Is Malaysia Democracy?

Is Malaysia Democracy?
After 57 years of independence, Malaysia still uphold the of practicing parliamentary democracy which has been stated in Federal Constitution, the federation of Malaysia uphold the practice of monarch system based on constitution and parliamentary democracy. Malaysia economics and development started to progress incredible during Mahathir Mohamad time as Prime Minister in office. Malaysia continue the development growth based on the idea of New Economy Policy (NEP) in 1971 that tried to balance the economic distribution among ethnic in Malaysia, especially bumiputera. This effort countinue by Najib Abdul Razak, which introduce New Economic Model to enhance Malaysia economics with objective to increase income and productivity, plus open investment from overseas. This is a part of transformation policy that Najib Abdul Razak when he first in office.
The government ruling party, National Front or Barisan Nasional (BN) has pun an effort continue developing this country in terms of economy aspect with many programs and policy. But at the end, the government not put any effort to change more democratic space in Malaysian political arena, as in increasing economy and development towards Malaysia. The economy crisis in 1997 and the sacked of Anwar Ibrahim, deputy Prime Minister at that time was a point to reform political arena in Malaysia. The government had ignorance of democratic development and continue in using repressive and restricted authoritarian rules to prevent the rise of political challenger which may treated the government reputation and position. The state did not have experience in changing of government in federal level but the opposition have govern state such as Selangor, Penang and Kelantan, Kedah, Terengganu and Sabah.
Malaysia can be known as 'semi-democracy' or 'semi-authoritarian'. Why this term use to describe Malaysia democracy? Malaysia have democratic space, election in every five year to elect representative in federal level and state level but the government have imposed restricted rules and limiting the liberty and rights of the people, especially opposition party, social activist and association which consistently criticizing the government policy (Case, 2002). The opposition can take part freely in election but the rules and electoral system give more benefit toward the ruling party to maintain the power. According to Crouch (1996) Malaysia have competitive party but still favour the ruling party and it also agree that political freedom have limited space in Malaysia. This term of 'semi-democracy' is a process towards more progressive democracy and it takes time and effort to ensure this process can archive better democratic space in Malaysia. According to Case (2001) the develop country such as Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico from the past was 'semi-democratic' state have evolved to more better democratic state with guaranteed civil liberties and changing ruling party. This showed that Malaysia facing the times challenge to be more democratic state with improvement in development at the same time.
This paper will showed the element of 'semi-democracy' practice in Malaysia with support of some cases and event as evidence to support the argument in Malaysian democracy. For example, restricted election, the limitation of freedom and liberty by authoritarian rule, executive domination, limited freedom of media and others. This cases refereed during authoritarian regime under Mahathir Mohamad rule, continue with Abdullah Badawi and lastly Najib Abdul Razak as Prime Minister until today. Interestingly, when Abdullah Badawi took office on 2003, Malaysian hope for more democratic space transition but by then, it did not progress as expected. Abdullah time can be seen as started to more open space in practice civic and democratic culture then Mahathir rule. 'Semi-democracy' been argued is a process of making Malaysia more democratic country.
Restricted election
Political parties in Malaysia free to compete in general election to gain seat or power in federal level and state level. The General election is an important event which give the rights for the people to choose candidates or party to form a government. Barisan Nasional (BN) has been to ruling party since independence. The dominance of National Front showed how the opposition party have difficulties to challenge the government of the day in every general election. Although the opposition may won state level seat such as Selangor, Penang, Perak and Kelantan during 12th General Election on 2008, but the opposition have failed constantly to win seat in federal level. This situation is normal in semi-authoritarians which stress that "The most important characteristic of semi authoritarian regimes is the existence and persistence of mechanism that effectively prevent the transfer of power through elections from the hands of the incumbent leaders or party to a new political elite or organization" (Ottaway, 2003, p. 15). Ottaway have proved that the election is the mechanism for the authoritarian regime to control and maintain power in government side. The opposition party have opportunity to win or gain influence of voters in election but hard to win it. According to Wah (2009) in reviewing Malaysian election stated that BN amended constitution and law which connected to election to make sure the changing of the government to opposition. For example, under Election Act 1958, the candidates who lose in election can challenge the result by filing the petition.
According to Hilley (2001) the use of gerrymandering by Election Commission may give advantage to BN in general election. Most of the seat distribution based on ethnic and population, most importantly urban and rural area, which may give easily win to the government. For example, in 2008 12th General Election, Putrajaya seat which won by National Front with total votes 6 008 compared to the Kapar seat with total 112 000 votes to Pakatan Rakyat. This example has shown the imbalance of seat distribution which give smallest proportion for BN to win rather Pakatan Rakyat. In other perspective, most BN candidate won seat in rural area and small constituency which the boarders likely divided base on ethnic and rural distribution. "There are rural seats with less than ten thousand voters each while urban electorates usually have more than ten thousand voters each. This only makes sense when you realise that the BN usually wins in the rural areas while the urban areas are opposition strongholds" (Chin, p. 81). This type of rule which applied by the ruling party showed that the authoritarian characteristic is a way to control political challenge in the country, especially among opposition leaders. The question will be ask, if the election system give more advantages in sustaining their power, why the opposition wasting their time take part in election? According Case (2001) based on his view on the domination of BN in General Election from 1974 until 1999 showed the election is a symbolic process to show the progress of opposition party because most of the rules on election commission give an advantages to BN. Even though the opposition party may hard to win the election in federal level, but there have capabilities to win seat at the state level. The Election Commissioner (EC) is suspected did not practice the clean and fair election system which cause biasness to government ruling party, BN plus the issues which give negative result for Malaysian democracy. Some of the issues such as the voters name list which not up to date, phantom voters, bribes and voters is not in the constituency. For example, the case of N 13 Likas in Sabah seat has declared void because of fake identity of the voters, which were Indonesian and Philippines become a voters in Likas for by-election in year 2001 (Lim & Ong , Eloctral campaigning in Malaysia, 2006). This Likas cases shoed less efficient and transparent the EC during the important election by easily allowed those non-citizen to vote.
In late 2006, the coalition for free and fair election has took part in increasing more transparent electoral system in Malaysia. 65 NGO's have joined Bersih and set to demand free and fair election in Malaysia. There have eight demand from BERSIH for reforming the electoral system such as cleaning up at the electoral register, stop corruption, reform postal votes, independent and free media, minimum campaign period for 21 days, strengthen pubic institution, use of inedible ink and anti-dirty politics (Bersih 2.0, n.d.). The impact of Bersih movement was so remarkable in improving Malaysian political culture to more democratic space. 'It would be until later that Malaysia would see other mass protest, the July 2011 Bersih 2.0 for example, but throughout Malaysia, people had begun to speak out" (Netto, 2013, p. 286). Even though the government manipulated the demand from Bersih coalition, the ideas in creating more civic culture have flourish a part in Malaysian society. The protest organized by Bersih in 2007 (Bersih 1.0), 2011 (Bersih 2.0) and 2012 (Bersih 3.0) showed the commitment of Bersih and the rest of Malaysian to see the reform in electoral system to be more free and fair election. In 13th General Election, EC only fulfil the BERSIH demand on inedible ink but it just practiced without truly transparent and accountability.
Abusing Freedom and Liberty of citizens
In article 5 until 13 in Federal Constitution have stated the liberty and freedom of citizen in Malaysia. There have many freedom which stated in constitution such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. This article give rights for people freely on how to live. But, this freedom is hardly to exercise comprehensively, based on what the federal constitution give the most. It seems that the government of the day, which is BN, did many act and laws which restricted the freedom of people. The law is the best mechanism to control the movement and freedom of people. Government, which ruled by BN, using enforcement as law to limited people freedom. For example, Article 10 in federal constitution stated that citizen have the rights to organize and form assembly with peace and not using the arms. But, on the respond with Bersih really 3.0 (Coalition for Free and Fair Election) in 2012, the government had successfully passed Peaceful Assembly Act (Act 736) in Dewan Rakyat to stop the Bersih really. Peaceful Assembly Act required the organizer of the assembly to have permit from the police and it takes a long process because of the complicated bureaucratic procedure which can manipulated the permission of the organizer. According to Weiss (2014) the implementation of Peaceful Assembly Act show the narrow authoritarian minded which against the street demonstration and assembly that criticizing the government action and policy. But, the government did not take any action for those really and demonstration which pro-government such example like the retired army and policy man who gather at the house of Bersih chairperson, Ambiga to the 'tarian punggung' as their called 'peaceful protest'. This demonstration actually insulted Ambiga in front of her house Police legally have the right to dismiss and arrested participant's which joined demonstration that had no permit and approval from the police itself. Furthermore, deputy police inspector general, Khalid Abu Bakar did not take any action for the person joining 'Burger Protest' in front of Ambiga house. He stated that police did not take any action because the protest took place in public space and not disturbing Ambiga's privarcy and surprisingly it was 'legal' demonstration (Teoh, 2012). This showed the government double-standard in making decision which actually bias to the pro-government side. Government action and decision to enforce the authoritarian law showed government overpower to limit and denied people rights to assembly with using of police force to dismiss and control the demonstration. Besides that, the implement or procedure to have assembly may cause difficulties to organizer itself.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
In democratic country, each of the citizen have the rights to speak and give their opinion, thoughts or ideology in the issues. Freedom of speech is a rights which give people openly discuss about certain issues and freely. But, Article 10 (2) in federal constitution give open chances to the government to limit the freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia with amendment of law or bill through parliament. One of the famous bill the government use to limit the freedom of expression and speech is Sedition Act 1948. Most people who charged under this act were person with high vocal of criticism towards government and official. Opposition members of parliament, actives, academician and journalist have been charged under this act mostly because criticizing government action and policy. As mention in previous point, the government will use authoritarian style, implementing the law to ensure the control of people rights to speak and express their views. According Omar (1996) the government will use the law in the name of 'safety and protection for harmony', avoiding sensitive issue like religion and ethnic, lastly as a mechanism to ensure 'the security of federation' to limit the right of speak. Most of people who has been charged under this restricted law not treating the security of national itself but more in challenged the ruling party to be fair, justice and transparent. For example the charge of the Khalid Samad in criticizing the action of Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) which under supervision of sultan Selangor regarding the Malay bible (Gomez, 2014). The Sedition Act 1948 is one of the obstacle or boundaries which forbidden people to discuss an issues especially linked towards the government. The most important topic issues which not allowed to be challenge and discuss is the Malays right, Yang Di-Pertuan Agung, and Islam (Lim & Ong, 2006).
Limited People Freedom: From Abolishing ISA 1960 to SOSMA and PCA.
The other famous act that BN use to limit the freedom of speech was Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA), which had been abolished in year 2011. ISA have given totally limited liberty for a person in Malaysia. Under this restricted law, most of the left-wing leader, activist and academician has been arrested or prevention without trial. This law introduce to against Communist had been used to charge political opponents that challenged government authority (Wah, 2009). Mahathir Mohamad had use ISA to arrested people who oppose his government and to make sure the sustainability of the country. During Mahathir ruled, many opposition party leaders and members as a victims, charged under ISA. For example Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guang Eng. Plus, Mahathir used ISA to arrest the people who support the government such as Ibrahim Ali, UMNO members and Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Vice-President Chan Kit Chee (Mueller). It seems that Mahathir itself used ISA as a tool to arrest people who against his government no matter opposition or government ruling party. His predecessor, Abdullah Badawi seems to be more open in his leadership style, had given hoped for Malaysian in creating awareness and increase the level of human rights in Malaysia during his time in office. He pledged to against corruption and more transparency government compared to Mahathir Mohamad rules. But, this pledged seems to be more illusion then reality when Abdullah may use ISA to solved issues that happened in his time. Under his rule, 105 person have been arrested from 2003 until 2009. For example, the people charged under ISA during Abdullah administration was Raja Petra (the famous bloggers which criticizing government policy and action) and Members of Parliament from Democratic Action Party (DAP), Terresa Kok because of her statement in criticizing issues about religion. The government abuse the power in using ISA. Enough to prove, Tunku Abdul Rhaman on his view on ISA said that:
"The ISA is a measure aimed at preventing the resurgence of the earlier communist threat to the nation... During my term of office as Prime Minister, I made every effort to ensure that pledges of my predecessors, that powers under the ISA would not be misused to curb lawful political opposition and democratic citizen activity, were respected." (Saravanamuttu, n.d)
Most of Prime Minister did not put the important of the spirit of constitution as solved an issues and practice democratic good governance. Abolished ISA is not an easy tasked. It took approximately 60 years to abolish this amendment, during Najib Razak as a Prime Minister.
The government did not give any satisfaction to people because after the abolishment of ISA, Najib cabinet enacted new law, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act or it known as SOSMA to replace ISA. This new law swapped the elements of detention without a proper trial for 28 days and increasing police power to arrest any person who involved in committing offences under this amendment. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department at that time, Nazri Abdul Aziz has stated that SOSMA is not use to arrest people who have different ideology and promise not to abuse this power, even for the police institution (Heng, 2012). But, at the end, BN broke their promise and use this act to arrest people against government authority such as opposition leader and political and social activist. On 19 April 2013, PY Wong, activist from group Tindak Malaysia, questioned by the police under section 124(c) because of her activity in educate people about electoral process, regarding Tindak Malaysia camping for 13th Malaysia General Election (SUARAM , 2014). This arrested show how the government, rule by BN still using restricted law to ensure the power not be challenged and people voice and opinion silence as possible. In 2013, again, the cabinet have introduce the new bill which also similar towards the ISA which is Prevention Criminal Act (PCA) in 2013. The opposition MP and other NGO's body have criticize PCA amendment because of this bill is opposite with human rights principle and most importantly, PCA procedure and clause have the same characteristic with ISA because "The proposed amendments to the PCA seek to revive preventive detention without trial, repeated renewals of such detention without trial, oust the jurisdiction of the judiciary, deny the rights of suspected persons to due process of the law, such as the right to legal representation and the right to be heard before any adverse decision or direction is made" (The Malaysian Bar Council, 2013). Even the use words 'crime' in PCA is subjected to heavy criminals, but the definition of 'criminal' may be change in perspective of government and may potentially detained the opposition like ISA amendment. The opposition worried if this law is a part of tools BN use to control political activity like BN did in the past, using ISA. In the nut shell, the government have not improve democratic space in Malaysia and of course the human rights. The abolishment of ISA is not the remarked of increasing democratic space because at the end, the ruling party may enact more laws, limit the liberty of person such as SOSMA and PCA.
Freedom of Association and Society
The government continue to oppress the political freedom to the citizen, activist and opposition by disallowed association or union which the core activity in democratic society. The oppression and abusing the people right to join or form association and community may cause the space to discuss an issues is limited. The registered of society have power to reject any of the application to form organization especially if the association related to the political interest. Early 1980, Mahathir Mohamad had stress that association with political interest is forbidden in Malaysia (Milne & Mauzy, 1999). This action that taken by Mahathir during his in office was to against the association or society which has platform to criticize the government action and policy in the stand of their society. Most of the association such as ALIRAN and ABIM had been pressure by the government because their very vocal in criticizing government and also seen danger for political power for BN. There have many legislative restriction in limiting the freedom of association such as Trade Union Act 1959 (and 1980 and 1989), University and University College Act 1971(and 1975 amendment) and Industrial Relation Act 1967. For example, the student university have a lot of circumstances in joining and organize activity freely, especially academic program, to increase their skill and general knowledge with discussion and debate. "Last but not least, the student should also be given greater freedom to conduct their extra-curricular activities which in fact now closely monitored and organised for them by university authorities" (Wah, 2009, p. 266). The university authorities control all the movement of organisation and student program which must refer to the interest of authority rather student. This restriction may develop unhealthy citizen which less participated in society activity according to the civic culture which give people to form organization and freedom to demand of interest in political institution.
Weak Parliamentary Institution
Malaysia parliamentary system have weakening since Mahathir Mohamad become Prime Minster in 1981. Malaysia which use bicameral house which consist of Dewan Rakyat (lower house of parliament) and Dewan Negara (upper house parliament) have limited power, plus it just can delay the bill that been debating in parliament without any veto power over the bills (International Federation of Human Rights, SUARAM, World Organization Against Torture, 2003). The government may passed the bill easily even though it will be late in time. In 1984, Mahathir had amendment that the bill in parliament will automatically become law, 60 days after the bill represent to the King. This amendment has causes Yang Di-Pertuan Agong lose his power to "seal of consent is required for any parliamentary bill to become law" (Yap, 2001). The weakness of parliamentary system in Malaysia, which power more concentrate in the executive branch cause the quality of decision and bill decreasing and not be debate inclusively. The opposition party have limited time especially question session in parliament. Compared to British parliament which has sits for 145 days rather Malaysia parliament just sits for 51 days (Azhar, 2007). Limited time in debating issue may give advantage full for the executive to amendment the law more effective with support of majority numbers.
The opposition role as a mechanism in check and balance did not play apart effectively in parliament. The majority seat BN have in Dewan Rakyat give advantage to the executive to amendment and pass bill easily with the support from backbenchers (Yap, 2001). In Malaysia parliamentary system, is very difficult to see those government backbenchers against the decision from frontbencher with the restricted control by the whip in house. "Its overwhelming majority in the House has meant that its control of the Standing Orders Committee has been absolute. Thus, rules to limit the number of questions MPs were allowed to ask and the banning of adjournment speeches during key meetings of the House have tended to minimize the role of Opposition" (Yaakob, Kadir , & Jusoff, 2009, p. 51). With the power of majority in house, the ruling party or executive may implement restricted rules to minimize the voice any members of parliament, especially in opposition. On the other hand, the opposition may have a chance to improve their role in joining Public Account Committee (PAC) to ensure parliament scrutiny and second alternative for check and balance mechanism. Parliament, which is Dewan Rakyat, have formed the PAC with members consists of nine members from BN and 5 members from opposition. Even though PAC has formed, but the government party still be a chairperson and it will insists the role in checking parliamentary business such us accounts public authorities and examine country account cannot be fully transparent. This is opposite with PAC practice in Britain where the opposition members appointed as chairperson which will be more actively play role of check and balance. The practice of parliament institution in Malaysia is more 'rubber stamp' and government side have more advantages in doing business in parliament. It is denied, government or executive branch dominant in parliamentary system, but the repressive and restricted rules to the opposition in Malaysia parliamentary institution unbalance voice in checking the government of the day.







References
Azhar, A. (2007, December 7). Free Malaysia Today. Retrieved from Free Malaysia Today Web Site: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/12/07/bn-loves-a-weak-parliament/
Bersih 2.0. (n.d.). Bersih 2.0 . Retrieved from Bersih 2.0 Web Site: http://www.bersih.org/about-bersih-2-0/8-demands/
Case, W. (2001). Malaysia's resilent pseudodomocracy . Journal of Democracy Vol 12, 43-56.
Case, W. (2002 ). Politics in Southeast Asia: Democracy or less. Psychology Press.
Chin, J. (n.d.). The future democracy in Malaysia. In A future for democracy .
Crouch, H. (1996). Government and society in Malaysia. NY, USA: Cornell University Press.
Gomez, J. (2014, August 26 ). Malaysian Insider. Retrieved from Malaysian Insider web site: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/pass-khalid-samad-charged-for-sedition
Heng, O. (2012). Pendedahan di parlimen: Dasar dan cabaran Malaysia. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Center (SIRD) .
Hilley, J. (2001). Malaysia: Mahathirism, Hegemony and the new opposition. NY, USA: Zed Book Ltd.
International Federation of Human Rights, SUARAM, World Organization Against Torture. (2003, March). Refworld: The leader in refugee decision support. Retrieved from Refworld Web Site: http://www.refworld.org/docid/46f1468a0.htm
Lim, H. H., & Ong , K. M. (2006). Eloctral campaigning in Malaysia. In C. Schafferer, Election and campaigning in east and souteast Asia: Globalization of political marketing (pp. 55-78). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Milne, R. S., & Mauzy, D. K. (1999). Malaysian politics under Mahathir. London, UK: Routledge.
Mueller, D. M. (n.d.). Islam, Politics and Youth in Malaysia: The pop-Islamist reinvention of PAS. Routledge.
Netto, A. (2013). Great expectation, unrealised dream: Human rights and Abdullah Badawi. In B. Welsh, & J. U. Chin, Awekening :The Abdullah Badawi years in Malaysia (pp. 272-293). Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Center (SIRD).
Omar, I. (1996). Rights, emergencies, and judicial review. MA, USA: Kluwer Law International.
Ottaway, M. (2003). Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism . Washigton DC, USA: Carnegie Endowent for International Peace .
Saravanamuttu, J. (n.d.). ALIRAN . Retrieved from ALIRAN Web Site : http://aliran.com/oldsite/hr/js1.html
SUARAM . (2014, January 25). Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM). Retrieved from Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Web Site : http://www.suaram.net/?p=5728
Teoh, S. (2012, May 14). The Malaysian Insider. Retrieved from The Malaysian Insider Web Site: ww.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/burger-protest-outside-ambigas-home-legal-say-police
The Awkward Embrace: One-Part Domination and Democracy in Industrialising . (n.d.).
The Malaysian Bar Council. (2013, September 27). The Malaysian Bar Council. Retrieved from The Malaysian Bar Council Web Site: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/joint_press_release_amendments_to_the_prevention_of_crime_act_1959_are_repugnant_to_the_rule_of_law_no_to_preventive_detention_without_trial.html
Wah, F. L. (2009). Old vs new politics in Malaysia . Oetaling Jaya, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Center .
Weiss, M. L. (2014). A brief introduction to Malaysia . In M. L. Weiss, Routledge handbook of contemporary Malaysia. NY, USA: Routledge .
Yaakob, A. F., Kadir , N. A., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Accountability from the perspective of Malaysian governance. Journal of Politics and Law Vol.2, No.3, 48-60.
Yap, F. (2001). Malaysia. In P. Heenan, & M. Lamontagne, The Southeast Asia Handbook (pp. 56-66). CH, USA: Fitzroy Dearbon Publisher.