reduced and recycled

A combination of work, fatigue and a convention have kept me away from blogging for a bit. I come back, though, and read quite a bit of news about the Sultan of Pahang and the recent announcement from the Istana Negara regarding the Agung’s disappointment over claims that he supported the BERSIH rally.

I say if the His Majesty needs to be seen as neutral, I have no objections. I object, with due respect, if His Majesty disagrees with the urgent reforms needed and pointed out in the BERSIH memorandum. And until HM actually does, UMNO is on a short leash. I bet the Badawi government knows that, or else it wouldn’t be enforcing a staple of spin to appear in the local dailies. Malaysia-Today has another view on HM’s apparent reticence, over here, but I disagree generally.

I believe, instead, that the Agung cannot take a side he isn’t ready to back up with support. And what tangible support does he have at the moment? I wanted to write some time ago about what the Agong would need to secure should he choose to step up to the plate, but thought it’d be too seditious. I can say, though, that he definitely needs the army on his side. If this isn’t the case, then there’s no point making an open bid for power by asserting his authority. That would be foolish - and to rely on resources you cannot be sure of - that’s even more foolish.

No, I’m guessing the Agung needs to bide his time. And yes, I still do very much believe the BERSIH rally was the right thing to do - Agung or no Agung.

Which leads me back to the necessary onslaught of spin in the local dailies. The Agung hasn’t categorically disagreed with the memorandum from BERSIH, as I was saying, and he could at any moment do so. UMNO therefore must project in the minds of the people that the appeal to the Agung was an attempt to get him involved in politics.

That and, of course, creating in the minds of the impressionable that there’s nothing wrong with the EC in the first place. The best - or worst - of such spin is a write up by V. K. Chin in theStar.

It is in Mr Chin’s opinion that political parties, NGOs and such should stop accusing the EC of vote rigging and such. He presents several reasons, which require some examination:-

1. The commission is a target of opposition political parties come election time, with baseless accusations.
2. If elections are indeed rigged, PAS couldn’t have won Kelantan and Trengganu.
3. Accusations against the EC are covering up Opposition’s inadequacies against the “powerful election machinery and resources of the BN”.
4. The EC cannot be blamed for non-registered voters.

Hmmm. As to the first, I reply that Mr Chin may not be aware of the sudden influx of postal voters into dominant opposition areas which happened most recently. Perhaps Mr Chin is not aware of the existence of phantom voters trumpeted everywhere but in our local dailies. Or perhaps Mr Chin is ignorant of complete media blackout of opposition views in the run-up to elections? Surely not.

As to the second, I reply that Mr Chin is repeating the same bias journalists of his stripe are fond of: having recourse to the past while ignoring the alleged irregularities implied by the BERSIH memorandum in the run-up to the coming elections. Mr Chin seems to believe that past “success” is an assurance of a free and fair elections this time round. He does not seem to consider that PAS may have won in spite of alleged irregularities. Unbiased opinion indeed.

As to the third, I reply that his characterization of the “powerful elections machinery and resources” of the BN fails to point out that these “resources” include excluding the opposition from presenting their point of view for the general public on mainstream media, these “resources” include - as was witnessed in Ijok - many disrupted and disallowed ceramahs and rallies by the opposition, these “resources” included blatant pork-barrel politics by BN, distributing land titles willy-nilly to poor Indian landowners who never had anything before. Hmmm.

As to the last, I reply that that is a red herring. The elections commission is not tasked to ensure that voters register. Mr Chin makes the same, useless point. The argument is whether the EC has been doing its job in ensuring free and fair elections, not whether the EC should be encouraging the public to register to vote. No, such apathy is beyond the ambit of the EC’s responsibilities, as I understand it. I find it strange that Mr Chin should place the burden of such apathy on the EC’s shoulders - shouldn’t such a burden be borne by the government?

Hmmm.