensive discourse over the CPI website (www.cpiasia.net) as well as over his JUST and Yayasan 1Malaysia websites, or even over the Universiti Sains Malaysia website. That way the academic and concerned public interested in the subject of political change in Malaysia can participate in the cyber forum.
A cyber forum will not only broaden the audience but can also bring about a sustained and higher quality of discourse. Chandra and I can agree on the terms of reference for the public discourse and provide the opening cases. We can use his initial suggestion of subject as a starting point and if we work quickly, I am hopeful we can implement this ahead of the coming elections.
Should my counter proposal receive the go-ahead, I expect Chandra to use his influence as the chairman of the board of trustees of Yayasan 1Malaysia to have this debate disseminated – in as unedited a form as possible – in the mainstream media as well as all over the 1Malaysia network. I will similarly use my (more limited) influence to see if the discourse can be further disseminated more widely.
Chandra has suggested too that our public debate be conducted in the national language. I agree that it is important to reach the Malay audience. I would like to propose that Chandra, for a start, arranges for the translation of our exchange into Bahasa Malaysia by his Yayasan 1Malaysia staff, and to disseminate this exchange in the Malay print media as a prelude to an enlarged forum.
Malaysia as a Police State
In his note too, Chandra has referred to our encounter as to whether he had ever made a statement with regard to Malaysia being a police state. I had raised this point during a public forum organised by PCORE (an NGO) in November 2010, and he had asked me to provide proof during that meeting. I recall that in my reply, I had stated that I had obtained this information from an article by a local scholar. I may have said that I apologised if this information was untrue.
Subsequently, we had an exchange over the e-mail initiated by Chandra in which he asked me to “e-mail [him] the essay which cites me describing Malaysia as a Police State.” I responded by providing him with the full reference to the author of the academic paper written in 1991 as well as the following footnote from that paper:
“Widely quoted social critic Chandra Muzaffar (1986) was to complain even before Operation Lallang of ‘a highly controlled, severely limited, democracy in Malaysia.’ After the events of 1987 and 1988, he, as well as YM Tunku Abdul Rahman Malaysia's first Prime Minister, and Malaysia's leading elder statesman, were moved to use the term ‘police state‘ to describe the situation in Malaysia.” (p.23)
I subsequently pointed out to Chandra in our e-mail exchange that while there is a difference between "a highly controlled, severely limited, democracy", a "police state" and a "fettered democracy", it is not simply semantics, and “it is important for you to explain this.”
I also suggested that “an explanatory article on the above topic in the NST will – I am sure – be enlightening to the public, as well as to me; and will generate much food for thought for all of us.” That turned out to the last occasion when Chandra communicated with me on the topic of the “highly controlled, severely limited, democracy” we live in. It was followed by a deafening silence on his part.
Final words
Chandra has been at pains to show that he has been consistent over the past decades in his stance on the major issues facing the country.
Chandra, my friend, there are many, including your Barisan Nasional allies, who are bemused by your intellectual gymnastics to justify your recent political transformation.
GO HERE FOR DR CHANDRA'S FIRST ARTICLE
PET+BLOGSPOT is the ONLINE BLOG of the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association or Petpositive. Our stories are CURRENT, ACCURATE and RELIABLE. We offer both local and foreign news on animals, disability and the elderly. PET+BLOGSPOT was first established in October 2007. Our hits since then are now 150,000 and ever increasing! PET+BLOGSPOT is updated daily. Kindly note that views expressed in PET+BLOGSPOT are not necessarily those of PETPOSITIVE. You may also visit our Webpage by browsing: www.petpositive.com.my You can also find us in Facebook under PETPOSITIVE EMPOWERMENT. Please sign up as a FOLLOWER of this Blog if you haven't done so already in order to show us your kind support for our work. Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment