A contrarian view on the “Allah” issue

I’ve always been an outspoken person and I’ve always been willing to stand firm on my views even if they are not popular. During the height of the Iraq war, I took the stance that it was the right thing for the US/UK to remove Saddam Hussein — a view I still hold. True, no WMD were found but that doesn’t take away the fact that Saddam was a mass murderer who killed his own people and who was a menace to the region. Iraq, and the world, are better off without Saddam and his maniacal sons.

That stance put me at odds with — for want of a better phrase — the “civil society” crowd here. Normally, when you take any contentious issue, you will have two sides. One is the stance taken by civil society and the other is the stance taken by the so-called “pro-government” crowd… and never the twain shall meet. Except when it comes to Iraq. On that one contentious issue, both were against the American invasion of Iraq. It’s an anomaly.

Things have gotten back to normal with the “Allah” issue and as expected, you have two opposing stances, that of the civil society crowd and that of the pro-government crowd. The former is for the use of “Allah” by the Christians (the Catholics, in particular, for their Bahasa Malaysia publications). The latter is against it.

My friend, Ong Kian Ming, once noted that on most issues — such as press freedom, ISA, human rights, etc — I would be in sync with the civil society crowd. But not on Iraq.

On the “Allah” issue, once again, I find myself  at odds with the civil society crowd. I don’t think the Catholics should insist on using the term “Allah” to denote their god.

Before I go into the reasons why, let’s get a couple of things straight:

First of all, I think we can all agree that the Malay word for “god” is not Allah but tuhan. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that Allah is the generic Malay term for god. Just ask yourself how many non-Muslim Malaysians would agree to the first principle of the Rukun Negara being changed from “kepercayaan kepada tuhan” to “kepercayaan kepada Allah”.

Second of all, I think we can also all agree that, although to the Muslims, Allah is the proper name for their god, it is also the standard Arabic word for “god” and it has been known to be used by Christian, Jews and even pagans in the Middle East.

In fact, this point (that the word Allah is used by Christian Arabs) is one of the central arguments used by people who support the use of the word “Allah” to denote the Christian god. If the Christians in the Middle East can use it, why not Christians in Malaysia, the argument goes.

Why this is such a flawed rationale is well articulated by Md Asham Ahmad, a fellow at the Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Studies, Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM), in his article “Do you (really) believe in Allah?” which was published in Malaysiakini.

It is thus very interesting to know why some Christians in this country are so adamant in demanding what they call their right to use the term ‘Allah’ citing the usage of the term by Christian Arabs long before Islam. Since when did the Christian Arabs and their language (Arabic) became very important to Christianity and the Christian community as a whole? Arabic is not at all important compared to Hebrew, Greek and Latin when it comes to understanding Christianity from its original sources.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the Catholics are suing not for the right to use the word “Allah” in the Arabic version of the Bible but for the Bahasa Malaysia version. And what is the BM word for god? Tuhan.

If you go to most places in the world and say “I worship Allah”, people will naturally assume you are a Muslim. Not a Catholic. You can argue until you turn blue in the face that there are some Christian Arabs who call their god “Allah”, but the reality is that most people associate “Allah” with Islam. Not Catholicism.

So, it is understandable why some Malays would suspect that there is an ulterior motive involved here. In his article, Md Asham doesn’t mince his words and spells out what those concerns are.

Clearly what the Christians are trying to do is to deislamise the Malay language for missionary purpose. And if they say it is their right to do mission to the Malays (which is not a secret) then shouldn’t we, the Malays, also claim our right to repel any effort to undermine our religious and cultural identity?

Let me state that I do not know whether the Catholics are secretly trying to convert Muslims in East Malaysia. They might or might not be. What I am saying is that I understand and empathize with the Malay concern about this matter. I must confess I can’t understand the Catholics’ insistence on using “Allah” when tuhan is the Malay word for god. What’s wrong with using tuhan instead?

Some might argue it’s a free speech issue. Shouldn’t someone have the right to call their god anything they want to? Of course they should have that right. On this point, even Md Asham of IKIM is in agreement. But as he explains it, the Malays have to oppose this because…

… as far as they are concerned the word ‘Allah’ as used and understood in the Malay language is not the god of Christianity.

Yet others might argue it’s a legal issue. If the court rules that the Catholics can use the phrase, shouldn’t they be allowed to use it? There is no question that if something is legal, it should be allowed. But just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s a prudent, wise or good thing to do.

Again, I simply cannot understand the insistence on the use of the word “Allah” when the word tuhan is readily available.

The problem with this whole issue is that it is has degenerated into a political fight that has nothing to do with free speech or religion. It has to do with whether you are pro-Pakatan or pro-Barisan.

If you are pro-Pakatan, chances are high that you will be supportive of the Catholics’ right to use the word “Allah”. Why? Not because you strongly feel that Allah is the generic term for god but because you are anti-Barisan or anti-Najib.

Similarly, if you are pro-Barisan, you are likely to either be against the court decision to allow use of the word “Allah” or you are maintaining an elegant silence on this matter. Why? Not necessarily because you are against the use of the word — you might not care either way — but because you are anti-Pakatan or anti-Anwar.

That is the reality of the political situation here in Malaysia. But this is not a brand new phenomenon. People take sides on certain issues, not necessarily because they have strong views on those issues but because of the side of the political divide they happen to be on.

Do you recall the Bersih rally, where demonstrators marched to the Istana to appeal to the king to ensure free and fair elections? Amongst the people in that rally are those who can hardly be called “pro-royalists”, to say the least. These include people who would normally balk at royal intervention. But because the Bersih rally is seen as an anti-Barisan rally, anyone who is anti-government would support it, regardless of whether they are for royal intervention or not.

Another example? Hindraf. Whether you support Hindraf or not has little to do with whether you believe in their cause. Many people who don’t give two-hoots about Hindraf’s demands — and might even find them to be extreme — still shouted “Makkal Sakti” because the Hindraf rally was seen as an anti-Barisan rally. Again, it’s which side of the political divide you fall into. If you are pro-Pakatan, you support Hindraf. If you are pro-Barisan, you are against it.

That is how politically polarized Malaysian society has become. It’s not about principles or beliefs anymore but simply which coalition you support.

The Allah situation has become almost unresolvable. The Catholics won’t back down, lest they be seen as kowtowing to the government. UMNO won’t back down, lest it be seen as giving in to non-Malay demands. So how?

Perhaps the only solution is the legal one. I know Dr M has famously said it cannot be resolved through the courts. But if both sides can agree to let this case run its course through the courts, and agree to abide by whatever final judgment is delivered, perhaps we can eventually have some closure to this thorny issue. Whatever the outcome is, one party is certainly not going to be happy about it. But I really can’t imagine any other way this thing can be resolved.

What’s next for MCA?

The delegates at the MCA EGM did what was probably the best move possible: Reject both the No. 1 and No. 2.

Party President Ong Tee Keat may seem like a fearless hero for pursuing the PKFZ scandal but he himself is tainted by allegations of receiving RM10 million from Tiong and for taking free rides on Tiong’s company jet.

While he has denied taking the RM10 million, Ong has admitted to taking the free flights — and has not given any explanation for why he did so.

But those allegations — as damaging as they may be to his reputation — is not the main reason he has failed his community. Ong’s biggest shortcoming is that he does not stand up to UMNO.

Sure, he has a reputation of being a fearless and outspoken maverick. But MCA watchers will tell you that his reputation inside and outside the party is very different.

MCA insiders will point out that what Ong is good at is hitting out at MCA leaders. But he has no track record of standing up to UMNO leaders, even when they go off on an ultra rant.

How about Chua Soi Lek? His sex scandal aside, is he any better than Ong?

Yes, he has hit out at UMNO before (not much but more so than Ong) and he even hinted that he was being courted by the opposition before he was made BN coordinator for Pakatan Rakyat-controlled states.

Since then he has not been critical. He has been effectively silenced by the position he’s been given. Just like Gerakan President Koh Tsu Koon who was made senator and minister in the prime minister’s department.

The fact of the matter is that neither Ong nor Chua are able to stand up to UMNO. This is a point that Chua inadvertently admits in his interview with Malaysiakini where he says:

That is how they spin, if I can’t stand up against UMNO, Ong who is under investigation by the MACC cannot stand up to UMNO as well, worse than me because any minister under investigation needs the blessing from the prime minister quietly and subtly.

If you read that sentence carefully, you’ll see Chua is admitting that he cannot stand up to UMNO but that Ong is even worse.

So, what you have is a No. 1 and 2 who both cannot stand up to UMNO. And that is a fatal political quality to have post March 8, 2008 because the very reason the Chinese abandoned MCA in droves is that they saw the party as kowtowing too much to UMNO.

It’s already clear that Chua will not be the No. 2 anymore. As for Ong, it’s not certain yet but it’s likely that he won’t remain as the No. 1 either (he has publicly said he would step down if he loses the no-confidence vote).

So, what happens to MCA after this? Will Liow Tiong Lai or Ng Yen Yen become the president?

It doesn’t matter. The only question that matters is whether either of them can stand up to UMNO. If not, we’re back to square one. And the Chinese will continue to shun MCA.

A natural question any casual observer might ask is, “Why is it so important for MCA to stand up to UMNO?’

The answer is that the way the Barisan Nasional is set up is that the main component parties are racially-based. UMNO is there to fight for Malay rights. MCA for Chinese rights. And MIC for Indian rights.

The problem is that while UMNO does a good job of playing its role, MCA and MIC don’t. Instead, they kowtow — and were unceremoniously dumped by their constituents in the last general elections for it.

As long as MCA and MIC cannot find leaders who are prepared to stand up for their constituents’ rights — even if it means crossing swords with UMNO — they will have zero credibility amongst the communities they are supposed to represent.

Time was when MCA could simply tell the Chinese that if they don’t vote in MCA candidates, there would be no Chinese representation in the government — and that’d be enough to pull in the votes.

No more.

In the last general elections, for the first time, MCA’s arch-rival DAP was able to effectively counter that argument by asking the simple rhetorical question: “Who is more likely to stand up to UMNO: MCA or DAP?”

The Chinese voters were able to make their own conclusion about MCA: “With representation like that (kowtowing to UMNO) who needs it?”

This is something Liow and Ng will have to come to terms with if they harbor any ambitions of taking over as president of the embattled party.

The trouble with troublemakers

Pakatan Rakyat has enemies within. Every one of the parties has troublemakers within its ranks.

This is exemplified by the three kataks (one from DAP and two from PKR) who jumped ship and caused the collapse of the Pakatan government in Perak.

PAS is not without its troublemakers. Nasharuddin’s infatuation with UMNO nearly caused a split within PAS until Tok Guru Nik Aziz put a stop to the nonsense and told Nasha to shape up or ship out.

So, every party has its troublemakers who cause damage to the coalition. Some create a stir but then back down. PKR’s Azmin Ali and Wee Choo Keong (who ran on the PKR ticket) caused some trouble for Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim with their comments about the Selangor EXCO but they have ceased the attacks. Even PKR’s perpetual troublemaker, Zulkifli Noordin, has been somewhat quiet lately.

But one guy who has consistently undermined Pakatan is PAS Selangor Commissioner Hasan Ali. First he called for EXCO member Ronnie Liu to be reassigned for trying to stick to the law on sale of beer (the authorities had no right to raid 7-11). Then he said mosque officials can go around and arrest Muslims who drink beer. This earned him a rebuke from the Sultan who is in charge of religion. And now, he is going after Selcat.

With friends like this, who needs enemies? He is more effective in undermining Pakatan than Khir Toyo could ever be.

So, what can Pakatan do about these troublemakers? In the short run, it should let each party deal with its own troublemaker.

That is to avoid treading on sensitivities within each party. Are they doing that? Certainly not enough, although in Hasan’s case, PAS is acting on it fast. But will he just get a slap on the wrist and will he revert to his disruptive and damaging ways shortly after a period of quiet?

In the medium term, what Pakatan needs to do is field a slate of better quality candidates. Anyone who has a record of undermining the coalition, should be dropped.

So what if he/she has grassroots support or is in a position to sabotage the campaign? It’s much better than having them do damage as an enemy within. And it will show that Pakatan is a serious coalition made up of serious parties. Not a rag tag bunch of rejects who cannot work together.

This is not about quashing dissent. Dissent and debate is fine. Disruptive and damaging is not. Pakatan already has enough to deal with battling Barisan. It could do well without the likes of Hasan Ali undermining it at every turn.

The “DAP” approach to New Media.

When entrepreneurs or businessmen ask me what’s the point of using New Media, I tell them about the “BEG” approach (I know, an unfortunate acronym).

You use New Media for Branding (your company), Engaging (your audience) and Getting (your message across).

I hadn’t bothered to create an acronym for political uses of New Media but last night over a dinner conversation, a political analyst friend suggested one to me. He calls it the “DAP” approach.

Interestingly, he was not linked to the DAP (but rather, to a party in the ruling coalition) and the letters in his acronym have nothing to do with the Democratic Action Party — which like other Pakatan Rakyat parties, has a non-existent New Media strategy.

His “DAP” stands for Defend (your position), Attack (your opponent) & Promote (your message).

My analyst friend told me he’s figured out that these three things should be the goals of New Media for any political party. What he hasn’t figured out yet, he says, is how to make them work. Since he was kind enough to buy me dinner, I’ve decided to give it some thought and here’s what I came up with.

Defend
In my recent blog entry, I used the cow-head town-hall ruckus as an example to illustrate how the Selangor state government could effectively and efficiently use New Media to defend itself against UMNO spin doctors who would surely paint the fracas as an example of how frustrated residents are with the state government.

But it should be mentioned that New Media is only a tool. Having the tools in place and knowing how to use them is only one part of the equation. You also have to know when to use them and what to say. In other words, timing and content are just as important.

Some Pakatan politicians are extremely media savvy and know how to hit home with the right message at the right time. Take Zaid Ibrahim. After Najib claimed that people now doubt Pakatan’s ability to rule — referring to the cow-head incident as proof that people weren’t happy with Pakatan’s rule — Zaid hit back by telling the PM to put his money where his mouth is and to allow a statewide election in Perak.

Let’s see the Prime Minister, who engineered the BN takeover of the Perak state government last February, test the verdict of the people more than six months after taking over that state. Najib is telling Pakatan that since the boot is on the other foot, we are hobbling about from the discomfort of it all. Well, why doesn’t he turn our discomfort into presumable misery by calling for snap elections in Perak to allow voters to rectify the mistake they made in March last year?

This is a brilliant response. Perak might not exactly be Najib’s Waterloo but it is a debacle that will continue to haunt him. And Zaid has hit him where it counts.

Now, imagine if that message were pumped out using New Media instead of just through Malaysiakini (which requires a paid subscription, which means limited access). Imagine if Zaid didn’t have just a blog but had a full-blown website with embedded multimedia and social media features. His very powerful message can be delivered far more effectively and generate discussion in the blogosphere and in social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Attack
Both sides are trying to spin it to their advantage. As mentioned before — and as evidenced by Najib’s statement — UMNO is saying that the protest is proof Pakatan doesn’t know how to take care of sensitive ethnic issues.

Khalid Ibrahim might not be media savvy but fortunately for Pakatan, Khalid Samad is. He is the first Pakatan politician to use the cow-head incident to attack UMNO in the the run up to the Bagan Pinang by-election.

He opened the accounts by blaming UMNO for instigating the cow-head protest (putting into words what many people already suspect anyway) and questions why it took so long for the authorities to act on the cow-head protesters (everybody knows how efficient the police are at arresting protesters, a point which even Koh Tsu Koon acknowledges).

To add further punch to his attacks, Khalid (Samad, not Ibrahim) said the alternative site proposed for the temple in Section 23 is located about 500 metres from any homes and it was the residents themselves who proposed the new site.

I don’t think there should be any objections from protestors. If there are, then it clearly shows they don’t want Hindus to have their rights.

Touché! This is powerful stuff coming out of the mouth of a PAS politician. PAS standing up for Hindu rights. Match that, UMNO! Now, imagine if that message was conveyed effectively through the use of New Media instead of just relying on Malaysian Insider.

Promote
Ok, so you can use New Media to defend and attack. Some media outlets (most likely online or alternative media rather than print or mainstream media) will likely pick up on it. And of course you can pump it out through social media (like Facebook and Twitter) and get some conversation going.

But to be truly effective, you need to have something structured and consolidated. No ad hoc and chaotic like it is now, with bits and pieces here and there.

The answer is, create your own media channel. Pakatan as a coalition needs one. So does each component party. So does each state government. And lastly, so does every key leader. And while we’re at it, why not every elected rep?

For the coalition, the parties and the state governments, I’m not referring to the official party homepage. I’m talking about a content channel.

Selangor has something called Selangorkini (how’s that for originality? Perhaps Steven Gan should earn some royalties). I understand that even EXCO members don’t visit the site because it’s so boring. But at least the concept is there, which is more than I can say for Penang, Kelantan and Kedah (I don’t think they have anything resembling Selangorkini).

Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider should be referring to the coalition, party and state content channels (instead of the other way around) for the latest news and views. They already pick up blog postings by Dr M, Ku Li, Zaid Ibrahim, Kit Siang and a few others. Imagine how many more pick ups would happen if there were robust and dynamic content channels from Pakatan, its party, its state governments and its leaders.

Creating your own media channel — which is now amazingly cost effective in the era of free tools like Joomla, WordPress, YouTube, Podbean, Flickr, Facebook, Twitter and so on — means that you also develop your own audience.

If the mainstream media doesn’t want to cover your events or publish your leaders’ statements, so what? You have your own audience. That audience is online, they are mobile, and they are the voters that will rock the vote in 2013.

Pakatan had better start developing a “DAP” New Media strategy or Barisan Nasional might. Now, wouldn’t that be ironic?

(Read the accompanying piece, “Pakatan’s non-existent New Media strategy“)

Old dog, new tricks?

They say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Yet, learning new tricks is precisely what BN — and UMNO to be more precise — needs to learn.

By-election after by-election, UMNO adopts the same old strategy and fails each time:

1. Promise development if only the voters elect the BN candidate
2. To the non-Malays, paint PAS as akin to the Taliban
3. To the Malays, paint PAS as a puppet to the DAP

When are they going to realize that developmental politics no longer works? People won’t vote for you just because you promise to build a bridge here or a school there.

And when are they going to realize in the Internet era, double talk doesn’t work? You can’t paint PAS as the Taliban and yet claim it to be subservient to the predominantly Chinese and secular DAP. It’s either too Islamic or not Islamic enough. But it can’t be both.

The voters have come to realize that but UMNO somehow hasn’t. It still thinks double talk works despite evidence to the contrary.

And this misguided belief seems to plague UMNO from top to bottom, from the very senior leaders down to the youth leaders.

Take Khairy Jamaluddin for example. He is young, Western educated, Net-savvy. He knows how to blog and how to Twitter. Yet, he can’t help himself but engage in double talk.

Since March 8, 2008, he has been busy rebranding himself as Mr. Progressive — a 180 degree turn from his carefully-cultivated image of being a ultra during Pak Lah’s first term.

Yet, from time to time you see him changing from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde. This usually happens when he is addressing an all Malay crowd. That’s when he lets the Ketuanan personality come out.

Is he really Mr. Progressive or Mr. Ketuanan? Who knows? Who cares? The point is, his split personality, his penchant for double talk, is a microcosm of what afflicts UMNO.

So, the first two things they gotta do is this:
1. Give up on developmental politics. It doesn’t work anymore. Instead of telling voters they’ll get a bridge or a road or a hospital only if they vote for BN, why not just tell them “Hey, we are a good government, we will provide for you regardless of whether you vote for us or not. But we would of course appreciate your vote.” Isn’t that a nicer message than “Vote for us or else!”

2. Give up on the double talk. It just doesn’t work anymore. Period.

So, what can UMNO/BN do?

Najib has set about restructuring the economy and he’s initiated some significant reforms. But what he has not touched upon are civil liberties and media freedom.

These two things may not have been important to yesterday’s generation but they are to today’s voters. Much more so than Najib or any BN leaders realize. It’s clear they think that as long as they can fix the economy, they will do well in the polls.

Of course it doesn’t mean that civil liberties and media freedom are the only two things that needs work. The list is exhaustive, really. But if UMNO/BN can bite the bullet and actually pay heed to civil liberties and free up the media, it shows it’s truly capable of serious reform.

If it won’t or can’t do that, it’s a lost cause.

Pakatan’s non-existent New Media strategy

In the aftermath of the March 8, 2008 election, many articles were written about how the opposition managed to make ful use of New Media (the Internet, SMS and VCDs) and how the government simply had no clue.

While it’s true that the Pakatan parties benefitted tremendously from New Media activities around that time, not much of it can be attributed to the efforts of those parties.

Yes, blogs helped the opposition get its message across but many of the bloggers were not originally party members nor were they doing it for the party. People like Jeff Ooi, Tony Pua and Elizabeth Wong were bloggers long before they became opposition politicians. They just happened to be bloggers who supported the opposition.

The opposition parties can be credited for bringing them into the opposition but they can’t take credit for their effective use of blogs.

Similarly, the various online news sites like Malaysiakini, Malaysian Insider and MalaysiaVotes (later changed to The Nut Graph) all carried alternative news that the mainstream media wouldn’t carry, such as opposition activities and press statements.

This helped to spread Pakatan’s message but the opposition can’t take credit for the emergence or success of such sites. At most the opposition can be credited for being generally supportive of these sites.

If you look at the opposition’s use of the Internet during the March 8, 2008 campaign period, it was quite pathetic. It was hard even to figure out which ceramah was being held where. There was no central hub where you can get reliable information on ceramahs.

Fast forward to September 2009. About a year and a half later, have things improved on the New Media front?

Yes, but not for the opposition. Najib’s 1Malaysia website might not exactly be the epitome of what a good political website should be but it’s friendlier and more comprehensive than anything the opposition leaders have to offer.

Anwar Ibrahim has an official homepage that seems comprehensive enough but it’s boring as heck. It certainly doesn’t show him to be web-savvy. Very Web 1.0 despite the presence of links to MySpace, Facebook and Friendster. It’s just so very static.

Hadi Awang’s official homepage looks to be a blog although it has links to other features. It’s all in BM and hardly appealing to anyone other than those who already support him.

No doubt, some individual leaders are web-savvy, most notably Lim Kit Siang, who has a vibrant blog and a popular Twitter feed. But he’s an exception rather than the rule. And he doesn’t seem to have a comprehensive official homepage. It’s more like a placeholder for his blog.

As for the coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, I can’t seem to find an official homepage. There are a couple of blogs. Here and here. Are they official? No idea. Are they good? No.

Instead of just criticizing Pakatan for not having a coherent New Media strategy (or any New Media strategy for that matter), here are some ideas they should consider.

1. There should be comprehensive, official homepages for
- Pakatan as a coalition (non-existent to my knowledge)
- Each party (the existing ones could use a facelift… actually major surgery)
- Each key leader (the prominent ones)

2. Elements that the sites should have:
- Rapid response FAQ (dealing with breaking news and hot issues)
- Blog
- Links to relevant news stories
- Schedule of events
- Speeches, press releases, policy papers etc…
- Press clippings
- Embedded Twitter and Facebook feeds
- Embedded Photo slideshow
- Embedded videos and audio (podcast)
- Donation box
- Press download section containing pictures and other material that they can download for use without having to track down the communications officer for media resources.

Example of how New Media can be used to great effect. Today, there was a fracas in Shah Alam when agent provocateurs decided to disrupt the town hall meeting to discuss the temple relocation issue. UMNO leaders and government controlled press will spin this as evidence that Selangor doesn’t know how to deal with sensitive racial issues.

What can the Selangor government do? It can go on the offensive and expose the cow-head protestors for what they are: Agent provocateurs.

If it had a New Media strategy in place, it could do the following:

i) Live Twitter of what’s happening from Selangor State Government’s perspective
ii) Video feed — live if possible but later a professionally-produced version for YouTube that again highlights the fact that the cow-head disruptors were there as agent provocateurs
iii) Picture slideshow of what happened, from Selangor State Government’s perspective
iv) FAQ account of what happened, again from Selangor State Government’s perspective
v) Podcast interview with Khalid Samad, Khalid Ibrahim and some witnesses on what happened there.

After that, alert the media, especially Malaysiakini, Malaysian Insider and various bloggers of the resources above. And push them out through Facebook, Twitters and so on. That would effectively deflect whatever spin the Barisan operatives would try to put on the news.

Can they do this? Of course they can. They just need to get the infrastructure and people in place. Yes, and it takes money. You want to do it well, you have to put in the resources.

Before anyone says “But the opposition is poor”, please don’t insult our intelligence. No doubt, Pakatan doesn’t have the resources of Barisan but Pakatan controls four states (used to be five) and have seen a surge in support from the public and businesses (and businessmen) since the historic March 8, 2008. They can well afford to have a good New Media presence.

It’s just a question of whether they believe it’s necessary. I suspect that some Pakatan leaders
i) Are complacent and believe that Pakatan is actually on the cutting edge of New Media (it’s not)
ii) Don’t believe New Media will play such a crucial role in 2013 (it will).

I’ll tell you why 2013 will be truly a cyber-election.
i) A whole bunch of younger people will become eligible to vote — they are the Net-savvy generation, the digital natives.
ii) Broadband, though very iffy right now, will be ubiquitous with 4G and WiMAX being widely available everywhere.
iii) Cheap smart phones will flood the market. People will be accessing information through their phones.  This includes text, pictures, audio and video.

Most importantly, Barisan will be gearing up for it. Also, today, many of the most proactive and prominent bloggers, like Rocky’s Bru, are pro-government not pro-opposition. Can Pakatan afford to sit idle and be left behind in New Media?

BN in Peninsula in a nutshell

MCA is wracked with intra-party squabbles. MIC is too. Gerakan is irrelevant.

And UMNO is still playing the same tired tune: Telling the Chinese that PAS is an extremist Islamic party while telling the Malays that PAS is a puppet of DAP (a predominantly Chinese party).

So what does that make PAS? A extremist Islamic party that is a puppet of a secular, mainly Chinese party?

And UMNO wonders why the Chinese have rejected it time and again, in by-election after by-election. Do they think the Chinese just watch state-controlled TV and read mainstream government-controlled newspapers?

Do the strategists in UMNO know about Chinese newspapers or blogs or online news sites? The Chinese people know what’s going on and they reject the double-talk UMNO has been dishing out since March 8, 2008. It’s not working.

UMNO needs a new strategy, badly. BN needs to reinvent itself, starting with UMNO. Will it happen? We’ll see.

UMNO needs a new strategy

UMNO’s candidate’s lack of credibility was probably a major reason for his thumping defeat in Permatang Pasir but the results point to another major flaw in UMNO’s approach to by-elections.

As of late, UMNO has been playing up the “Ketuanan Melayu” card, portraying itself as the ultimate defender of the Malay race. Malaysian Insider says this strategy is based on the premise that…

… if Umno can once again become the undisputable voice of Malays here, the non-Malays will be cowed into fearing the might of the ruling party and become more accepting of the status quo in Malaysia.

That’s one way to look at it. Another political analyst I spoke to — one who is connected to a government-linked think tank — has another perspective. It’s not about cowing the non-Malays into accepting the status quo but simply one of winning outright purely on the back of overwhelming Malay support.

In other words, if UMNO can win enough Malay support, non-Malay support (or non-support) is inconsequential. They simply don’t matter.

The analyst pointed to the Perak situation. He said right now, UMNO is ruling the state almost by itself. If it can win just a few more seats, it doesn’t need non-Malay reps to form the government.

Some might say that while such a scenario might be technically possible — if UMNO has enough state reps to form a majority, it can form the government — from a realpolitik standpoint, it is unfeasible. How can the state government consist entirely of Malays? Surely, UMNO would realize that this would be unacceptable to the people on the ground, which includes non-Malays.

That sure didn’t stop UMNO from trying to form an all-Malay government by coopting PAS in Selangor right after the March 8, 2008 general election. If UMNO had succeeded in wooing PAS to join hands with it, and perhaps incentivize a couple of PKR guys to cross over as well, Selangor today would be ruled by an almost entirely Malay government.

That’s an interesting premise. And it could work but it requires UMNO to really win over the Malays in a big way. And so far, there is no indication that it can do so. The Malay vote is very much split right now, with UMNO having a slight edge. But it’s not enough.

Like it or not, UMNO cannot rule alone. And it’s doubtful it can get PAS to form any kind of unity government because the bulk of the PAS leadership is dead-set against the idea (though the party president, deputy president and secretary-general are for it).

It still needs MCA, MIC and Gerakan. Problem is, all these parties are a shadow of their former selves. None of them can deliver the non-Malay vote as by-election after by-election has shown.

The best UMNO can hope for is for Pakatan Rakyat to fracture due to the differences in ideology between DAP and PAS. Yes, there are serious compatibility issues between these two parties, but for UMNO or Barisan Nasional to rely on the other side to fall apart is no political strategy.

PR’s path to Putrajaya might be a rocky one but it won’t be smooth sailing for BN either. 2013 will be a real showdown. No one really has the upper hand right now.

PKFZ fiasco will result in something good

Logically speaking, the PKFZ debacle can only result in two outcomes: The perpetrators are brought to justice or there’s a whitewash.

If the former happens, people will be happy because for once even those in government who are guilty of corruption are punished. For far too long we’ve seen government-linked corruption go unpunished.

If the latter happens, there is still a silver lining. MCA, led by Ong Tee Keat, has decided to go all out against the people it believes are responsible for this fiasco. It will be a fight to the finish.

And if MCA loses, it will force it to rethink its position in Barisan Nasional as well as its relationship with UMNO — for the only way it can lose is if the leadership in BN and UMNO refuses to back it.

For far too long, MCA has been kowtowing to UMNO to the point that the Chinese have now abandoned it en masse, viewing the party as little more than a lapdog if not running dog.

The PKFZ crisis, far from being the ruin of MCA could actually be its salvation — the catalyst for positive change within the party.

Kartika plays it right

After being senteced to caning/whipping for drinking beer, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno refused to appeal and instead asked for the sentence to be carried out as soon as possible.

Those who take this at face value would say she has repented and accepts the punishment. Those who are slightly more cynical would say she just wants to get it over with. And those who are even more cynical would say this was a clever strategy on her part to gain international press attention and bring pressure to bear upon the authorities.

Whatever her intentions are — we can’t read into the hearts and minds of people — international attention is there. Here’s a Time magazine article on it.

Kartika’s punishment was deferred, ostensibly out of respect for Ramadan. Kartika immediately filed a police report to put it on record that she had not run away from the punishment.

The PM has said Islam is about compassion and mercy, not punishment. Meanwhile Home Minister Hishamuddin has said that the authorities do not currently have the expertise to carry out this punishment and that…

I will not allow the sentence to be carried out if we do not have the knowledge to do so.

Anyone wanna bet Kartika will not be caned, even after Ramadan?