malaysiakini: Najib's gaping void between illusion and reality... by Terence Netto

Najib's gaping void between illusion and reality

Terence Netto
Sep 22, 2011

COMMENT It's odd - this propensity of the Najib Razak administration to shoot itself in the foot just when it is poised to play the winning cards it intimates it has long been harbouring.

In this instance, the timing of the self-inflicted wound - thedecision to charge Mohamad Sabu under the Penal Code with criminal defamation as a result of remarks the PAS No 2 made over the Bukit Kepong incident - is most inopportune.

The case comes to court just after the Attorney-General's Chambers dropped charges against a coterie of Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists who were initially indicted for offences under the hoary Emergency Ordinance and obsolete laws.

Also, the case against Sabu is being pressed when the prime minister's predecessorcautions him over the possibility of internal opposition to his liberalising laws curtailing civil liberties.

It is a measure of the silo-mentality of some Umno leaders that they are more concerned about internal reaction rather than public restlessness with a status quo that the Umno supremo is trying to change.

In other words, how Umno reactionaries feel matters more than what the public wants.

Najib's ballyhooed moves have attracted an array of ayes and nays from sceptics, with contention building over who should take the credit for the intended liberalisation, an exchange that mirrors the ongoing debate over which political forces were more responsible for gaining independence for the country in 1957.

With regard to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's caution about the likelihood of internal dissent, a Najib lieutenant has interjected to say that, perhaps, Abdullah lacked clarity about his own tilt towards liberalism, which was why, claimed Mohd Nazri Aziz, the former PM's attempt at 'perestroika' (restructuring of political discourse in Malaysia through relaxation of repressive laws) did not cut any ice with party reactionaries.

Talk about a lack of clarity about what liberalism ought to look like, what can be more addled than a decision shortly after liberalising measures were announced on prime-time television to prosecute ex-ISA detainee Mat Sabu for reason of his revisionist take on an incident that happened 61 years ago?

Form rather than substance

It has been argued in these columns that Najib knows the forms of liberalism, but not its substance, just as it has been suggested that he knows what 1Malaysia means - credit his 'We must embrace our differences' as having some worth - but does not know how to give effect to it.

The evidence of cognitive dissonance in the Najib administration is now too plentiful to deny.

From day one of his administration the PM appeared to want to smooth along nice and easy, with periodic announcements of changes to sclerotic policies and practices. But all the while his administration has been prey to jerks and twitches that throw it off-stride.

Out of this discontinuity between the reformist image he desperately wants to project and the reality that is considerably less amenable, the PM comes across as wanting the public to trust him.

Opinion surveys now tell him that the 'trust-the-PM' factor is slipping. Every new PM is given a wide berth by a watching public to strut his stuff, but once the people sense his act is tinsel, they can turn on the leader with a vengeance.

Look at predecessor Abdullah's slide from conductor of the 2004 BN landslide to casualty of the 2008 BN debacle, all within the span of a term.

The resounding lesson of that precipitous decline: Don't backslide once you have campaigned on a promise of reform.

Conjuring tricks

The problem reform-seeking Najib faces in his party and the administration is the undertow of stale thinking that hinders ameliorative policies.

In such circumstances, the task of leadership is to transform the public understanding of national issues and on the platform that affords the leader must break through the gauntlet of obstacles made up of reactionary forces, interest-group power, public passivity or cynicism, and conventional wisdom.

Najib is unable to transform his party's and his administration's assumption that democracy must be tutelary and citizens are essentially wards and not free agents.

This is the obsolete thinking he has not been able to change as the clock winds down rapidly to when he must seek his own electoral mandate.

Even if he gets it, it will be a victory without drum rolls, a majority without a meaningful mandate. That is because he has not defined clearly what he wants to do with it.

He is, in the end, more interested in form rather than substance, in management than in leadership, in tone than in content.

He is like the avuncular man who comes to do conjuring tricks at a children's party who is then startled to discover that the kids have grown up and want something more elevating.

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. It is the ideal occupation for a temperament that finds power fascinating and its exercise abhorrent.

malaysiakini: Why the gov't is paranoid... by KJ John

Why the gov't is paranoid

KJ John
Aug 2, 11
11:12am

I always believed paranoia was the sickness of weak and fearful people, or those who have just cause for abject fear. For example, after 9/11, the Americans were absolutely overcome with paranoia only because such an unfortunate incident was “not in their paradigm of possibilities; worse still, probabilities!” Therefore, I could tolerate, accept and appreciate their paranoia as they did three 100 percent complete checks on me within the same airport in November 2001.

But, why is the government of Malaysia also paranoid these days? First we ban “an avowedly peaceful rally to ask for clean and fair elections”. Nonetheless, it then became the best example of a peaceful rally of ordinary Malaysians reflecting the 1Malaysia syndrome; except for police disturbance.

But the police did it in order to achieve their agenda of 'self-fulfilling their concept of a ban'. 

Thereby they created chaos for Malaysians in the capital city by artificially creating a chock-a-bloc situation with their arbitrary and disingenuous road checks. They were a self-fulfilling prophecy; demonstrating their power and authority but nothing else.

Then they banned 91 individuals from entering certain KL geographic areas but were using the 2007 list of names and participants of Bersih 1.0. Finally they ban yellow T-shirts as 'potential weapons of mass danger', and arrest innocent citizens for wearing such yellow T-shirts.

Earlier, they created the fear of “enemies of state” trying to establish a Christian state (can someone tell me what that means anyway), believing a blogger. Now, even the peaceful, erudite and eloquent but activist Islamic scholar Dr Asri Zainul Abidin is considered a national threat. Ambiga Sreenevasan was declared a Hindu nationalist threat.

Just a month ago, the PSM 6 were legally detained under the Emergency Ordinance for allegedly being a “communist threat to the nation”. But suddenly, they are no longer a threat but the police do not apologise for their mistake. Can someone please explain all this fear?

Why all this scheming and planning to create an “apparent air of chaos” in a country now being declared as one of the most peaceful in the world. Please remember also that the police found an arsenal of weapons, perfectly colour-coordinated and brand-new weapons of war, and 'petrol bombs in plastic bottles', all said to be part and parcel of the Bersih 2.0 arsenal. Presumably, all China-made and distributed.

Justifying the next 'national emergency'?

Let me take a guess. Maybe all this is to justify the making of the next “national emergency” and the requisite ISA detentions. Maybe they are strategic moves from the playbook of Operation Lallang now being readied.

I even see signs of the mainstream media being linked “to a Hitler-like propaganda programme of misleading the nation about what is public interest”.

All these manoeuvrings are developed within modern institutions of democracy; whether it is called the Election Commission, or the Media Council, or even the National Professors Council. It is therefore simply most appropriate that all mainstream media professionals stayed clear from the so-called Media Council recently. As Prof AB Shamsul rightly said recently, there is something “really rotten with our state of democracy”.

The last I heard anything about any Media Council was when Zaid Ibrahim was de facto Law Minister. But not only did the current so-called Media Council meet behind closed doors, what was even more astounding is that the Internet or alternative media was excluded but nevertheless represented by another “crony”, the so-called Blog House.

The original and genuine Bloggers group was called Bloggers' United Malaysia or BUM. 

I attended one of their annual conferences and argued why the media was the 5th estate and not the fourth. I had argued that traditionally and always the fourth estate was the public service and this needed to be understood, appreciated, and recognised correctly by all concerned.

The media then becomes the fifth estate and has an equal role to keep the rest of the governance system under check and balance. I have always called the community of ordinary citizens as the sixth estate of good governance. Global institutions of good governance become the 7th estate.

Therefore I find it humorous that the secretary-general of the Information Ministry, a fourth estate representative, is appointed by a government minister to lead and set up this important and needed self-surveillance group of the media professionals. But he is not a media professional.

This move establishes and confirms my thesis that the public service must become the fourth estate; not an extension of intentions of the executive. The current non-existent fourth estate has become too blindly compliant to the executive agenda.

Serving with professionalism and neutrality

Originally and always, in the British tradition of parliamentary democracy, the public service could serve any government in power with true professionalism and neutrality. After half a century of Malayanisation (actually, to be accurate we must call this 'Melayuisation'), we have lost this culture of neutrality and professionalism.

Today, it is a rather blind compliance culture under the rubric of “saya yang menurut perintah;” meaning 'perintah of the menteri,' and not that of the Agong, or even in the public interest.

Therefore, the Agong meeting Bersih representatives in a public audience and requesting them to meet in a stadium was a breakthrough of professional neutrality. But, the resultant and subsequent non-compliance is an abject and total disregard for the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by the government of the day; whether the executive or the public services.

It takes a neutral fourth estate to take orders only from the Agong, when the government of the day has some variant political ideas about the nature of good governance and the public interest.

So, my advice to the executive in Malaysia... please do not become paranoid. The Good Lord decides who rules Malaysia come the next general election, and please remember the whole world is also watching. What is free or not free or not fair will ultimately be decided by the people of Malaysia.

Gerrymandering can only help up to a certain point. If the swing is so severe, as had happened and almost happened in 1969 and again in 1999, the possibility of regime change is very real.

Nonetheless, in this day and age, the use of unfair and unethical means of “rule by law” will not sustain any system that has been constitutionally governed under the rule of law principle. Please read Ambiga's acceptance speech on receiving an honorary doctorate in law from the University of Exeter, Britain and you will understand my sentiments on this issue. May God bless Malaysia.

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed here are personal views of the writer and not those of the university or any other institution he is involved with. Please write to the columnist atkjjohn@ohmsi.net, if you have any feedback or views.

fmt: Lawasia says Govt disdains human rights.... by Patrick Lee

‘Govt disdains human rights’

Patrick Lee

 | July 27, 2011

In Malaysia, political survival is more important than human rights, according to an international lawyer's group.

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia’s heavy-handed crackdown on Bersih 2.0 (Coalition for Free and Fair Elections) indicates its disdain for human rights, an international lawyers’ group said.

Lawasia president Lester Huang condemned the arrests surrounding the July 9 rally and alleged that there was police brutality on the day itself.

“It defies any understanding that any government which claims to support the democratic process can maintain credibility among voters,” he said in a press statement.

Huang said that the government of the day appeared to make political survival a priority instead of adhering to the country’s “democratic principles”.

He pointed out that the authorities appeared to adopt “haphazard” crowd control methods, which included an “indiscriminate” use of tear gas and water cannons.

Malaysia, Huang added, did not seem to follow the “United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials”, which it adopted in 1990

Police were alleged to have fired tear gas canisters directly into crowds of protesters during the July 9 rally in Kuala Lumpur.

There also appeared to be little restraint employed by the authorities in dispersing Bersih supporters on that day.

In one instance, the Tung Shin Maternity Hospital was targeted by water cannons, with tear gas trailing into the compound.

The police have, however, defended their seemingly aggressive position on that day, attributing it to standard operating procedure.

Huang, however, did not appear to be convinced, and noted the continued harassment by the authorities, particularly against people wearing Bersih T-shirts.

He said that Malaysia needed to be more mindful over the rights of its citizens, and had to take its regional role more seriously.

“It is of profound regret to the regional legal community that the reaction to the Bersih movement sees these principles cast aside.”

“Actions of this sort in any country will always deserve the strongest criticism from the legal community on both legal and humanitarian grounds,” Huang said, adding that Malaysia’s membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council was called into question.

TMI: What Malaysians want — by John Teo

What Malaysians want —               by John Teo

July 26, 2011

JULY 26 — Prime Minister Najib Razak has asked the silent majority to speak up.

I belong to the silent majority and here is a wish list of what Malaysians want. We want to live in a country that is peaceful, prosperous and progressive.

We want a government that truly cares for the people rather than just paying lip service to the people. We want a government that launches projects for the people’s benefit rather than mega projects that benefit a few elite groups or do it to score political points.

We want a government that truly believes in the maintenance of quality in our education system as well as a human workforce that is at par with the rest of the world rather than shut our doors, producing wholesale a poor quality workforce and education system and proudly proclaiming to the world we are the “best”.

We want a government that is transparent and accountable in its implementation of policies rather hide behind layers of bureaucracy and pass the buck around when something goes wrong. We want to pay our taxes with pride and to feel that we are contributing to our nation’s prosperity and progressiveness rather than to see our hard-earned taxes being squandered in multimillion-dollar scandal after scandal.

We want to feel in control of our own destiny and have the government truly engage the stakeholders and listen to the stakeholders rather than form policies and shoved them down our throats. We want our politicians to truly work for the people’s benefit rather than engage in useless mudslinging and creating discord to score political mileage.

We want our politicians to be humble in the way they conduct official duties and the way they live rather than be escorted by police outriders, garlanded and seated in reserved VIP seats as if the people, who voted for them and put them where they are, are made to be seen as inferior human beings.

We want our politicians to lead a moderate lifestyle rather than live in million-dollar plush mansions, chauffeured around in luxury cars and drabbed in priceless jewellery while the people are struggling to make ends meet and worrying endlessly on making sure their children get a decent quality education.

We want to live in a country that embraces talent and hard work rather than political connections.

Last but not least, we want to be proud to call ourselves Malaysians, embracing our diversity and celebrating our differences rather than be bombarded by individuals trying to tear apart the fabric of our uniqueness. Is that too much to ask?

* John Teo reads The Malaysian Insider.

FMT: The political impact of Bersih 2.0... By Johan Saravanamuttu

The political impact of Bersih 2.0

July 20, 2011

The BN is still haemorrhaging from the Sarawak state election of April 16, where it lost the urban vote. Bersih 2.0 shows a continuing slide.

COMMENT

By Johan Saravanamuttu

The repercussions of Bersih 2.0 will no doubt be profound. It has already been dubbed as Malaysia’s “Hibiscus Revolution”. The question that is now uppermost in the public imagination is whether the current government will also suffer a severe blow for its inept handling of the event.

Bersih started out in 2006 as a movement of civil society forces and political parties calling for clean and fair elections. Its demands for cleaning up the electoral rolls, reviewing postal votes, including allowing for voting from abroad, fair access to the media, the elimination of corrupt practices are nothing radical or revolutionary and yet the government’s resistance to it has allowed the opposition parties and those not in support of the present government to easily latch on to a ready-made platform for galvanising support.

Bersih’s first political rally on Nov 10, 2007 saw some 40,000 Malaysian streaming into the heart of Kuala Lumpur, setting a benchmark for peaceful political protest in Malaysia.

On July 9, 2011 almost the same number of demonstrators were out in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, as estimated by the independent “politweet”, despite a ban on the rally and police roadblocks at every point of entry into KL. If the political impact of Bersih 1.0 on the general election of March 2008 is now axiomatic, would Bersih 2.0 have a similar impact on the next general election?

It is important to first understand the character of the rally itself. The outpouring of material on the social media and through social networking websites reached proportions which, in my view, have been unprecedented and have not stopped. At the point of writing, over 200,000 facebookers have called on premier Najib Tun Razak to resign. The webpage has picked up 20,000 votes or more in one day.

The people who showed up at Bersih 2.0 came from a cross-section of Malaysia’s multicultural society, with Malays and youth as the dominant groups. This spoke well for the continuation of the trajectory of Malaysia’s non-racialised “new politics”. The involvement of national literary laureate A Samad Said who wrote a touching poem about Malaysia’s “wounded democracy” was highly inspiring to the would-be Bersih rallyers.

Various attempts made to delegitimise Bersih by Umno-related groups had a counter-productive effect. Thus it was alleged that it would be “unIslamic” for Muslims to participate in an illegal rally. The bogey of May 13 was also invoked and the Chinese were asked to stock up on food and stay at home. Such racialisation of the event by Perkasa and the Malay paper Utusan Malaysia helped to further augment multiracial supporters on the other side. The lame counter march of a couple of hundreds of Umno Youth “patriots” proved to be the proverbial drop in the bucket in terms of its impact.

The event received a crucial boost when Suhakam chairman Hasmy Agam weighed in to opine that it was legitimate. Najib had called for the rally to be held at a stadium and the organisers obliged after meeting with the King but the police were adamant about not giving a permit for use of the Merdeka Stadium.

The heavy-handed action on the part of the police – some 1,700 arrests, heavy use of tear gas, water cannons, and some argue, responsibility for one death – has put the government in a no-win situation vis-à-vis the common Malaysian citizen.

BN in damage control mode

In public imagination, Bersih 2.0 would stand out even more than Bersih 1. Already folklore about Bersih has gone “viral” on the Internet. A few examples should suffice. “The Lady of Liberty”, an elderly woman well into her 60s, who braved the water cannons, holding a branch with two daisies has been reproduced ad infinitum in multiple incarnations and web designs.

Numerous individuals present at the rally have written first-hand accounts to show why as ordinary citizens their participation was a morally and socially uplifting experience. Not least of all, Marina Mahathir, the daughter of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the patron of Perkasa, wrote in her blog that she had gone to participate in the Bersih rally in support of her daughter and all the young people who were drawn to the cause.

Admittedly, Bersih 2.0 is largely an urban phenomenon. But this is not to be taken lightly, if urbanites are fast becoming the voting majority. The prime minister and his ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, are now in damage control mode.

The BN is still haemorrhaging from the Sarawak state election of April 16, where it lost the urban vote. Bersih 2.0 shows a continuing slide. Umno’s vote banks in the rural areas alone cannot assure it of regaining a two-thirds control of Parliament – which Najib must get to prove he is better than his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The premier is now surely conflicted about waiting out till the mandatory date for the next election in early 2013 or holding it much earlier in 2012. Another difficult budget awaits in October this year and with the Malaysian economy invariably on the verge of a dip, prospects are somewhat dim for the ruling coalition.

Larger than the issue of the next general election, which would now likely to be in early 2012, is the changing nature of Malaysian politics. Political parties like his, which continue to mobilise support purely on the basis of race, after Bersih 2.0, are on a short political tether.

The writer is senior visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. The article first appeared on Aliran. http://aliran.com/6077.html

A Riposte to Chandra Muzaffar's Anti-Bersih Opinion piece... by Dr Ronald McCoy

A Riposte to Chandra Muzaffar's Anti-Bersih Opinion piece

19^th July 2011

The Editor

The Star

Menara Star

15 Jalan 16/11

46350 Petaling Jaya

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s views on the Bersih 2.0 rally, published in The Star on 13^th July. I had a sense that he’s not convinced of the need for electoral reform in Malaysia and not in favour of street demonstrations. As someone who felt a civic responsibility to support the goals of Bersih 2.0 and its rally on 9^th July, I would like to give you my own perspective on the importance of electoral reforms.  

Dr Chandra will recall that the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections did have discussions with the government-appointed Elections Commission on electoral reforms, without making any headway.  And when Bersih 2.0 was denied entry into Sarawak to observe the elections in April 2011, it became clear that it had hit a wall.  It therefore decided to rally public support for electoral reform by staging a peaceful solidarity walk to the palace to present a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agung on 9^th July.

But Bersih 2.0 made a strategic error when it invited all political parties to support its initiative. It was predictable that opposition political parties would support it, and government parties and groups like UMNO Youth and Perkasa would oppose it. The risk of a violent clash between opposing groups prompted the government to ban the peaceful street rally.

Dr Chandra will recall that both the Yang di-Pertuan Agung and the Prime Minister did advise that the rally be held in a stadium for security reasons, and Bersih 2.0 accepted this advice in good faith. But the Prime Minister remained silent, when the Home Minister trumped this advice by unleashing his arsenal of draconian laws and giving an ugly demonstration of a government’s ability to abuse power. His most outrageous act was to order the arbitrary arrest of six members of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) under the Emergency Ordinance, including the highly respected MP for Sungai Siput, Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj. It will prove to be a very costly political blunder. Dr Chandra has rightly made the case for repealing and amending those laws.

I can vouch that the tens of thousands of Malaysians who thronged the streets of Kuala Lumpur on 9^th July behaved peacefully and were of good humour. There was no violence or vandalism. We were all Malaysians, without any ethnic baggage. We all knew why we were there. The use of chemically-laced water cannon and tear gas was unjustifiable. If Dr Chandra has any doubts about police misconduct, I clearly saw people being beaten and kicked, particularly when arrests were made.

A flawed electoral process

Dr Chandra’s view that “electoral reform, it is only too obvious, was just a smokescreen for a street demonstration” is hard to comprehend, until you read the next paragraph where he explains that “the ultimate objective is to propel to power the hegemon’s candidate for the Prime Ministership,” meaning Anwar Ibrahim. But his political vendetta with Anwar should not cloud his perception of the flawed state of the electoral process and the need for reform.

Machiavellian gerrymandering by the Elections Commission has created disparities between urban and rural constituencies which have worked in favour of the ruling BN government. The present form of postal voting allows the votes of police and military personnel to be collected and delivered to counting centres, without transparent oversight. The Elections Commission has been known for its amazing sleight of hand in producing postal votes just in time to save marginal seats for the BN. A clean election is characterised by a corruption-free electoral process, the absence of vote-buying, and an electoral roll, devoid of irregularities and cleansed of phantom voters. The use of indelible ink would help to eliminate multiple voting. It was abandoned four days before polling day in the 2008 general elections, although the ink had been purchased. Automatic registration of eligible voters is still not in force. Despite frequent requests and the availability of a national registration database, the young voter must sometimes feel disenfranchised. BN politicians continue to abuse government facilities and machinery for their campaigns, although the Elections Commission knows it is illegal. To ensure the integrity of elections, Bersih 2.0 has also demanded a minimum 21-day campaign period and free and equal access to the media to ensure a level electioneering field.                

Integrity of elections

The integrity of elections is a common challenge in many countries. Credible elections enhance democracy, justice and security. When elections are manipulated to gain or retain political power, voters lose faith and confidence in the electoral process, elected governments lose legitimacy, the promise of democracy remains unfulfilled, and human rights and human security are put at risk. Fraudulent elections are a theft of our rights as citizens.

While the primary responsibility for upholding the integrity of the electoral process rests with national leaders, local and international institutions can support local electorates in their efforts to make national leaders accountable, raise the political cost of electoral abuse, and reward those leaders who ensure the credibility of elections. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) could play such a role, if it were endowed with autonomy and executive power.

Credible elections, conducted with integrity, are inextricably linked to the exercise and promotion of human rights. Rights of assembly, free association, free speech, freedom from fear of arbitrary arrest, and the freedom to chose one’s leaders are all essential to the conduct of credible elections. When elections cannot provide a society with an effective check on political power, corruption becomes more endemic

The Elections Commission has shown an unwillingness to commit to international standards and principles; to engage seriously with key domestic actors, including civil society, and opposition legislators and political parties; and to build national institutions and local professional capacity. To have policy impact, the Commission should be honest and stringent in its analysis of electoral challenges and eschew vague, general measures that would prove ineffectual.

Democratic change in governments in authoritarian countries is usually a high-profile, high-stakes event, which promises major changes in the balance of political power and relations among different social groups. Faced with losing power at the ballot box, authoritarian incumbents may choose electoral fraud, intimidation, violence or the imposition of draconian emergency laws to stifle democratic change. And if and when elections do replace long-standing authoritarian governments, the survival of a new form of democratic governance is quickly put to the test, as we are seeing particularly in the state governments of Selangor and Penang.

It is important to convince different stakeholders why elections with integrity matter, not just for democracy, but also for justice, human security, human rights, and  economic development.  It is a step towards the equilibrium that Dr Chandra has alluded to.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ronald  McCoy

malaysiakini: BN destroyed what the people built... by Mariam Mokhtar

BN destroyed what the people built

Mariam Mokhtar
Jul 18, 2011
12:47pm

It was reported in a mainstream paper on July 4 that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak told Malaysians that they should not “destroy what had been built over the years”.

Najib is wrong because it is Umno/BN which is responsible for the destruction of Malaysia and the breakdown in our social mores. If Najib had any imagination, he would realise that the people are trying to salvage what is left of this once great country.

The PM had instructed his Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to ban the Bersih 2.0 march and call it 'illegal' He had rejected all avenues of discourse with the leaders of Bersih 2.0 and had unfairly roped in the Agong to enter the political arena thus compromising the monarch's political neutrality.

After giving indications that he (Najib, left) was willing to meet Bersih 2.0 leaders and allocate a stadium for the rally, he went back on his word.

His failure to meet his end of the bargain created a dangerous set of conditions whereby tens of thousands of people, about to converge on Kuala Lumpur, had nowhere to go to.

The deployment of riot police and the spreading of malicious lies about the breakdown of order and that violence and threat to property and life, promulgated by a scared but arrogant government are indefensible.

Najib is responsible for engineering a potentially dangerous scenario. That there was no incident could be put down to the discipline of the rakyat and the leadership of the various team leaders, who maintained law and order on July 9.

Even when confronted with witness statements and video/film documentation that one protestor had died as a result of police action, Najib's administration still showed lack of concern and with a characteristically blasé attitude, denied any involvement in the death.

The unnecessary tear gas attack into the compound of a hospital was also dismissed by the police.

The PM's comments that the Bersih 2.0 rally was not a “good way to find a solution” and that the march was “illegal”, are laughable.

He said, “The illegal rally is not intended to correct the system but is politically motivated to gain power via undemocratic means.

“Street protest..if it does happen...will give a free ride to many people. There is no guarantee that everything will proceed peacefully. Those who love rioting and chaos will take advantage of the situation. This is what we want to avoid.”

In the past week, Najib was in London on a four-day official visit. He repeated the message that street demonstrations could 'spiral out of control, causing casualties and damage to property'.

He said, “If some quarters are still unhappy with the government, let's square it out when the election comes and let the people decide. We'll present our case, and the opposition will present their case. Let the people decide.”

The people, if Najib cares to know, are fed-up with electoral fraud and cheating. You don't really win an election by swopping the ballot boxes with ones stuffed with BN votes.

Ironically, Najib's visits to Mansion House (where he met the Mayor of London), Downing Street (to meet David Cameron the British premier) and the IntercontinentalHotel were greeted with street protests.

Najib might have observed that there was no damage to property and no untoward incident.

The Metropolitan police were in attendance and they did not have baton charges, or deployed water cannon hosing crowds with chemical-laced water, and they did not aim tear gas canisters directly at the demonstrators.

Clueless Najib

Najib seems to be the one who is clueless. Bersih 2.0 was never about any one political party. It is not about the opposition nor is it about communists taking over. It is about the rakyatdemanding a right to free, fair and clean elections.

How dare he say that the authorities were willing to prepare a venue for the Bersih 2.0 protestors? Therakyat have a right to be in KL. Even members of therakyat who live in Perak or other states have a right to travel to KL.

Right up till the last minute, the amount of prevarication and lies were astounding. Which person would not be angered by the false rhetoric and assurances presented by Najib and his cohorts in the days leading up to July 9?

Najib had said: “This is a reminder before its too late. If they want to submit a memorandum and so forth they can show democratic decency by cooperating with authorities.

“We are willing to provide a stadium for them to rally but why choose to protest in the streets....they must have other ideas. The government is not against them rallying in a stadium from morning until night. Just don't hold street protest as it is very risky to the nation.”

Najib's theory is that if BN managed to lose five states in the 2008 general election, then in his opinion the election system is free and fair.

Again, if Najib had any imagination, BN might have lost more or all of the states, if elections were truly free, fair and clean.

He claimed that the Election Commission (EC) was willing to make improvements by introducing a biometric system.

Does he remember that his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had said that the EC was going to introduce indelible ink? Well what happened to that promise? Why should we believe Najib? 

Which of his appointed cronies will win the contract to supply the government with this expensive biometric system which will net him several millions of ringgit at the expense of the taxpayer?

Najib was also quick to remind the nation to obey the Agong. It appears that everytime the BN administration is in a bind, as in previous years, like the power-coup in Perak, Umno/BN runs to a member of the royalty for help. This use of the royalty by Umno/BN destroys the respect the rakyat have for that member of the royalty.

The PM also said: “I hope we remember and realise the responsibility to take care of the country's future for the sake of the children and the survival of Malaysia that we love.”

A Samad Said (left)and 150 artistes were correct in their assessment that as a nation we have run out of creative solutions and ideas.

If only Najib will imagine that therakyat is trying to salvage Malaysia as a nation and restore the pride and respect the people have for each other.

It is because of Najib and his politics of protection for Umno/BN and its cronies that Malaysia is in self-destruct mode.

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In 'real-speak', this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.