13-03-2008: Watershed election shatters conventions
http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_a6753\
fdc-cb73c03a-9db99200-4722d20c
by Oon Yeoh
The 2008 General Election was not just a watershed because of the unprecedented gains made the Opposition but also because it decimated so many conventions that have endured for so many decades. Here are some of them (in no particular order of importance).
Penangites split their votes It's well documented that Penangites vote strategically — Barisan Nasional for state and DAP for parliament. This pattern was even apparent in the previous election. The 2008 election was the first time this trend was turned on its head.
Every single DAP candidate for state and federal won. It was a clean sweep where even virtual unknowns as well as those who were not even from Penang won their state or federal seats.
Representation in government is critical Especially in the last few days leading up to the elections, BN leaders hammered home the point that non-Malays should vote BN to ensure that they have representatives in government. In other words,if you vote in BN non-Malay candidates, they can fight for your rights.
That message fell on deaf ears this time around because the Opposition had a compelling response: Who can stand up to Umno better — MCA, Gerakan and MIC or DAP, PKR and PAS? It was a response that the
non-Malay parties in BN simply could not counter effectively.
People vote by race In the past, BN succeeded because it could get its Malay supporters to vote for non-Malay component party candidates from the MCA, Gerakan or MIC. Similarly, these non-Malay component parties could get its supporters to vote Umno. This is something the Opposition could not do in 1999 or 2004. This year, though, the Chinese and Indian swing occurred almost regardless of the opposition party in question or the race of that candidate.
"Chinese and Indians were happily voting for Malay PKR candidates as well as Malay PAS candidates in addition to Chinese and Indian PKR candidates," says elections expert Ong Kian Ming, who has analysed the results of the 2008 elections.
"Who would have thought that PAS would eke out victories in Kota Raja (Selangor) and Titiwangsa (Kuala Lumpur), seats which are barely overb 50% Malay? Similarly, DAP probably would not have won in Taiping,
Beruas and Teluk Intan (Perak), Seremban (Negeri Sembilan) and Segambut (Kuala Lumpur) and Bakri (Johor) if not for some Malay swing against the BN in those areas."
Malays and non-Malays don't swing at the same time In 1999, the Malays were ready to swing to the Opposition due to unhappiness over the Anwar situation. The Chinese were fearful of Reformasi and regarded the tussle between Dr M and Anwar to be largely a Malay affair. Meanwhile, the Indians were still supporting BN as they'd always done. So, the Malays swung alone. It cost BN some seats but not by nearly enough. In 2004, nobody swung.
The conventional wisdom going into the 2008 polls was that the Indians were angry, they would swing quite hard and the Chinese were not happy that MCA and Gerakan were not standing up for their rights forcefully
enough. But the Malays were content — or so it seemed. In the end, everybody swung, giving the Opposition roughly half of the popular vote.
All elections are local It's widely assumed that people vote not just their state assemblymen but also their MPs for their abilities to service the constituency in terms of fixing up drains and potholes. National issues don't matter, except perhaps in urban, sophisticated areas. Not so anymore.
The Opposition campaigned on bread and butter issues like petrol and toll hikes and it campaigned on macro issues like corruption, scandals in the judiciary, economic competitiveness and so on. DAP, in particular, took a huge risk specifically calling for the people to vote in MPs who would do more than just clear drains and fix potholes.
People vote according to personalities This relates to the point above, that all elections are local. People vote according to who they like, not because of national issues or according to party lines. If the candidate is well known, well liked and provided good service to the constituency, he or she will get elected. The notion of "I like you but you are from the wrong party" simply didn't exist until now.
DAP and PKR in particular, fielded a slew of candidates who were virtual unknowns in the areas they contested in — and they won. DAP's first-timer Liew Chin Tong was a complete unknown in Penang. He wasn't even from Penang and can't speak Hokkien, yet he defeated Chia Kwang Chye, a deputy minister. On paper, PKR's first-timer Loh Gwo-Burne (of Lingam tape fame) had no chance of defeating MCA's Lee Hwa Beng. Yet he won. There are plenty more examples where people voted along party lines rather than for individuals.
Malaysians mudah lupa Over the past four years, there have been many different incidents and issues that outraged different groups. Some of those issues were economic in nature. Others involved corruption, the judiciary, the police force, religion and freedom of assembly, amongst others. But you know what? Malaysians easily forget, or so the saying goes.
Malaysians might have short memories but this is the age of YouTube and blogs, which kept the issues alive and this trickled down, through word of mouth, down to the rural folks who don't have Internet access. Malaysians mudah lupa but the Internet never forgets.
Oon Yeoh is a commentator who normally writes for The Edge weekly. He'll be writing a series of commentaries/analyses about the outcome of the 12th General Election
-----------------------
Columnists
A strong, compassionate nation
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21065
Petra Gimbad
"Freedom is first of all a responsibility before the God from whom we come." – Alan Keyes
Two things have haunted me during the last month or so.
First, the bloody tribal wars in Kenya after their most recent elections;
the second, the book Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
A dear Kenyan friend was dazed when I called to ask whether he and his loved ones were alright. Thankfully, they were. He gave his take on what happened back home.
"There were the elections. The victory was close, and those who lost, were suspicious that the elections were rigged. Frankly, I am too. Now they're fighting and killing each other based on ethnic lines. My neighbours are fighting and killing each other."
His words chilled: "The elections before this recent one was good. People felt such a wave of optimism, there was hope for the country. Had you asked me how I felt in 2002, I could not have foreseen what's happening now. I did not."
It is Kenya, once a model for African nations, which makes me realise what a fragile thing peace is – considering such a thing happened in a place once full of hope, in just a few years. How easily we swing back to our cultural roots to justify evil.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, formerly a Dutch politician of Somalian origin, has received death threats for her views on Islamic fundamentalism.
Some attribute the historical origins of fundamentalism to Protestant extremism, for its black-and-white explanations of what the world should be and how we should behave through the Bible.
Holy books rely on the interpretation of human beings. It is some of these interpretations that many fear.
The view in Infidel that Islam justifies terrorism and cruelty to women is too simplistic to my mind; still, it is a powerful book, compelling and asks difficult questions requiring urgent answers.
A friend noted that this fundamentalism, this desire to understand the world too simplistically, is a force which is sweeping through the world. "It's happening in New Zealand too," he said, "and we're quite an atheistic country."
I suspect that people are overwhelmed by what's happening locally and globally; they are confused and struggling because they cannot understand what is going on through the lens they have been given to view society.
We have inherited and cultured outdated education systems that do not equip us with the skills to cope with a complex world. I may be wrong.
Since the results of the Malaysian elections emerged, I have been dazed. A taxi driver commented a couple of months ago, that he supports Barisan Nasional but wants a stronger opposition so that better laws will be passed.
His perspective, which moves beyond naming some parties as good and others as bad, was heartening. I still maintain in principle that both capable and incapable politicians exist in all parties alike.
What matters more is that our identity as a democracy gives voice for our complex society to voice its needs and wants, and to voice them in a way that is heard. Heard in such a way that it is implemented by the system in a compassionate manner and which allows solidarity to flourish.
When I read exuberant emails from euphoric Malaysians who cannot stop smiling, I am glad, for I am invigorated too. Not because the opposition has won, but that a stronger system of checks-and-balances
is now in place. This is just the start.
The running of a country is a complex thing and too important to be left in the hands of politicians from any party. I hope for and feel that we are capable of great changes within the next few years, but I fervently pray that we are conscious as a nation that change has to occur at all levels.
The issues which existed for the last few decades have not disappeared. Apathy still abounds – there is a tone of victory which rings "We hope and know that the opposition will achieve what we want" without thought to what our responsibilities are as citizens and voters from now until the next election. Ironically, many who cheer and jeer consist of those who did not bother to register to vote and were planning to migrate.
If we really care for this country, we will realise that the fight to build a nation that is strong yet compassionate is not a sprint effort in the form of one election. The marathon is not over; the battle must be fought for the long haul.
Petra is a media officer at the All Women's Action Society. Comments:
Updated: 01:35AM Fri, 14 Mar 2008
http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_a6753\
fdc-cb73c03a-9db99200-4722d20c
by Oon Yeoh
The 2008 General Election was not just a watershed because of the unprecedented gains made the Opposition but also because it decimated so many conventions that have endured for so many decades. Here are some of them (in no particular order of importance).
Penangites split their votes It's well documented that Penangites vote strategically — Barisan Nasional for state and DAP for parliament. This pattern was even apparent in the previous election. The 2008 election was the first time this trend was turned on its head.
Every single DAP candidate for state and federal won. It was a clean sweep where even virtual unknowns as well as those who were not even from Penang won their state or federal seats.
Representation in government is critical Especially in the last few days leading up to the elections, BN leaders hammered home the point that non-Malays should vote BN to ensure that they have representatives in government. In other words,if you vote in BN non-Malay candidates, they can fight for your rights.
That message fell on deaf ears this time around because the Opposition had a compelling response: Who can stand up to Umno better — MCA, Gerakan and MIC or DAP, PKR and PAS? It was a response that the
non-Malay parties in BN simply could not counter effectively.
People vote by race In the past, BN succeeded because it could get its Malay supporters to vote for non-Malay component party candidates from the MCA, Gerakan or MIC. Similarly, these non-Malay component parties could get its supporters to vote Umno. This is something the Opposition could not do in 1999 or 2004. This year, though, the Chinese and Indian swing occurred almost regardless of the opposition party in question or the race of that candidate.
"Chinese and Indians were happily voting for Malay PKR candidates as well as Malay PAS candidates in addition to Chinese and Indian PKR candidates," says elections expert Ong Kian Ming, who has analysed the results of the 2008 elections.
"Who would have thought that PAS would eke out victories in Kota Raja (Selangor) and Titiwangsa (Kuala Lumpur), seats which are barely overb 50% Malay? Similarly, DAP probably would not have won in Taiping,
Beruas and Teluk Intan (Perak), Seremban (Negeri Sembilan) and Segambut (Kuala Lumpur) and Bakri (Johor) if not for some Malay swing against the BN in those areas."
Malays and non-Malays don't swing at the same time In 1999, the Malays were ready to swing to the Opposition due to unhappiness over the Anwar situation. The Chinese were fearful of Reformasi and regarded the tussle between Dr M and Anwar to be largely a Malay affair. Meanwhile, the Indians were still supporting BN as they'd always done. So, the Malays swung alone. It cost BN some seats but not by nearly enough. In 2004, nobody swung.
The conventional wisdom going into the 2008 polls was that the Indians were angry, they would swing quite hard and the Chinese were not happy that MCA and Gerakan were not standing up for their rights forcefully
enough. But the Malays were content — or so it seemed. In the end, everybody swung, giving the Opposition roughly half of the popular vote.
All elections are local It's widely assumed that people vote not just their state assemblymen but also their MPs for their abilities to service the constituency in terms of fixing up drains and potholes. National issues don't matter, except perhaps in urban, sophisticated areas. Not so anymore.
The Opposition campaigned on bread and butter issues like petrol and toll hikes and it campaigned on macro issues like corruption, scandals in the judiciary, economic competitiveness and so on. DAP, in particular, took a huge risk specifically calling for the people to vote in MPs who would do more than just clear drains and fix potholes.
People vote according to personalities This relates to the point above, that all elections are local. People vote according to who they like, not because of national issues or according to party lines. If the candidate is well known, well liked and provided good service to the constituency, he or she will get elected. The notion of "I like you but you are from the wrong party" simply didn't exist until now.
DAP and PKR in particular, fielded a slew of candidates who were virtual unknowns in the areas they contested in — and they won. DAP's first-timer Liew Chin Tong was a complete unknown in Penang. He wasn't even from Penang and can't speak Hokkien, yet he defeated Chia Kwang Chye, a deputy minister. On paper, PKR's first-timer Loh Gwo-Burne (of Lingam tape fame) had no chance of defeating MCA's Lee Hwa Beng. Yet he won. There are plenty more examples where people voted along party lines rather than for individuals.
Malaysians mudah lupa Over the past four years, there have been many different incidents and issues that outraged different groups. Some of those issues were economic in nature. Others involved corruption, the judiciary, the police force, religion and freedom of assembly, amongst others. But you know what? Malaysians easily forget, or so the saying goes.
Malaysians might have short memories but this is the age of YouTube and blogs, which kept the issues alive and this trickled down, through word of mouth, down to the rural folks who don't have Internet access. Malaysians mudah lupa but the Internet never forgets.
Oon Yeoh is a commentator who normally writes for The Edge weekly. He'll be writing a series of commentaries/analyses about the outcome of the 12th General Election
-----------------------
Columnists
A strong, compassionate nation
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21065
Petra Gimbad
"Freedom is first of all a responsibility before the God from whom we come." – Alan Keyes
Two things have haunted me during the last month or so.
First, the bloody tribal wars in Kenya after their most recent elections;
the second, the book Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
A dear Kenyan friend was dazed when I called to ask whether he and his loved ones were alright. Thankfully, they were. He gave his take on what happened back home.
"There were the elections. The victory was close, and those who lost, were suspicious that the elections were rigged. Frankly, I am too. Now they're fighting and killing each other based on ethnic lines. My neighbours are fighting and killing each other."
His words chilled: "The elections before this recent one was good. People felt such a wave of optimism, there was hope for the country. Had you asked me how I felt in 2002, I could not have foreseen what's happening now. I did not."
It is Kenya, once a model for African nations, which makes me realise what a fragile thing peace is – considering such a thing happened in a place once full of hope, in just a few years. How easily we swing back to our cultural roots to justify evil.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, formerly a Dutch politician of Somalian origin, has received death threats for her views on Islamic fundamentalism.
Some attribute the historical origins of fundamentalism to Protestant extremism, for its black-and-white explanations of what the world should be and how we should behave through the Bible.
Holy books rely on the interpretation of human beings. It is some of these interpretations that many fear.
The view in Infidel that Islam justifies terrorism and cruelty to women is too simplistic to my mind; still, it is a powerful book, compelling and asks difficult questions requiring urgent answers.
A friend noted that this fundamentalism, this desire to understand the world too simplistically, is a force which is sweeping through the world. "It's happening in New Zealand too," he said, "and we're quite an atheistic country."
I suspect that people are overwhelmed by what's happening locally and globally; they are confused and struggling because they cannot understand what is going on through the lens they have been given to view society.
We have inherited and cultured outdated education systems that do not equip us with the skills to cope with a complex world. I may be wrong.
Since the results of the Malaysian elections emerged, I have been dazed. A taxi driver commented a couple of months ago, that he supports Barisan Nasional but wants a stronger opposition so that better laws will be passed.
His perspective, which moves beyond naming some parties as good and others as bad, was heartening. I still maintain in principle that both capable and incapable politicians exist in all parties alike.
What matters more is that our identity as a democracy gives voice for our complex society to voice its needs and wants, and to voice them in a way that is heard. Heard in such a way that it is implemented by the system in a compassionate manner and which allows solidarity to flourish.
When I read exuberant emails from euphoric Malaysians who cannot stop smiling, I am glad, for I am invigorated too. Not because the opposition has won, but that a stronger system of checks-and-balances
is now in place. This is just the start.
The running of a country is a complex thing and too important to be left in the hands of politicians from any party. I hope for and feel that we are capable of great changes within the next few years, but I fervently pray that we are conscious as a nation that change has to occur at all levels.
The issues which existed for the last few decades have not disappeared. Apathy still abounds – there is a tone of victory which rings "We hope and know that the opposition will achieve what we want" without thought to what our responsibilities are as citizens and voters from now until the next election. Ironically, many who cheer and jeer consist of those who did not bother to register to vote and were planning to migrate.
If we really care for this country, we will realise that the fight to build a nation that is strong yet compassionate is not a sprint effort in the form of one election. The marathon is not over; the battle must be fought for the long haul.
Petra is a media officer at the All Women's Action Society. Comments:
Updated: 01:35AM Fri, 14 Mar 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment