Tales of a resilient Umno, jaded voters, and a boring opposition

Regime Resilience cover

Regime Resilience in Malaysia and Singapore (SIRD and Rowman Littlefield) Co-edited by Greg Lopez and Bridget Welsh. This collection of eighteen essays was launched in Kuala Lumpur. It will be in bookstores early next year. Contributors include: John Funston, Clive Kessler, Amanda Whiting, A.B. Shamsul, Lily Zubiadah Rahim, Greg Lopez, Ross Tapsell, Mohammad Ariff, Meredith Weiss, Gaik Cheng Khoo, Chong Hui Wee, Bilveer Singh, Steven Wong, R. Reuben Balasubramaniam, Lee Soo Ann, Terence Lee, David Martin Jones and Bridget Welsh. 

The following is an excerpt from an interview by Emmanuel Surendra of theother.my at the book launch of Regime Resilience in Malaysia and Singapore

I’ll kick this off with the coming general election, and as it’s around the corner and you have been studying and observing Malaysia for a very long time, what has changed since GE13 and what’s unique this time round?

Let’s start with some of the basics first. Of course, we have a different opposition where we have a split opposition between PAS and Pakatan Harapan, and PAS has seen to be closely allied with Umno although officially independent.

I think PAS has a bit of an identity crisis in that type of situation, but this opposition dynamic makes more for a very messy contest especially in close three-corner races. Disproportionally, the three-corner dynamic advantages the incumbent Barisan Nasional (BN), although not in all seats.

Some seats in fact it would work to the advantage of the opposition such as a seat like Seremban where three-corners will strengthen DAP’s hand. But I think for the most part, what we see is a situation where we have a more divided opposition.

The second thing that has shifted is BN or Umno itself. This election is about political weakness on the part of both the opposition and the government. Najib Razak is the most unpopular prime minister in history and he is trying to carry an election not with his own persona but on his use of the office that he holds, and the use of the resources that he controls.

In the context of the governing coalition, it has good reason not to have confidence because of this sense of weakness, the weight that the coalition is carrying. In 2013, Najib carried Umno and the BN; now Umno and the BN are carrying Najib, and although the media portrays this differently, that is the reality.

This election is also not about reform on either side. The opposition is very much being led by Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mahathir is representing a version of the past and Najib is again also representing the past. He has been in office for almost ten years.

It’s a question of which versions of history will dominate and whether or not people will see their future in those respective histories. This is an election is about different versions of the past as opposed to fundamental shifts and changes.

The perception is also different in that the people are missing in this election. Not only there is a sense of apathy or disengagement or a lack of choice among some sections of society, especially in the urban electorate and among young people, but its seems more so than other elections, very much about a contest of personal power as opposed to fundamentally coming up with policies and programmes to address the concerns of the electorate.

And politicians will say, “We are better. They are not.” But they are focused on each other and there is that missing element and you can feel that – there is no real excitement.

A lot of minds have been made up already and the big issue is: how many people will stay home? So, in contrast to the protest votes in 2008 or even in 2013, there may be more silent protests.

Despite what everybody is saying that this is in the bag, I argue that this election is one of the most uncertain, disproportionate and most competitive elections in the country’s history.

In part because new seats have become competitive as a result of the three-corner races and, of course, by the contestation of Mahathir. So we have states like Kedah and Johor that are much more competitive than they might be.

Kelantan remains competitive, again, in part, if we go back to this issue of weakness, PAS is weak. It’s split and has continued divisions within it. They all talk as if they are psychopathically behind the leader, and it’s the same thing in Umno.

But those divisions are very quietly percolating and you know people feel a sense of not anger – which we saw in 2008 nor hope as we saw in 2013 – but I would say discontent. And that’s a different type of emotion.

Also, in this election, emotions will be the decisive factor, and that the use of identity politics is becoming pervasive and the playing of ethnic groups. Old tactics, but they have taken on a different parameter as my new book points to.

But I would say that identity politics will be something all sides will try to use, and in a very calculated way, to galvanise support. Because they are not offering anything much different in terms of platforms.  So due to this disconnect among the electorate, they are going to depend on identity politics to galvanise people.

For example, I project that Najib’s close relationship with Donald Trump will be used by some people to say they shouldn’t vote for him. The use of Islam and religion will be played by Umno, PAS and also the opposition. These sort of identity politics are going to be quite important, in that kind of diversions from the status quo.

The final thing that is quite important in understanding this election is, despite it being very competitive, many people don’t see this as an election that is going to yield outcomes. In part because the contest itself is highly rigged and in part because a lot of people don’t see political parties as being able to find solutions to their problems. So it’s in that context, these uncertainties will play out in very interesting sets of ways.

And anybody who tells you they know they are going to know the results, is either a fool or a liar and I would try not to put myself among those. We can see those trends but whether or not we see those results, is a very different thing.

So will this discontent and disconnect we are talking about be realised by way of a lower voter turnout?

Absolutely. Voter turnout will be decisive in the results but disconnect has actually led to many different types of things that are not being recognised. We see the dominance of “right politics”, or the narrative of the right.

If we look on social media, we have very pronounced echo chambers in Malaysia. We also see on social media, among some parts of the Malay community, very powerful ultra conservative messages being exchanged..

Some of it with fake news. Some of it with identity politics that are very conservative – anti-Chinese, “don’t elect a Chinese person” – vis a vis the politics of racism and the politics of intolerance that we can see in parts of the right. And that narrative is sometimes played out in the media and it seems to predominate.

Then we also have very interesting narratives that this disconnect is hiding. We see identity politics among Malaysian Indians and there is a lot of dissatisfaction about the treatment of the community and the lack of and this is a product of the weakness of the BN.

There is no meaningful Indian leaders in the system and so is it a makkal sakti (Tamil phrase for people power)? Not yet. But is there disconnect? Yes. Is there discontent? Absolutely. Is there discussion? Yes.

And, again, we don’t see this, right? Because what we see is being told to us in a narrative which is predominantly the narrative of the right or the narrative of the government, which is heavily using its propaganda and its cybertrolls and others.

But that doesn’t take away from that there is a narrative of vulnerability and let’s be real, despite what government says, living in Malaysia is the most expensive it has ever been. Incomes are not making ends meet. Everyone – especially the lower and middle classes – are feeling those differences in the past.

For goodness sake, who pays RM40 at a public hospital for parking and this is just for a night? When certain families don’t want to get sick because they can’t afford it, that’s telling you something: that wasn’t the Malaysia of the past, but this is the Malaysia of today.

Yet despite all these issues, Umno is still here. It has survived economic crises, dissent, scandals. Why is it so resilient?

We can point to a few very important changes. In my previous book, The End of Umno, the central argument of that book is the Umno of the past is dead and that a new party is emerging.

I am assuming you are not referring to Umno Baru?

Not an Umno Baru in the sense of the Mahathir, but an Umno that is not based on certain principles and necessarily a party tied to long established machinery.

It has become more centralised. It has become much more about interests of becoming privatised. It has become much more corrupt and it has become much more – for a lack of a better word – conservative and insular as a result of the transformation that it has and that also has become a part of its weakness.

What we’ve seen in the last few years is that Umno has become Najib’s party: it’s full of sycophants. And why is that? Well the dominant issue is about economic interests in the party.

Umno has always been a vehicle of Malay political and social advancement from its origins. That has not shifted. But the way that it has gone about and the mechanisms and the measures and the tools have somewhat shifted.

And Najib has been effective in using the office from his position and the levers of the other parts of the executive, from the MACC and his control over appointments, to secure those interests.

That there is limited debate and discussion and even challenge within the party, doesn’t mean there isn’t discontent. There is. But that discontent is not voiced in such a manner because they know that there is positioning and interests that are dominant and people are in a kind of wait-and-see mode.

Also I think leaders of or from Umno, be it Anwar or Mahathir and I would say be it Najib, should learn from the past: in that loyalty is not personal, loyalty is to the position.

So its resilient because it controls those levers and it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy because the levers themselves insure the resilience but the mechanisms that the party has adopted have shifted and changed and that is what the book discusses.

It talks about the shifting natures of patronage and electoral manipulation and how that has evolved in different ways. The use of ideology and the use of ethnic politics in different mechanisations as well as Najib’s ability to use crises as a way to bring people together inside the party.

Najib was very effective in making 1MDB the ship that sank the government and in fact it nearly did, but the burden that Malaysians will have to pay for this kleptocracy is very high.

So what are the traditional explanations? Economic legitimacy and economic performance. Now, it is not really about how much the government moves, but where you fit within the inequality scale and those factors.

Traditionally it is about ethnic relations and being able to accommodate different views. Now it is using polarisation to your advantage. Traditionally it is been about leadership, now it’s about position.

Traditionally it has been about engagement, in terms of the sense of responsiveness in the system, now there’s much less of that, because the system and the civil service are overburned because of the budget cuts they have had to make in the institutions themselves, and that the corruption within the civil service is at a much higher level than before.

And services have been affected in real sense, in terms of meaningful areas. Najib’s rural support doesn’t come from just education and media. It comes from the fact that Umno helped bring about a different quality of life in these rural areas, but some of that is now eroding in very meaningful ways.

You could just see some of the roads, especially in certain areas. God bless, Sarawak and the Sarawakians who drive on the roads that they suffer.

So, I am giving you a long answer to these questions to point out that these traditional factors have to be conceptualised somewhat differently. Umno is resilient not just because it controls them, but because it adapts and because Najib has chosen to make these choices.

But these choices come at costs and that contributes to what I was saying earlier, to the politics of weakness, because these choices are undercutting the future for the country, not strengthening it.

Now, I am looking at the opposition and it has been promising a lot of stuff. But how successful will it be, should it come to power?

One has to look at the records of Selangor and Penang, and voters need to ask themselves is the government better now than what it was beforehand? People have different opinions on that, but all I can say is, as someone who lives in Selangor, that the trash is picked up, and there have been some noticeable improvements in governments that I can point to.

There have been some debates and issues about questions of managing parks and roads among others that would perhaps not have happened in the past. Does it mean that things are ideal in terms of questions of corruption or questions associated with where it should be? Far from it.

So you have to begin by asking what type of governance is there and what’s your standard and where you want to be in that context. I’m not a voter but a resident some of the time and I would say this is not so easy questions to answer.

But going back to this broader question of whether or not the opposition is or has been able to move in a very different sets of ways and will they fulfil their sets of promises, one has to understand that the problems of Malaysia are not rooted only in politics, but they extend into the education system, they extend into media socialisation, that corruption is much a responsibility of the business community as it is of the politicians.

Racism is much a responsibility of ordinary citizens as it is of the system itself, and how do you get beyond those things when you have been socialised for such a long time into these sets of norms and practices? A part of it is you need to have leaders that are not corrupt and are leaders that are not racist, but when you have leaders that are both, then it doesn’t help the situation.

And not all of the opposition people send a consistent message in this regard but the underlying drivers have to shift in this country and have to involve education, a reform and a strengthening of institutions to make them more inclusive, and this will only come with good leadership and a recognition of wanting to have some sort of cooperation to put the country and people first.

If I look throughout the year about things where I felt positive about what people were doing, one of those were the reactions of the Penang floods, where you actually saw opposition and government people actually sitting down and you saw a mobilisation of civil society to help.

This is a moment you say, “Wow, Malaysia boleh. Betul boleh.” And you feel heartened by these types of outreach initiatives because people put away their blinders for that. Are people capable of it? Yes. But the environment needs to be conducive to that, so this is where questions arises where the electorate will have to make those types of choices.

What hopes and aspirations they want in that context? Do they want to accept the status quo or do they want to realise something different even if it’s not necessarily exactly what they think it is going to be?

And Malaysians – in contrast to many other places – are very patient but they are also very accepting. There is a sense of the silent majority wanting one thing: a better Malaysia, a better future for their children, a better future for their grandchildren, and you know that goes back to what I said, the weakness and the disconnect and the dissatisfaction – we need to be conscious of that.

I mean people are talking about policies from both sides and assessing them. But generally do voters have policy preferences?

Some do. There is a sophistication among a lot of the Malaysian electorate and they are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Although in the campaigns themselves people aren’t thinking about tax policy and the like, because the reality is there is very little difference between Pakatan and BN, in terms of economic policy. The only big difference is PAS doesn’t have an economic policy.

So it comes down to what is the different between Pakatan and BN. And Pakatan tries to portray itself like, “Look, we’ll give you more”. That’s not necessarily a constructive policy; it’s just a sense of trying to outbid and you are outbidding someone who has the money when you don’t have the money.

So people look at you and say, “Well, I’d rather bid with someone who has the money.” It’s a bad tactic.

But there are some issues that do connect with certain electorate such as the policy towards education, towards their children, and importantly the issues of shariah and Islamic law are connecting with different parts of the electorate in varying, salient ways.

People are concerned about these issues and unfortunately these issues are not necessarily treated with a degree of nuance that is meaningful. But I think to say that people are not concerned with what these will do and how they will be implemented – it’s a misnomer.

One example, is the management of the environment. This is an issue that resonates in places like Kuantan for obvious reasons and generally people are conscious of that – the managing of the hills and local communities and landslides. These did have impact in 2008 and 2013, and would have impact in the next election in 2018.

So we are looking at Penang, Selangor and Pahang and let’s not forget, these flooding problems in Kelantan can also be traced to the mismanagement of the environment and the deforestation that has happened.

In Machang, we have still has a problem in terms of communities not being built and houses not being built.  Parts of Kelantan are still recovering from the flooding disaster few years ago and frankly it’s a disgrace – it’s a disgrace to the state and the federal governments that you have this level of mismanagement of these things to this day.

And this in part is due to Kelantan being so far away that people don’t see how ordinary Kelantanese are still suffering.

So how do choices get formed, or opinions get framed under a resilient regime?

One of the things that Najib has been very successful from 2008 to now, is to dominate the social media and the digital space. We have about 80% internet penetration in Malaysia and depending on how you look at the mechanisms, social media usage, look at who controls those narratives. The narratives, especially in the Malay community, are controlled by the BN.

And that’s part of an adaptation strategy and controlling those sets of discourses. PAS also has quite a significant following but, again, you have to look at how that’s evolving and who is speaking to whom and how.

And English speakers don’t follow the Malay social media and Chinese speakers just treat it as a different world and for them it is a different world. So until you cross into the different chambers of different discourses, you are not recognising how the world’s perceiving it.

I mean all the opposition supporters think that there’s nothing else and all the government supporters think there’s nothing else. So you are living in different twilight zones. But there are people who crossover because of family connections and others. These crossovers are in the minority.

Do we need a stronger or different party system then to correct some of the systemic issues in the country at the moment? Are we in need of something radically different if we want to – for lack of a better phrase – dismantle the regime?

You need different narratives, and you need leadership to portray and to focus on those narratives, and you need people to stand out for some of the things that are right and to put the people first.

For good or bad, all the politicians across the divide are perceived to putting themselves first. And there everybody is so righteous and they all think they are right when in fact this in itself is very alienating.

Look, mistakes get made, some of them are substantive and some of them are less substantive. The question is accountability for those mistakes and learning the right lessons and having solutions to address them.

The mode is fake news, propaganda and it’s feeding a lot of cynicism that is existing within society. So, the party system itself is not the solution. Some people say should there be a new party?

We have a big change in the run up to the next election. We see a different sets of political alliances and the opposition or Pakatan Harapan for the first time is arguably one of the most secular alternatives the country has ever had in terms of an opposition coalition.

That doesn’t mean it’s not representing the communities and looking at issues of ethnic and religious faith, but it is very different than with PAS there. So that is a different alternative.

The question is people don’t yet fully understand what is different about them because they seem to be hesitant to speak out for a different set of narratives, so as a consequence the government narrative dominates.

I think civil society here serves as a check and balance but is it doing its job? I’m looking at people like Bersih 2.0, Lawyers for Liberty and all the other activist groups. Because, from my observation at least, they come off as partisan.

First of all, we have civil and uncivil society in Malaysia. We have a very robust civil society and non-governmental organisations. Some of them are partisan, either pro-government or opposition.

One of the biggest developments in the last five years has been an expansion of uncivil society and those kind of organisations, of which many of them have received some government funding, but not exclusively. And they represent very different visions of the future.

But we have to be cautious to treat civil society as all pro-opposition or others. A second big development is civil society has now become, more or less, disenchanted with partisan politics, given the fact that they are not so clear and do not see the change that come about at the polls.

So many parts of civil society have chosen to engage in alternative types of activities, philanthropy, working directly with the poor, or through social services such as teaching. I think one has to appreciate there is still considerable citizenship within civil society.

And even in parts of uncivil society, they also engage in philanthropy and others, but just different groups. But there is a sophistication and transformation of civil society groups in terms of how they engage politically and what they conceptualise as politics is actually very different.

That said, I think in between these two groups is a third group consisting of people doing important things. I hope to have a piece out soon having traced the impact of Bersih’s movement going from the streets to the courtroom.

And I think Bersih has done a big service to the country by taking all these legal cases to challenge the delineation process, and that in itself is important because this involves the fundamental representation of ordinary Malaysians.

And being part of protesting or being part of articulating parts of a different community has become the norm, so much so people don’t see this as something as unique, but in fact for those of us who have been in Malaysia and connected to Malaysia for a long time, this is very different.

Ten years ago you wouldn’t talk about being part of a movement but civil society today are in large numbers and does that speak to civil society doing its job? I don’t think about it as a job per se but more of a passion, a commitment in terms of being able to transform society and to make it in itself more civil and that is happening.

But if there are weakness in civil society, they can be twofold. One, they succumb to the weaknesses in the system itself by personalising things. And these things become very petty in terms of the discussions and very narrowly focused.

Two, they live in their own echo chambers. When we always think we are right, we are always right and therefore everybody else is wrong. We learn more from our mistakes than from the things we do right and I think the challenge for civil society is to understand what those lessons are, and to evolve and figure out how to apply those lessons.

Some groups do it better than others, but keep in mind without civil society we would not have important discussions about women’s rights, accountability, corruption, and many of these individuals have been on the frontlines of an increasingly, more oppressive response by the government to those groups.










Bridget Welsh is Associate Professor at John Cabot University, a Senior Research Associate at NTU, a Senior Associate Fellow THC and a University Fellow of CDU. She analyzes Southeast Asian politics, especially Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore and Indonesia. She is committed to engagement, fostering mutual understanding and empowerment.

Malaysia’s Coming 14th General Election: Issue in Doubt

This is adapted from a speech by a veteran journalist-turned businessman to a regional forum put on by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore on Jan. 9. 

Malaysia’s next general election must be called by June by a government that over the past five years has been wracked with financial scandals, an inability to curb rising living costs and income inequality and has seemingly lost a clear vision for the future.

After more than a decade of steadily losing its rural lifeline, common sense would dictate that Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government faces an uphill task in retaining a comfortable majority. In fact, as an observer of Malaysian politics and having seen the last eight general elections either as a journalist or an insider, this is one election I will not be comfortable in predicting. There are too many new parts to the equation and any prediction would be, at best, an educated guess.

Long, futile wait for political change

However, although Malaysia’s urban and civil society have long rooted for political change, their views have not prevailed over a vast rural electorate – mostly ethnic Malay and Muslim — that traditionally has supported the ruling Barisan Nasional and its leading political party, the United Malays National Organization.

Still, since the dramatic 2008 general election when the BN lost its two-thirds majority, and 2013 when it actually lost the popular vote but still maintained its grip on power viua gerrymandering and the first-past-the-post system, its share of rural votes has been declining.

The Barisan’s popularity peaked in 1995 with 65 percent of the popular votes, although in 2004 it won 90 percent of the parliamentary seats on 63.9 percent of the popular vote. Since that time, its sway via both the popular vote and parliamentary majorities have been declining. Its worst result was in 2013 when it won 59 percent of the parliamentary seats with only 46 per cent of the popular votes.

Since 1955 and the first general elections in what was then the Federation of Malaya, and since 1963, after the formation of Malaysia, save for a blip in 1969, the rural areas have traditionally been the vote bank for the Barisan Nasional and its predecessor, the Alliance.

Fixed Deposit in the east

And since 1963, the relatively under-developed states of Sabah and Sarawak, which today account for 57 parliamentary seats or about 26 percent of the seats in Parliament – have almost overwhelmingly voted for the BN; so much so that they are referred to as the BN’s fixed deposit.

Similarly, the rural heartland in the peninsula – where Felda rural land development schemes account for almost another quarter of the parliamentary seats – have also traditionally supported the BN. But today, save for Sarawak, it appears that it will be down to the wire in the Felda-seats and in Sabah.

There is no question that the traditional BN vote bank is hurting. Job opportunities are scarcer, the cost of living has risen, subsidies on many essential items such as petrol have been removed, college education no longer guarantees a good job, the ringgit has weakened against other currencies so much so that even once cheap havens like Thailand and India are now expensive.

Does that mean that the traditional vote bank is going to go against a government beset with corruption scandals and a bungling political leadership? That’s what many of the intellectuals and political pundits want to believe.

Could Go Either Way

But after seeing the Brexit vote and the election of US President Donald Trump, and in the absence of reliable polling, I am not so sure. My gut feel tells me that it could go either way. The trends over the last decade tell me that it could go either way. Anecdotal evidence in my travels through the country tell me it could go either way.

Yet, as all of us know, when you are about to mark the ballot, many other considerations come into play, considerations that do defy logic.

I take myself as an example. I am a businessman, well-travelled and I think, though some of my friends may dispute that, well-read. In 2013, I resolved that I could not, in all conscience, vote for the Barisan Nasional and I went to vote to fulfil that resolve. Yet, as I looked at the ballot paper, I realized that all my life, I had voted for the Barisan and I was not sure whether if the opposition alliance then won, they could rule any better.

I have been proven right to a certain extent because while the ruling party has continued to disappoint, the opposition alliance – a hodgepodge of differing dreams and ideologies, which a journalist friend of mine once described as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, has broken up with its strongest ally, the theocratic Parti Islam, which is now seemingly supportive of the Barisan Nasional.

But I was already in the booth and I had to vote: I split my vote – for Parliament, I voted the BN candidate whom I believed was sure to lose and for state, I voted the opposition candidate, who I was convinced would definitely win. I appeased my conscience and as so happened, the BN candidate did lose by a huge margin and the opposition candidate did win by a huge margin.

Barisan’s Toughest Fight

I am not sure that how I voted would be how a smart man votes. Therefore, as I have said earlier, I will not predict as I could be wrong but one thing I am sure – this is probably the ruling coalition’s toughest fight in my country’s six-decade polling history.

Most of us have this psychological block. Given that Malaysia has never been ruled by any party other than the Barisan, there is a mind-set that no matter what, the ruling coalition will not lose. As human beings, we are afraid of uncertainty. But since 2008, Malaysians have also come to accept that it is now a two-party state and that the current opposition can and might one day sit on the government benches.

Certainly, although the opposition parties seem to have had greater traction in working together in the last two general elections, still, they shoot themselves in the foot all the time.

Enter a Nonagenarian

Nevertheless, their decision to anoint the 92-year-old ex-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad as their prime minister-designate and their agreement in early January on seat allocations is certainly a major achievement.  In reality, with their leader Anwar Ibrahim in prison, the opposition parties do not have any other person as yet who can hold them together other than Mahathir, for all his faults.

Some may view the opposition’s choice of Mahathir and Anwar’s wife Wan Azizah Aziz as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister designate as a band-aid solution. Indeed it is. But given that besides Anwar, there is no one else who can command enough respect to hold this loose coalition together, Mahathir is the best solution for them. In the past, he has shown that he is a formidable adversary.

I believe the opposition has made inroads but they are still not a cohesive force. They are not as united as they were in the 2008 general elections or even the 2013 polls. Parti Islam seMalaysia,  the rural-based Islamist party, is almost totally estranged from them and they have two new partners – Amanah and Bersatu, headed by a new ally – Mahathir Mohamad.

Mahathir has opened many doors for the opposition – like in Malay-majority Kedah where he comes from and in Malay-dominated Felda schemes which were out of bounds to the opposition previously.  But even Mahathir has failed to make inroads into the fixed-deposit states of Sabah and Sarawak, whose populace have a deep mistrust for those from the peninsula, in particular Mahathir himself who is associated – rightly or wrongly – with many of the ills facing the country such as granting citizenship to Filipinos in Sabah to enlarge the BN’s vote bank in the 1990s.

Barisan’s Deep Purse

Further, the propensity and ability of the ruling party, despite its mounting weaknesses and scandals, to dish out money and goods during the pre-election and election campaign will have some effect in many of the rural areas. How does the unhappiness with a scandal-riven government offset the benefits of handouts? Does it square itself off and the vote bank remains with the ruling party? Or will people take the handouts and vote for change because they are just so fed up?

If we go by voting trends in the 60 years since Malaysia has gained independence, it would seem that dishing out goodies has worked. So has the gerrymandering which political parties in the developed countries as well use effectively, as Republicans in many US states can attest. Similarly, while the Barisan Nasional is again very likely to lose the popular vote in the next general election, it is uncertain that it will lose its parliamentary majority.

My view is that the last two general elections have shown that people have moved to accepting a two-party system. Despite being the gang-that-cannot-shoot-straight, the opposition has positioned itself as a viable alternative, winning in key states like Penang and Selangor and dramatically reducing the majorities in previous Umno strongholds such as Johore, Kedah and Perak. These states are still under threat. And the opposition has made inroads into other staunch Barisan strongholds. Hence, it is unlikely for the Barisan to win back the two-thirds majority it lost in 2008 or to improve on the 2013 lost popular vote.

If I am proven wrong, then I daresay that a two-thirds majority for the BN would surprise even the vast majority of BN leaders themselves. Publicly they may say they can and will win back the two-thirds majority; but privately, they are fearful that they will only scrape through with a simple majority. The possibility of losing has not escaped them either.

Surprise for the Barisan?

My view, like many of these leaders in the BN, is that the ruling coalition will find it hard to replicate even the results of the 2013 elections where they won 134 of 222 parliamentary seats although their strategists predict that “big data” shows they can win anywhere between 140 to 170 of the seats.

The opposition leaders I have spoken to are confident of winning 115 seats. You need 112 to form a simple majority. Having said that, I must also add both the Barisan and opposition were equally confident in 2013.

The more likely scenario is that the BN might win again, with support from Sarawak and Sabah, but rule with a smaller majority than even 2013. Still, with a perfect storm, all bets are off. For example, because PAS has split with their former opposition allies, the DAP and Anwar’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), there will be many three-cornered fights. In a scenario such as this, Barisan Nasional can again lose the popular votes, like David Cameron did in UK in the last elections, and still win comfortably.


But the more likely scenario is that the Islamist party will either be decimated or reduced to an inconsequential number of seats because the real fight is between the Barisan and the Pakatan Harapan. PAS has its pockets of support in the green belt of Terengganu, Kelantan and Kedah but that’s it.

The Path to the Future

Whatever the result in the Malaysian polls this year, the more interesting, and probably defining thing for the country will be the post-election scenario. What happens then will determine Malaysia’s path.

We are, as a nation, sliding fast down the slippery slope; and what we do post the 2018 General Elections after almost 10 years of being in a stupor because of the incessant politicking will decide whether we continue to slide or whether we make a serious attempt at re-taking our place as one of the leading economies in this part of the world.

A sad fact is that over the years, race, religion and politics have consumed Malaysians. As a fledgling nation, our founding fathers used to say that our diversity was our strength. In fact, one of the strongest taglines that made Malaysia well known throughout the world was its tourism promo “Malaysia Truly Asia.”

Racial, Religious Polarization

In the past decade, we have seen divisions over race, religion and politics worsen and we are a very polarised country today.

The education system we inherited from the colonialists has slowly but surely declined and those who can afford it prefer private education, which has seen private schools and colleges mushroom. This further adds to the inequality in income and the socio-economic divide.

The civil service and system of government, probably the one other thing we can thank the British colonialists for, has also declined considerably. Corruption has flourished and people don’t bat an eyelid when they hear of millions being misappropriated. Businessmen privately moan and groan about the corruption and leakages; but the truth is that it is many of these same businessmen who have corrupted the country by greasing palms and then raking in money by overcharging and overbilling in contracts or providing public services.

Civil servants and politicians have been found to live far beyond their means with in some cases more than a hundred million ringgit in cash and valuables, stashed in their bank accounts or hidden in their homes. Integrity is no longer that prized a virtue.

Independent Media Doesn’t Exist

Independent media virtually doesn’t exist in Malaysia; and the practitioners of social media, the so-called influencers, are generally as bad as the corrupt politicians they criticize selectively. Law enforcement agencies have lost so much credibility that even when they act against those breaking the law, the perception is that the perpetrator probably ran afoul of politics rather than running afoul of the law.

The custodians and the institutions which in the early years contributed to a strong Malaysia because of their integrity, their patriotism and their desire to see enhancement in the fortunes of their fellow countrymen – people such as senior public servants, politicians, heads of government agencies –  are getting rarer today.

I am not saying that the majority of these custodians have gone to the dark side. There are still good people with good values. What I am saying is that the majority of these good people, these custodians and institutions, have been cowed into silence and look the other way more often than stand firm on principles of integrity. The more custodians that seal their lips and look the other way, the more Malaysia will slide down the abyss to the point of no return.

The famous Renaissance poet Dante is attributed with having said that the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.

It’s a nice quote; but when faced with a choice of being censured, losing their jobs and their perceived respectability, do people in that position worry about a hell they have not seen, a hell that only faith will make us believe in, or do they try to escape the living hell of a vindictive and oppressive regime? For many, it’s easier to look the other way because state and non-state actors can shell out retribution with impunity, stifling the dissenting voice into silence.

But if Dante is right, then I can safely say that there are many in Malaysia who occupy important posts in government and in commerce today, who will be seated next to each other in the hottest seats in hell.

Malaysia is not the only country to face such problems; but Malaysia did not have these problems on this scale in its early days. That’s why it was successful.

Eating the Seed Corn

If we look at the world’s most successful nations, we find that they succeeded because they invested in education, in building values, in strengthening the rule of law, in ensuring the sanctity of institutions, in fighting corruption and abuse of power, in allowing freedom of expression, freedom of practising religion while curbing extremism, a healthy environment for civil society to flourish, conditions for job creation and economic growth and improving the quality of life of their people.

In a post 2018 general election scenario, no matter which party comes to power, Malaysia’s future will depend on whether they abandon the practices which have become the norm and work on building up the values which made it successful in the past. The system is not totally broken; it can still be fixed. Malaysia is not a failed state yet and can still be rescued.

It is a daunting task but if we look at Singapore, which was almost a backwater just 50-odd years ago, or Hong Kong, which was riddled with corruption, and look at how they came out of it, then surely, I believe, Malaysia can also do it. But if it is business as usual post general election 2018, then I fear for the future of my country; for the future of my children; and the future of their children.

If nothing changes, then the cross we bear because of race, religion and politics in Malaysia will also be the cross that our future generations have to bear. And the scary part is that we may not come out of it for a long, long time; perhaps generations.















By: Kalimullah Hassan - Asia Sentinel

Focus of Malaysian Sub Scandal Surfaces

Abdul Razak Baginda, the one-time adviser and close confidante of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was once romantically linked to the murdered jet-setting Mongolian translator and party girl Altantuya Shaariibuu, has popped up after years of discreet absence in the UK.

For someone who has been out of the public eye for the past decade, Razak Baginda has wasted no time, propelling himself onto the Malaysian lecture circuit over the past six months but at the same time inadvertently reminding the public he had been a key figure in what had been the biggest scandal in the country’s history until an even bigger one blew up over the state-backed investment company 1Malaysia Development Bhd., the subject of a US Justice Department investigation into the looting of public assets.

Razak Baginda is very different from the disheveled and frightened-looking man who emerged from jail on Oct. 31, 2006, acquitted without trial of abetting the murder of Altantuya, who was alleged to have once been Najib’s paramour. The 28-year-old mother, who was believed to have been pregnant at the time, was shot twice in the head by one of Najib’s bodyguards and her body was blown up with military explosives in a patch of jungle outside the suburban city of Shah Alam.

The allegation that Altantuya had been Najib’s mistress was revealed by the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam, engaged by Razak Baginda to stop Altantuya from creating a scene outside his house. According to a letter found after her death, she was demanding a cut of kickbacks from a multi-billion ringgit Malaysian government deal to purchase submarines from the French.

Razak Baginda once was one of the closest advisers to Najib, then the Defense Minister and Deputy PM (2000-2008), on government arms procurement projects. The political analyst was involved in the purchase of two Scorpene-class submarines and one Agosta-class submarine from the French naval dockyard unit DCN (Direction des Constructions Navales). The deal was worth around RM5 billion.

Hasty departure for the UK

On his release and acquittal, Razak Baginda was swamped by reporters who tried to interview him, but was guarded by a wall of policemen. A month later, at a press conference, he was guarded by a team of lawyers who monitored his answers. He immediately decamped to England, ostensibly to complete a doctorate at Oxford.

Seven years later, on Oct. 26, 2015, Razak Baginda emerged to deliver his first public talk in Kuala Lumpur at a “Special Forum” called “Reforming Malaysia: A Conversation with Razak Baginda.” The session was organized by a new think tank he had founded, called the Center for Global Affairs (ICON).

The former Malaysian PM, Mahathir Mohamad once said, “Melayu mudah lupa” (Malays easily forget) and Razak Baginda probably thought that Malaysians would have forgotten about him and the brutal murder.

Living abroad helped Razak Baginda avoid the glare of publicity and the anger of the Malaysian public who were furious at the High Court’s handling of the trial. The motive for the murder was never established although the murderers were said to have been offered RM50,000 for the killing.

Wife Implicates Najib

Few can forget the hysterical shout of Baginda’s wife, Mazlinda Makhzan, at the time of his arrest: “Why charge my husband, he does not want to be the prime minister?” an apparent reference to Balasubramaniam’s statement that Najib had passed Altantuya on to the political analyst because it wouldn’t look good to have a foreign mistress when he was elevated to become the country’s leader.

Importantly, there were also unexplained phone texts between Najib and Razak Baginda’s lawyer, Mohamad Shafee Abdullah, which alluded to Najib’s alleged interference in the case. One message read, “Pls do not say anything to the press today. i will explain later. RB (Razak Baginda) will have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost.”

Altantuya’s father, Setev Shaariibuu, has not received any justice for the murder of his daughter and has continued to demand that the Malaysian government give him answers about her death.

Two policemen, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, were found guilty of Altantuya’s murder in a trial that critics said was carefully orchestrated to keep from answering questions who had hired them to kill her. Sirul is now languishing in the Villawood Detention Center outside Sydney, vigorously wheeling and dealing for his release and asylum. Azilah remains in a Malaysian prison.

Razak Baginda probably thought that he could lead a quiet life by relocating to England but he didn’t reckon on the persistence of SUARAM, the Malaysian Human Rights NGO, which complained to the French authorities about the Scorpene deal in November 2009. That triggered a preliminary inquiry and a judicial investigation in Paris in 2012.  

Investigative stories Tell Tale of Scandal

The investigation was the subject of a multiple series of investigative stories by Asia Sentinel that won the Society of Publishers in Asia award for excellence in investigative reporting – Asia’s version of the Pulitzer Prize.

Finally, years later, on July 18, 2017, Razak Baginda was indicted in France for “complicity of bribery, acceptance of bribes and concealment of misuse of company assets.”  Two officials of a DCN subsidiary were also indicted on charges specifically of having bribed Najib Razak.

On Aug. 4, the SUARAM adviser, Dr Kua Kia Soong said, “The first indictment of the arms maker shows that SUARAM’s suspicion of commission paid to Malaysian officials in the Scorpene deal is well founded, and we have been vindicated.”

Asia Sentinel reported that the French investigation had revealed that Terasasi HK Ltd., a company owned by Razak Baginda and his father, received €30 million in “consultancy works,” the accepted terminology for kickbacks. Terasasi existed only as the name on the wall of a Hong Kong accounting company. As Asia Sentinel reported, French investigators also uncovered evidence that a Malaysia-based shell company, Perimekar, owned by Baginda’s wife, had received another €114 million in “consultancy services.”  

The money was said to have been passed on to the United Malays National Organization with the full knowledge of then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, among others, according to evidence provided to Asia Sentinel.

Timely Rebranding

Baginda’s rebranding is timely, especially as Malaysia’s 14th General Election is due soon. He could have retired a rich man from his alleged kickbacks from Scorpene and lived a life of luxury in England. He could have avoided the scrutiny of the Malaysian public.

“He probably thinks that the Malaysian public have forgotten (and forgiven him),” said a social cynic who declined to be named. “He believes he has done nothing wrong, especially as the courts did not find him guilty of Altantuya’s murder.”

It is highly likely that Razak Baginda is repositioning himself in the Malaysian political world, according to a Kuala Lumpur-based political analyst. “Perhaps, Najib summoned him to return as his confidante,” he said. “Najib’s Washington trip was a wash-out. It was probably arranged on the advice of his foreign advisers. The Malays disapprove of Trump’s anti-Islam and anti-Muslim policies.”

A Malay, Muslim and Malaysian, the political analyst “will be in a better position to advise Najib on foreign matters. He is probably testing the waters and seeing how the Malaysian public react to him over a range of issues like education, religion and radicalization.”

However, it is more likely that the French indictment may have spurred Baginda’s return to Malaysia over a desire to remain free.  Malaysia does not have an extradition treaty with France, unlike Britain. His stay in England would be risky.

Razak Baginda dismissed the French charge and said, “The French legal process is different from the Malaysian legal process. The term ‘charged’ in the context of the inquiry means placing the said individuals under ‘formal investigation’.”

We now see the comeback kid, Razak Baginda, re-engaging with Malaysian politics. He appears to be pushing the right buttons on many subjects. More importantly, as long as Najib is around, there is money to be made. ICON has held several forums and issued press releases with alarming regularity.

Pretensions as Oracle

This is proof that he wants to be heard on a range of subjects, upon most of which many Malaysians agree. On radicalization, he has urged the Home Ministry to monitor students, who studied in the middle-east, and warned that Malaysia was losing its reputation as a moderate nation. He has warned that the prominence of religion in schools will lower the quality of education. He questioned the failure of Malaysian leaders to confront the nationalists.

Razak Baginda has defended the bloated Malaysian civil service and blasted the journalist John Pennington for an article in “Asean Today” that unfavorably compared the Malaysian civil service with its Singaporean counterpart.

He also criticized Najib for his silence on the Rohingya issue at the 31st ASEAN Summit in Manila, saying it was a “missed opportunity” and then, on the following day, offered a groveling apology to Najib, saying “I got it wrong.”  He praised Najib’s sincerity in helping the Rohingyas, raising the issue with the Myanmar state counselor, Aung San Suu Kyi, and with President Trump. Saying that Najib’s actions were unprecedented, Razak Baginda described him as bold and strong, willing to voice his displeasure over a matter he cared about.

“Never before has a fellow ASEAN leader brought out what could be regarded as a domestic issue of another member country,” he said. “Kudos to the prime minister, as it shows his commitment to help the Rohingya.”

Still Buddies?

So are Najib and Razak Baginda in constant contact? Or is he positioning himself and working towards a smooth transition to become Najib’s political analyst? On his re-emergence onto the Malaysian socio-political scene, Suaram’s Kua said: “He seems to have a knack of seeking publicity when he’d be better off staying out of media attention. He’s more of a liability for Najib by showing up all over the place and reminding us of Altantuya. But he seems pretty gung-ho about his ‘freedom from prosecution’. We shall see.”

Both men have to tread a cautious path, said a political analyst, “but do they care? There is only so much Razak Baginda can do to help Najib, because one wrong step could make the whole Altantuya and Scorpene scandal blow up in Najib’s face, and further reduce his chances in GE-14. Even if it were true that Najib and Razak Baginda have resumed their cozy ties, it is established that they need one another to keep their secrets safe. Remember the adage about keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer still.”

Perhaps Najib is willing to take that chance, especially after the warning issued by the American Attorney-General, Jeff Sessions, on Dec. 4, when he said that Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal was the worst example of kleptocracy he had ever seen. Razak Baginda may need Najib to prevent an attempt by the French to subpoena him to the Scorpene trial, but Najib has an equal need to prevent Razak Baginda from giving evidence.

Mariam Mokhtar is a Malaysia-based journalist and a regular contributor to Asia Sentinel

Mahathir Changes Malaysia’s Political Equation

The battle lines for Malaysia’s 14th General Election have been laid, with the 92-year-old former Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, teaming up with Malaysian opposition parties in a bid to oust the current premier, Najib Abdul Razak, and wrest power away from the United Malays National Organization, which has led the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition since independence in 1963.

Nor could Najib use the argument that the Chinese will take over the nation, which has been a hobgoblin to frighten the rural Malay electorate for decades. Mahathir, who dominated UMNO and Malaysian politics as head of UMNO for 23 years from 1981 to 2003, is legally a Malay Muslim.

According to UMNO insiders, Najib is extremely confident. He believes the Barisan, which also includes the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress, could – with the help of almost-brutal gerrymandering – win as 140 seats in the 222-member parliament and, if things break their way, even take back 148-vote two-thirds majority that the coalition had held for decades

Mahathir’s selection as potential premier, opposition leaders say, could dramatically change that equation and bring down a party and coalition rife with corruption and cronyism. Individuals close to Najib have been charged in the biggest kleptocracy case ever brought by the United States Justice Department, which has confiscated a vast array of Malaysian-owned assets in the United States.

At the center of Malaysia’s politics is a racial calculus in which Malays fear that the Chinese, who dominate the country’s business world, would come to dominate the political one as well. 

With Mahathir at the helm, analysts say, Najib – picked as a protégé decades ago by Mahathir – can’t blame the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party for being the driving force for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition. During his years as prime minister, Mahathir was a Malay supremacist even though he is only half-Malay. His father came from the Indian subcontinent.

Mahathir is the undisputed come-back kid. The party he founded, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), has managed to unite the leaders of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the Democratic Action Party (DAP), and Aminah, a splinter that split away from the rural-based, fundamentalist Parti Islam se-Malaysia, or PAS.

The much-awaited GE-14 is expected to be a viciously contested general election. It will also be Najib’s toughest. On Jan. 8, Pakatan Harapan announced that Mahathir would be their interim prime minister until Anwar Ibrahim, the charismatic opposition figure who has been imprisoned on what many consider to be spurious charges since 2015, would be freed. This was not the news that Najib wanted.

Social media has been abuzz with views about Mahathir’s nomination, including a report that Najib’s adviser, Habibur Rahman, had approached both DAP leader Lim Guan Eng and Anwar’s daughter Nurul separately to offer them “attractive incentives” to try and broker a deal. His request was simple. He did not want DAP or PKR to withdraw from the election, or to support BN in GE-14. He merely wanted them to reject the nomination of Mahathir as the interim candidate for the opposition coalition. The request was reportedly rejected outright.

Anti-Mahathir critics have issued stark warnings amid signs that they are ganging-up on the former premier, an authoritarian figure who ruled the country with an iron fist, at one point triggering a roundup called Operation Lalang that swept up journalists, civil libertarians and the opposition figures with whom he is now making common cause without habeas corpus and jailing them for months under the country’s colonial-era Internal Security Act.

One Perak based-political observer called Mahathir “damaged goods. His gambles and ego projects, such as attempting to corner the tin market, huge forex losses, (the Proton national car project) and the Petronas Twin Tower, have cost the nation too much.It is unknown if Mahathir has belatedly discovered, now that he is on the other side, the value of a free press and an independent parliament and judiciary and the other institutions that he neutered as the country’s leader.

“He caused irreparable damage to our judiciary; entrenched institutional racism in the country and started the slide in our educational standards. He cannot be trusted to run the country again – even for a day.”

Kua Kia Soong, the director of Suaram, a Human Rights NGO, who was jailed Operation Lalang, has continued to demand that Mahathir enumerate the sins he has committed and apologize for each of them.

Kua has been slammed for his intransigence and his refusal to see the bigger picture, which is to get rid of Najib and win GE-14.

One person said, “Can he not see that Mahathir can win over more Malay voters? Does he think that the opposition will allow themselves to be under Mahathir’s yoke, if they win GE-14?”

Another political observer from Singapore said, “Dr M can shift 5 percent of Malay votes, which no other leader could. That can be critical.”

Last December, when it was first mooted that Mahathir would become the interim PM, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Abdul Rahman Dahlan, described it as a “sad day” for the opposition, and said, “…they have been in the political arena for so long, but they couldn’t find a younger candidate or fresh blood to become the leader of Malaysia. It’s sad and actually surprising, and I do not think it will go down well with the people.”

Khairy Jamaluddin, the Sports Minister, has waded into the debate about Mahathir’s nomination and said that the country will be plunged into chaos and political instability.

When Mahathir wrote his controversial book “The Malay Dilemma,” he was not afraid to list the Malays’ shortcomings, but he gave them a new sense of identity. The Ketuanan (Malays first) myth.

One political analyst said, “Although Ketuanan Melayu was detrimental to the young democracy, it provided the desired momentum to drive the Malays from their feudal mentality. With Mahathir’s affirmative action policies, the Malay middle class grew, but so did their ego and greed. They cast aside their moral values. For many, there was no going back.”

The upcoming general election will undisputedly be one of many firsts and ironies.

In GE-14, the PM and his former mentor will face one another from opposite sides of the political divide. Mahathir didn’t figure the “self-styled First Lady of Malaysia” (FLOM) into the mentoring equation. The equally power hungry and ambitious Rosmah Mansor is believed to be the driving force behind Najib, who redrew the political script.

The other irony is that Mahathir was rescued from the political wilderness by Razak Hussein, Najib’s father, when he was banned from UMNO in 1969 for insubordination towards Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s first prime minister.

Today, Mahathir seeks to destroy the political future of his savior’s son.

The problems such as cronyism and Malay nationalism that plague Malaysia today had their roots during Mahathir’s tenure. The controls that the nation’s founding fathers formulated, such as the independence of the judiciary, were dismantled by Mahathir.

Mahathir clipped the wings of the country’s nine sultans, whom he felt were abusing their power, especially when it was alleged that he had to rescue at least one sultan from gambling debts and placate an angry public when another sultan was accused of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a subject.

If he were to win GE-14, would he continue to follow this path? Some members of the rakyat would like to think that he would.

Today, despite criticizing Mahathir for his past policies, Najib has honed them.

Najib has until August 2018 to call the elections, but he is aware that timing is everything. The indications are that he will call GE-14 after the Chinese New Year, which falls on 16 February. He will not wait till after June, because that is when Anwar Ibrahim is due to be released. With his release, a newly energized rakyat would demand that Anwar be pardoned and be made the PM. Najib cannot afford to have this happen.

Najib cannot hold GE-14 now, because the Selangor state’s redistricting exercise will not be complete until March. Selangor is the jewel in the economic crown. If he could wrest Selangor from the opposition, it would be a political coup.

Najib had hoped to put Pakatan Harapan on the spot, and to capitalize on the fact that the opposition coalition is currently leaderless. But the announcement of Mahathir’s opposition leadership put paid to that. Mahathir as interim PM does not auger well for Najib.

In the past, Najib and his political machinery focused their attacks on Anwar, then shifted the focus onto the DAP. Observers will have noticed the drip-drip effect of perceived “manufactured” threats against Islam, such as a baseless claim by a pro-UMNO lecturer that Selangor State Assembly speaker Hannah Yeoh, in her book, “Becoming Hannah” was advocating converting Malays to Christianity.

In recent months, the party apparatchiks have increased their attacks against Mahathir, tell-tale signs that they see him as a serious threat. That will explain the increasing criticisms of Mahathir, his past policies and his closest aides.

The internal revenue department has scrutinized both his business friends’ and sons’ income tax returns. Even family members have not been spared. Mukhriz, Mahathir’s son, was horrified to discover that his daughter’s jet-set lifestyle was exposed.

Mahathir as the interim PM is disastrous for Najib. This will stymie UMNO’s attempt to denounce a PH PM such as Lim Kit Siang or Lim Guan Eng, because he is Chinese. Najib cannot then say that the DAP or the Chinese are dictating the charge of the Opposition.

With Mahathir at the helm, the Malays, both urban and rural, are more confident to support the Opposition. Indoctrination is strongest amongst the Malays, unlike the non-Malay community. Malays are still fearful and wary of being dominated by the Chinese. Issues like 1MDB have little traction amongst them, but the rising cost of living, and the scandals surrounding FELDA, have hurt them most.

GE-14 means different things, to different people. The rakyat sees GE-14 as a means to remove an oppressive government and put Malaysia on the right track.

Najib and Umno see GE-14 as a struggle for political survival and physical freedom. And, while a few may see the election as a clash between a mentor and his pupil, or a clash between two warlords Mahathir himself sees it as a means to restore his tarnished reputation after the decline in the moral values of the Malays, that his policies have created. 

Mariam Mokhtar is a regular correspondent for Asia Sentinel