“What we saw when we were invited in was a model of transparency, with many checks and balances to assure integrity. People must show identification, their serial number is then entered into a digitial device and their photo comes up, then they give a thumb print to verify their identity again. They then proceed to vote electronically, receiving a paper receipt which they check and deposit in a box for later auditing. They then sign out, give a thumb print next to their signature, and dip their pinky finger in a vial of indelible ink to assure that they can’t vote again. All of this is facilitated by randomly chosen registered voters and witnessed by representatives of the political parties. There is an audit of 55% of the voting tables to check the paper receipts against the electronic returns,” wrote the American election monitor.
A Malaysian spring may sound like too far-fetched at this moment. But certainly a conspiracy to subvert democracy in Malaysia is unfolding in .
It looks like a conspiracy because Venezuela’s high-tech electoral system is considered the most advanced in the world. Former US president Jimmy Carter, who goes to Venezuela as an observer in all elections, has called it the “best voting system in the world”. There is no room for error in this system, and recounting can’t change the result.
On Sunday, as polling was taking place in Venezuela and later the votes were being counted, a set of independent election observers were blogging live on the website of Centre for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR), a Washington-based think-tank whose Advisory Board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; and Richard Freeman, professor of economics at Harvard University. This is what an election monitor blogged on the CEPR’s website: “8:23 PM — Now watching the citizen audit at Fermin Toro, a high school in Caracas. There were 12 voting stations and the turnout was 73.3%. [4,773 out of a possible 6,465 voted]. After reading off all of the ballots and putting them in stacks they are counting each stack and comparing them with the number on the tape. 9:26 PM – The count matched perfectly.”
In keeping with the unhealthy obsession withcerita hantu (ghost stories) and the supernatural, which is displayed by the rakyat – especially the Malays – caretaker Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak should be applauded for converting some Malaysians into zombies.
The living dead are characterised by their lack of self-awareness and the inability to think for themselves. Najib’s zombies may not crave human flesh, but they do feast on cash handouts and freebies. In the zombie culture, human brains are considered a delicacy.
Perhaps UMNO has seized on the rakyat’s minds as a means to spread their evil. They have mentally enslaved us and used this exploitation to satisfy their greed for material goods, and hunger for power.
Six decades ago, Malayans had to decide – either continue to be ruled by the British, or accept change and take charge of running the country. The operative word was change.
We had to manage the nation’s finances, defend the country and administer self-rule. It was no mean feat. Malayan brains, intellect, and toil made Malaya (later Malaysia), a success story. Change to self-rule required the combined effort of Malayans, and not just one particular section of the community.
Change took place in 1957. It can happen again in 2013. Today, the word ‘change’ is anathema to our leaders. Our great-grandparents were more open-minded and embraced change more readily, but Najib and former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad are trying to deceive us when they say that change is not necessary.
Najib may have promised to deal with corruption after GE-13, but why should we believe him? For years, we witnessed his failure to address problems in society.
If he was worried about graft, why did he employ leaders who were corrupt? Najib appointed Mohd Isa Abdul Samad as chairperson of FELDA despite objections from the public and criticism from Mahathir, who is no stranger to money politics.
Going to the Polls
In three weeks time, we go to the polls. What will happen then? If we elect BN, aren’t we condoning a government which is corrupt, and which breaks the laws whenever it chooses? The corruption network involves people from the junior office boy to the PM. Those at the bottom make petty sums whilst those at the top amass huge rewards. There has been little enforcement despite plenty of evidence, but the complaints of the public have been completely ignored.
Restoring confidence in the Government?
If the Opposition were to win GE13, what steps should they take to restore confidence in the government? Anwar has reiterated that he will not go on a witch-hunt; but he cannot ignore the rakyat’s desire for justice. Many lives have been crushed, families destroyed, livelihoods devastated and communities ravaged, because of corrupt BN leaders.
Many people have painful experiences to relate. The business deal of one acquaintance was scuppered by allegedly dodgy people in the Defence Ministry. After years of maintaining a good working relationship with his American and Taiwanese partners, millions of ringgits were lost when the ministry supposedly reneged on a deal.
Despite spending vast sums on engaging lawyers and waiting at the court’s pleasure, this man learnt – after a brief appearance in court – that his case had been dismissed. He lost everything. In Malaysia, justice goes to the highest bidder. There are presumably several cases of miscarriages of justice like this in the country as well.
So, should a new government purge all officials and businesspeople connected with the previous BN regime? To what extent should this process be continued? Should the top brass and business cronies only be punished? Should the crony business be made to cease operations?
It is easier to deal with those at the top, whose personal gain and lust for power broke several laws. Their unexplained wealth can be traced, by the paper trail, to offshore bank accounts and overseas properties.
Will the more educated among us adopt a different approach to the cleansing ritual? Mahathir’s brand of politics left deep trenches in the minds of many Malaysians.
How will the different sections of the community react to the purge post-GE13? How should we treat the junior civil servant, who in the old regime, took advantage of a crooked system?
Perhaps, the more obscure cases will be found in the private sector, where businesses helped prop up the UMNO government in deals that enriched both corrupt politicians and business people. How should the new regime resolve these cases? It would be naive to think that any government contract came without strings attached.
How should civil servants or businesspeople who denounced the corrupt practices of the old regime be dealt with in the new order? Should their positions be enhanced? What if their actions were entirely self-serving when they jumped ship?
How would you deal with the civil servants who refused to become involved in corrupt acts of the previous government? Do you promote them despite their lack of expertise and seniority? How would the new government deal with false accusations? How would they deal with politicians who are Trojan horses of frogs?
Not enough time, resources
After GE13, we cannot go after everyone whom we perceive to be corrupt because we do not have the time and resources to manage this laborious process. Anger and resentment will simply build and this will feed into the rakyat’s racial and religious prejudices, as well as accentuate other insecurities.
To add to the problem, our judiciary and police force have been corrupted by Mahathir. We will have to find a system to maintain law and order in the transition from the old guard until a just and effective police force and judicial system is formed.
We certainly must recover the large sums, several of which are said to be in excess of RM40 billions which have been allegedly stolen by several BN ministers and tycoons acting in collusion with them.
Najib’s incessant refrains of “I help you, you help me” to the rakyat has created a zombie apocalypse in Malaysia. Therefore, radical change is necessary to reclaim our souls and save the nation.
This attitude has come come under criticism from some of the brightest and most talented Americans too. According to legendary Hollywood director Oliver Stone, Venezuela is the top target for US media, “not to mention the State Department”. “I would say that Venezuela is the number one target of the United States media and the State Department that exists today. The covert actions that are going on in Venezuela are very scary. I don’t want to be in Nicholas Maduro’s shoes. I’d hate to be him because he’s in a new spotlight,” the director of such legendary films as JFK, Platoon and Born of Fourth of July said at an event recently.
Stone is not the only one who can see a conspiracy behind the demonisation of Hugo Chavez and, now, Nicolas Maduro. Some Latin American experts see a bigger threat here. Last week, when asked by a TV channel if a Capriles’ presidency would lead to Washington dominating and even dictating Venezuela’s domestic policies, Adrian Salbuchi, a political analyst, author and radio/TV commentator in Argentina, said: “Absolutely, they tried to do that exactly eleven years ago when on April 11 and 12, 2002, they staged a coup d’état where Mr. Capriles was one of the key people. He was only too young then and that’s why they chose another guy by the name of Pedro Carmona, a businessman who only lasted 48 to 72 hours. But Mr. Capriles is definitely the face of Washington inside Venezuela.”
Then he dropped a bomb. “But either way the prospects are not good for Venezuela because if Capriles wins there will be a complete realignment in favor of the US, and if Maduro wins, which is the most likely outcome, I wouldn’t be surprised if America tried to engineer a Latin American Spring starting in Venezuela.”
Compare this system with America’s, where in the year 2000 black voters were turned aways from polling booths in Florida and George W Bush became the president despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore; or for that matter with India’s, where the voter has to live in suspense about the result for weeks after pressing a button on an electronic machine. Forget audit, in India’s stone-age voting system, there is not even a record of who voted for whom and where.
But if despite such a foolproof system in place, Capriles is raging like a bull and hoping to change the result in the recount, there has to be a reason behind this madness. The reason for his confidence is the backing he is getting from the western capitals and their media. This was wonderfully exposed by Corey Robin, the American author of ‘The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin’. In a glimpse of what the US media coverage of the election results is likely to look like, Robin compared the New York Times’ treatment of Venezuela’s election with George Bush’s similarly close victory over Kerry in the 2004 US elections. “In November 2004, 50.7% of the American population voted for George W. Bush; 48.3% voted for John Kerry. The headline in the New York Times read: “After a Tense Night, Bush Spends the Day Basking in Victory”, wrote Robin on his blog on Sunday.
“The NY Times News Analysis read as follows: It was not a landslide, or a re-alignment, or even a seismic shock. But it was decisive, and it is impossible to read President Bush’s re-election with larger Republican majorities in both houses of Congress as anything other than the clearest confirmation yet that this is a center-right country – divided yes, but with an undisputed majority united behind his leadership…”
Then Robin goes on to analyse NYT’s treatment of the Venezuelan election. “Tonight, 50.6% of the Venezuelan population voted for Chavez’s successor Nicolas Maduro; 49.1% voted for his opponent Henrique Capriles. The Times headline this time: ‘Maduro Narrowly Wins Venezuelan Presidency’. And here’s how the article begins: “Nicolás Maduro, the acting president and handpicked political heir to Hugo Chávez, narrowly won election to serve the remainder of Mr. Chávez’s six-year term as president of Venezuela, officials said late Sunday…”
“I love the focus on ‘hand picked successor’. Pretty sure ‘son of former president’ sounds more nepotistic,” wrote Robin on his blog. The NYT is not the only newspaper which has completely dropped all pretensions of objectivity while covering Venezuela. It’s the pattern in almost all western media, barring a few exceptions like the Guardian.
This attitude has come come under criticism from some of the brightest and most talented Americans too. According to legendary Hollywood director Oliver Stone, Venezuela is the top target for US media, “not to mention the State Department”. “I would say that Venezuela is the number one target of the United States media and the State Department that exists today. The covert actions that are going on in Venezuela are very scary. I don’t want to be in Nicholas Maduro’s shoes. I’d hate to be him because he’s in a new spotlight,” the director of such legendary films as JFK, Platoon and Born of Fourth of July said at an event recently.
Stone is not the only one who can see a conspiracy behind the demonisation of Hugo Chavez and, now, Nicolas Maduro. Some Latin American experts see a bigger threat here. Last week, when asked by a TV channel if a Capriles’ presidency would lead to Washington dominating and even dictating Venezuela’s domestic policies, Adrian Salbuchi, a political analyst, author and radio/TV commentator in Argentina, said: “Absolutely, they tried to do that exactly eleven years ago when on April 11 and 12, 2002, they staged a coup d’état where Mr. Capriles was one of the key people. He was only too young then and that’s why they chose another guy by the name of Pedro Carmona, a businessman who only lasted 48 to 72 hours. But Mr. Capriles is definitely the face of Washington inside Venezuela.”
Then he dropped a bomb. “But either way the prospects are not good for Venezuela because if Capriles wins there will be a complete realignment in favor of the US, and if Maduro wins, which is the most likely outcome, I wouldn’t be surprised if America tried to engineer a Latin American Spring starting in Venezuela.”
