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see the law itself rescinded since it does not really serve any purpose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!
Friends
have asked me what prompted the extraordinary hatchet job that Dr
Chandra Muzaffar attempted on the Bersih 3.0 movement and its leaders in
his recent article misleadingly titled ‘
