Monday, March 22, 2004
In the Bag
Malaysian elections--no contest
Yesterday (a Sunday, it should be noted) was the 11th election of this relatively young nation. It has a parliamentary system, with elections on a five-year circuit. October saw the end of a 22 year reign by Mahathir Mohamed (affectionately referred to as Dr. M and known for standing up to the West, ie. refusing to follow IMF suggestions after the financial crisis in 1997). Abdullah Badawi took over, as the second in command of UMNO, which makes up the bulk of the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN).
I was out at a cafe last night and the election results were being broadcast on the great big TV screens, though it was certainly not the focus of most people's attention. No one I was with (10 people or so) had even bothered to vote. BN ended up winning significantly (of course). BN managed to win back one of the two states on the east coast that have been ruled by PAS, the Islamic party. The other state, Kelantan, has been controlled by PAS since 1990 and PAS held on narrowly, winning 23 out of 45 seats (after a recount! But not a two-week fiasco...) Voter turnout was about 50% in KL and 70% in the two hotly contested eastern states. (In the 2000 US elections, 51.3% of the voting aged population went to polls. The state with the highest turnout was Minnesota at 68.8% and lowest was Hawaii with 40.5%.)
Interesting, Abdullah has claimed that UMNO is about 'progressive Islam,' after Mahathir pursued a program of Islamization in the hopes of co-opting the Islamic movement and gaining support from the more religious segment of the population (both UMNO and PAS see the Muslim-Malays as their main political base). UMNO does not support the implementation of Islamic law favored by PAS, though they are the ones responsible for declaring Malaysia an Islamic state. From an opinion column in Malaysiakini--the online alternative news source: For Mahathir, "there was no point in having Islamic revival for revival's sake, unless it led to material advancement and progress of Muslims. Serving Malays was serving Islam, and not vice versa." Following that legacy, it seems to be in the interest of the party to try to make the debate one of 'radical' or 'fundamental' Islam (PAS) versus 'moderate' or 'progressive' Islam (UMNO). The column goes on to question that dicotomy, as Abdullah's progressive Islam "does not appear to support the strengthening of civil liberties, free press, an independent judiciary and competitive politics."
In the main English-print newspaper: "Abdullah is a proper man and he was not about to behave in a celebratory mood until the results were official...The Prime Minister's non-confrontational style, his approach to religion and his quiet appeal to the innate goodness of ordinary people had carried the day. There is no doubt too that Malaysians believe he is genuine in his initiatives on issues like corruption, good governance, accountability and serving the people." How's that for 'unbiased' news coverage?
I recently read about the "Rahman" theory. The first PM of Malaysia was Rahman, the subsequent PM's have followed a pattern using his name. The second one's name started with an "A," the third with an "H," then Mahathir, now Abdullah, and Abdullah's deputy PM--the man likely to take over from him--is Najib (who I met personally...and have an autographed copy of a book he wrote).
At least there is some degree of uncertainly as to who will win on election day in the US. Though a two-party system may not be ideal, it has its merits comparatively.
Ummm...No....
Just stumbled upon this in a column on salon.com:
"Last week, Kerry got one endorsement too many when former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, a respected figure in the Muslim world but one with a history of anti-Jewish comments, endorsed him. 'I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world,' Mahathir said.
The Kerry campaign quickly stated the senator 'rejects any association with (the) avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable,' and went farther to try to put the fuss over foreign backers to rest."
Perhaps the most recent controversy sparked by Dr. M was right before he stepped down as PM, during his opening speech at the Organization of Islamic Countries conference here in Malaysia in October (days before I arrived). Some of his remarks were questioned and condemned by Western countries as being anti-Semetic, but go to the text of the speech to decide for yourself. I tend to think that a few sentences were taken out of context and that the underlying thrust of the speech was positive.
Malaysian elections--no contest
Yesterday (a Sunday, it should be noted) was the 11th election of this relatively young nation. It has a parliamentary system, with elections on a five-year circuit. October saw the end of a 22 year reign by Mahathir Mohamed (affectionately referred to as Dr. M and known for standing up to the West, ie. refusing to follow IMF suggestions after the financial crisis in 1997). Abdullah Badawi took over, as the second in command of UMNO, which makes up the bulk of the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN).
I was out at a cafe last night and the election results were being broadcast on the great big TV screens, though it was certainly not the focus of most people's attention. No one I was with (10 people or so) had even bothered to vote. BN ended up winning significantly (of course). BN managed to win back one of the two states on the east coast that have been ruled by PAS, the Islamic party. The other state, Kelantan, has been controlled by PAS since 1990 and PAS held on narrowly, winning 23 out of 45 seats (after a recount! But not a two-week fiasco...) Voter turnout was about 50% in KL and 70% in the two hotly contested eastern states. (In the 2000 US elections, 51.3% of the voting aged population went to polls. The state with the highest turnout was Minnesota at 68.8% and lowest was Hawaii with 40.5%.)
Interesting, Abdullah has claimed that UMNO is about 'progressive Islam,' after Mahathir pursued a program of Islamization in the hopes of co-opting the Islamic movement and gaining support from the more religious segment of the population (both UMNO and PAS see the Muslim-Malays as their main political base). UMNO does not support the implementation of Islamic law favored by PAS, though they are the ones responsible for declaring Malaysia an Islamic state. From an opinion column in Malaysiakini--the online alternative news source: For Mahathir, "there was no point in having Islamic revival for revival's sake, unless it led to material advancement and progress of Muslims. Serving Malays was serving Islam, and not vice versa." Following that legacy, it seems to be in the interest of the party to try to make the debate one of 'radical' or 'fundamental' Islam (PAS) versus 'moderate' or 'progressive' Islam (UMNO). The column goes on to question that dicotomy, as Abdullah's progressive Islam "does not appear to support the strengthening of civil liberties, free press, an independent judiciary and competitive politics."
In the main English-print newspaper: "Abdullah is a proper man and he was not about to behave in a celebratory mood until the results were official...The Prime Minister's non-confrontational style, his approach to religion and his quiet appeal to the innate goodness of ordinary people had carried the day. There is no doubt too that Malaysians believe he is genuine in his initiatives on issues like corruption, good governance, accountability and serving the people." How's that for 'unbiased' news coverage?
I recently read about the "Rahman" theory. The first PM of Malaysia was Rahman, the subsequent PM's have followed a pattern using his name. The second one's name started with an "A," the third with an "H," then Mahathir, now Abdullah, and Abdullah's deputy PM--the man likely to take over from him--is Najib (who I met personally...and have an autographed copy of a book he wrote).
At least there is some degree of uncertainly as to who will win on election day in the US. Though a two-party system may not be ideal, it has its merits comparatively.
Ummm...No....
Just stumbled upon this in a column on salon.com:
"Last week, Kerry got one endorsement too many when former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, a respected figure in the Muslim world but one with a history of anti-Jewish comments, endorsed him. 'I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world,' Mahathir said.
The Kerry campaign quickly stated the senator 'rejects any association with (the) avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable,' and went farther to try to put the fuss over foreign backers to rest."
Perhaps the most recent controversy sparked by Dr. M was right before he stepped down as PM, during his opening speech at the Organization of Islamic Countries conference here in Malaysia in October (days before I arrived). Some of his remarks were questioned and condemned by Western countries as being anti-Semetic, but go to the text of the speech to decide for yourself. I tend to think that a few sentences were taken out of context and that the underlying thrust of the speech was positive.
