1.

MALAYSIA DEMOCRACY BEFORE 2008

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
The Government of Malaysia is closely modeled after the Westminster
parliamentary system, a direct Influence of the British colonization which ended in
1957. Malaysia has bicameral Parliament consisting of a non-elected upper house
and an elected lower house. The upper house has 70 seats, of which 44 are
designated by the King and 26 appointed by the state parliament.
The lower house has 222 seats, all ofwhich are occupied by those who won by direct
election. In the lower house, ever since the independencein 1957, the Malay-led
party UMNO (United Malays National Organization) has been part of rulingcoalition
(currently called Barisan Nasional (BN) which has been in power for more than 30
years).Previous prime ministers since the independence have always been the
leaders of UMNO. In particular,the government granted itself a power to diminish
civil rights such as by banning criticism against thegovernment after the Malay-Sino
riots in 1969xi. Along with this, in 1971, the government amended theConstitution
to make illegal any criticism, even in Parliament, of the Malaysian monarchy, the
specialposition of Malays in the country, or the status of Malay as the national
language
(Sensitive
MattersAmendment)These
implementations
indicate
nondemocratic and Malay-favored features of the political system in Malaysia.
DEMOCRACY DURING MAHATHIR
In addition, democracy during the era of Dr. Mohamad Mahathirs (1981 and 2003),
Malaysia became increasingly authoritarian. A stark example of this is the dismissal
and imprisonment of the Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. For the first
time in more than a decade, the Malaysian regime headed by Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad is being rocked by a continuing wave of anti-government
demonstrations and rallies. Tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the
streets of Kuala Lumpur, resulting 150 people have been arrested.
Sacked from his government posts on September 2 1998 and expelled from the
ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), Anwar was subjected to a
barrage of flimsy allegations in the government-controlled press, involving sexual
indecency, hindering police investigations and sedition.
Anwar, who has vigorously denied the accusations, was arrested on September 20
and held for nine days under the country's Internal Security Act (ISA) before being
taken into court on Tuesday and charged with three counts of corruption and four of
homosexual acts. He had visible bruising to the face and neck and accused the
police of beating him unconscious on the first night of his detention.

PRESS &SPEECH FREDOM DURING MAHATHIR

Government in Malaysia provides freedom of speech and press. However, there are
some legal limitations. The government restricted freedom of expression and
journalists practiced self-censorship in order to protect national security, order of
public and to maintain friendly relations with other countries.
As for example, Internal Security Act (ISA) allow the detention orders to permit the
continuously detainment of people and the order is renewed in term of two years.
The ruling government can take away the individuals rights from judicial review by
using this act.
Besides that, comments on sensitive issues such as racial and religious matters are
prohibited by the Sedition Act. Political parties would be charged under the Sedition
Act if they had raised sensitive issues and threatened national stability.
Furthermore, press freedom is limited by the Printing Presses and Publication Act
(PPPA). Under this act, the publication of malicious news is made as a punishable
offense. A permit must be applied annually to the Government for domestic and
foreign publications. This act was aimed to prevent distorted news from
disseminated to the public.

DEMOCRACY DURING ABDULLAH AHMAD BADAWI

However, the political environment has been steadily changing in Malaysia. Prime
Minister BadawiAbdullah, who succeeded Mr. Mahathir in 2003, focused on
eliminating corruptive practices which increased during the previous administration.
Mr. Abdullah gave more power to anti-corruption agencies and arrested several
public figures who conducted bribery under Mr. Mahathirs rule.

Abdullah also advocated for open politics which encouraged political participation of
non-governmental organizations. Although domestic media is still unambiguously in
favor of the ruling coalition, they started to pay more attention to points made by
the opposition parties. This created an atmosphere in which people find much easier
to criticize the government. In parallel to the top-down transition, an expansion of
internet has vastly increased the opportunities and channels for sending out
information among rapidly increasing internet users.
Between 2004 and 2008, many blogs were created by independent internet media
most of which delivered critics against the government. The opposition parties also
make use of the technology. It is reasonable to say that the dramatic decline in the
ruling party in the 2008 lower house election may have been caused by a combined
effect of the open politics policy and the spread of internet culture in the society.
In April 2009, Mr. Abdullah stepped down and was succeeded by his deputy, Dato
Seri NajibRazak.

2. INDONESIA TRANSFORMATION TO DEMOCRACY.

After decades of authoritarian rule, Indonesian politics were to be reformed in order
to give the Indonesian people more power in the process of political and economic
decision making. This new period is known as the period of Reformation and is
marked by structural changes (such as the decentralization of power to the regions
and limits to the power of the presidency), but also marked by continuities (such as
corruption, poverty and clustering of capital at the top).
The downfall of Suharto New Order in 1998 brought about opportunity to revert
back to democracy by replacing the authoritarian political system surfaced.
The citizens of the nation created a spontaneous mass movement to democratize
the country, and soon after Soeharto officially stepped down as president,
community leaders established political parties and exercised freedom of
association and speech.
New laws in politics were issued in early 1999, and the 1945 Constitution was
amended to enforce democracy in the national political system. Democratization at
the national level was carried out in conjunction with provincial and district/ city
level governments.
The Law on Regional Autonomy was passed in 2000 to provide broad based
autonomy to provincial governments, and the freedom that was opening up at the
national level was trickling down to the regional level.
Political parties exponentially grew from earlier only three major political parties
Golkar Party, the United Development Party (PPP) and Indonesian Democratic Party
(PDI) to 48 at that time, according to data from the General Elections Commission
(KPU).
It was President BJ Habibie that called for expedited elections following public
pressures to correct the result of 1997 elections. Thirteen months after he assumed
office, the legislative elections took place in 1999. Abdurrahman Gus Dur Wahid
was elected president on October 20, 1999. And in an unexpected political twist, the
tenure was shortly ended in 2001 during an extraordinary plenary of Peoples
Assembly (MPR).
More than two decades after Indonesia began its process of democratization, it is
high time to examine how this has developed and progressed. To date, democracy
has only been measured qualitatively that is, based on subjective estimations,
without any clear benchmark data. Academicians, media and politicians resort to

look up at indexes available from outside. The most frequently cited indexes were
from Americas The Freedom House and the Economist Intelligent Unit.
Despite its reliability, the two indexes reflected Indonesias democracy development
from the outside as both measure on national scale and did not provide data on
what happened in the provincial levels.
It was deemed vital to have a quantitative measurement that will provide a clear
picture on the level of democracy and will enable comparison in order to address
inconsistencies or deficits. In doing so across Indonesia, the diversity of the country
will be represented, as the level and form of democracy may differ across different
parts of the country.
The idea was conceived in early 2007 followed by gruelling and tedious works of
finding the right formula to produce the Index. Jointly initiated by the United Nations
for Development Programs, the National Development Planning Board (Bappenas)
and Central Statistics Agency (BPS), five figures Maswadi Rauf, MusdahMulia, Malik
Gismar, SyarifHidayat and AgustParengkuan -- were grouped as team of experts
tasked to develop the Index component.

3. 3 MAIN REASON OF ASEAN FORMATION

1. To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural
development in the region through joint endeavors in the spirit of equality
and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous
and peaceful community of Southeast Asian Nation.
For an example, ASEAN executey ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).
AFTA does not apply a common external tariff on imported
goods. Each ASEAN member may impose tariffs on goods
entering from outside ASEAN based on its national schedules.
However, for goods originating within ASEAN, ASEAN members
are to apply a tariff rate of 0-5%
2. To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice
and the rule of law in the relationship among countries for the region.

For an example, in 2009, ASEAN established the ASEAN

Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights to
promote human rights in the ten ASEAN countries. The
Declaration details ASEAN nations' commitment to human
rights for its 600 million people. Among those rights
including

The right to a safe, clean and sustainable environment

Protection from discrimination in treatment for people

suffering from communicable disease, including
HIV/AIDS.

The right for development aimed at poverty alleviation

3. To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of

common interest in the economic, social, cultural and administrative
fields.
As an example, in 1970 ASEAN had reinforced its collective
power of diplomacy. Japans massive production of synthetic
rubber posed a threat to the natural rubber industry in
Southeast Asia. Facing this rubber problem, ASEAN demanded,
as a group unified to apply pressure, that Japan should have
ministerial-level talks with ASEAN. On the request of ASEAN,
Japan and ASEAN established a forum for negotiations and both
sides finally agreed that Japan would control the production and
export of synthetic rubber.

4. TUN ABDULLAH AHMAD BADAWI CONTROVERSIES (2004-2008)

NON INTERFERENCE APPROACH
Pak Lak sendiri telah membuat kenyataan bahawa jika ada perkara penting yang
perlu keputusan segera,mana-mana Kementerian boleh terus mengambil keputusan
sendiri tanpa perlu membawa kepada Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri. Ini bermakna
beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri tidak lagi mengawal atau ada kawalan keatas
kementerian-kementerian.
Keputusan sesuatu kementerian itu boleh mengikut budi bicara menterinya sahaja
tanpa diketahui oleh Jemaah Menteri atau pun Perdana Menteri. Ini bermakna
check and balance dalam sistem pentadbiran Kementerian Kerajaan
terhakis.Apabila keputusan itu menimbulkan kontroversi dan masalah kepada
negara, beliau hanya dapat menjawab: Saya tidak sedar, Saya tidak tahu,
Saya tidak pasti dan lain-lain lagi.
Walaupun Perdana Menteri beliau tidak ada sistem kawalan Hands on ke atas
jentera pentadbiran Kerajaan. Para Menteri pula rasa amat senang sebab tidak ada
ketetapan arah atau hala tuju yang tertentu untuk mencapai sesuatu matlamat
mengikut dasar yang terpilih.Menteri berasa cukup bebas membuat keputusan dan
mereka menganggap Pak Lah memang terbuka dan telus kerana mereka senang
dengan cara non interference atau tidak masuk campur oleh Perdana Menteri itu.

CASE ON ECM LIBRA

ECM Libra menguruskan penjualan saham kumpulan Hospital Pantai kepada syarikat
Singapura.Penjualan ini menimbulkan kontroversi kerana penjualan itu seharusnya
mendapat kelulusan Kerajaan dahulu.Bagaimana penjualan ini boleh berlaku hingga
syarikat asing dapat menguasai Hospital Pantai?
Ini bermakna tanpa kawalan, Kementerian berkenaan telah dengan sewenangwenangnya meluluskan penjualan tersebut tanpa merujuk kepada Perdana Menteri
atau menepati dasar Kerajaan.Apabila terjadi kontroversi lagi barulah Pak Lah
hendak siasat.Pak Lah selesaikan isu ini dengan mengarahkan Khazanah Nasional
Berhad menggunakan wang rakyat sekalil agiu ntuk membeli balik saham Hospital
Pantai daripada syarikat Singapura itu.Sekali dengar, tindakan Pak Lah itu
memanglah baik tetapi keputusan itu sebenarnya terpaksa dibayar dengan wang
rakyat yang berlebihan.

CASE ON JAMBATAN BENGKOK

Antara Februari ke Mac 2006, Pak Lah telah menyatakan pendirian beliau yang
cukup tegas untuk meneruskan projek jambatan tersebut walauapa pun yang
terjadi. Rakyat juga tidak pernah membantah terhadap projek itu.Malah rakyat
cukup sedar bahawa pembinaan Jambatan itu akan membawa faedah yang besar
kepada negeri Johor khasnya dan Malaysia amnya. Walaubagaimanapun, pada April
2006, beliau tiba tiba membatalkan projek tersebut.
Antara kerugian yang harus ditanggung adalah :
(a) Bayaran gantirugi kepada Syarikat Gerbang Perdana.
(b) Tuntutan Kerajaan Negeri Johor keatas kawasan tanah yang telah diberi percuma
dengan cara pertukaran atau swap dengan kawasan Tambak Johor, tetapi apabila
projek itu dibatalkan KerajaanNegeri Johor menuntut balik kawasan tanah atau ganti
rugi bagi projek yang tidak jadi itu.
(c) Oleh kerana jambatan sudah batal, maka perlu pula membina jejambat baru
untuk menghubungi pusat CIQ yang telah siap dibina dengan Tambak Jahor
(jejambat ini tidak perlu jika projek jambatan tidak dibatalkan). Ini memakan kos
yang lebih tinggi.
Tiga perkara ini akan melibatkan kos yang berlipat ganda lebih tinggi dari kos
membina jambatan yang terbatal.

5. MANAGING MEDIA LEE KUAN YEW

For Lee Kuan Yew, the media was one of three institutions in Singapore he told an
aide he needed to control in order to govern effectively. The other two were the
Treasury and the armed forces.

In Singapore, the most distinctive feature on the press scene is not the existence of
political controls, for these exist elsewhere, but the newspapers seeming
acceptance of their lot. Journalists responses range from stoic silence, as when The
Business Times and its sister papers ran no editorials protesting its editors
prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, to a masochistic turning of the other
cheek, as when columnists join politicians in decrying Western-style press freedoms.
What accounts for this unique state of affairs? The answer lies in a system of press
management combining watertight legal controls with a compelling political
ideology that encourages not just obedience, but also active support.

The controls operate at two levels. The first, which is the older and more common,
is made up of various licensing and national security laws. Press laws inherited from
the British require all newspapers to be licensed; licenses can be revoked at any
time, effectively killing a publication. Journalists must also beware the Internal
Security Act, under which they can be detained without trial. They can be fined or
jailed if they are judged to have breached contempt of court or of contempt of
parliament laws. The Official Secrets Act deters reporters from being on the
receiving end of leaks, while libel laws compel them to take extreme care with any
information that could hurt officials reputations.
The government wielded these powers most aggressively in the 1970s, when the
license of The Singapore Herald was withdrawn and four Nanyang Siang Pau
pressmen were jailed under the I. S. A. The 1990s were less traumatic. The O. S. A.
prosecution of Business Times editor Patrick Daniel, together with four other
individuals, was apparently not intended to crush either him or the paper but to
signal to civil servants that leaks would not be tolerated. Daniel returned to work
after being found guilty and paying a fine. One magazine was suspended: Womans
Affair ran a feature on the PAPs female MPs that included a few critical comments,
and was judged to have strayed into political commentary in contravention of the
aims stated in its license.

The governments second level of control addresses precisely this point. More than
20 years old, it has been so effective in fulfilling its objective of behind-the-scenes
control that most Singaporeans are not even aware of it, even though it is the main
instrument shaping how the press operates.

The law in question is the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, which in an
amendment passed in 1977, after the Herald was closed down empowers the
government to determine the composition of a newspaper companys board of
directors. Newspaper companies must be publicly listed, and their shares divided
into ordinary and management shares. The government can select who holds
management shares. Through the chairman and directors, the government can also
ensure that the senior editors who serve as the main gatekeepers of the press are
trustworthy. With this mechanism in place, the government needs neither to post its
officials directly into top newsroom positions, nor to nationalize the press. In that
respect, its control of the press differs from the way it has managed.
6. ASEAN based on article title Unpromising Start, Promising Future
Asean was formed in August 1967 surrounded by a great uncertainty in the region.
The Unpromosing Start was use to describe the situation because during that time :
1. Vietnam War 1969 was currently takes place, and it was spreading to
Cambodia. The region was caught up in communist insurgencies. After the
Vietnamese attacked Cambodia, the foreign minister took the initiative to
convene a special meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers in Bangkok in Jan
1979. In a joint statement, they deplored the invasion and called for the
withdrawal of all foreign forces in Cambodia. ASEAN face a common
enemy the communist threat in guerillas insurgencies, backed by North
Vietnam, China and Soviet Union. ASEAN needed stability and growth to
counter and deny the communist social and economic conditions for
revolution.
2. The fall of Saigon to the communist in April 1975 increased ASEAN sense
of the danger from subversion and insurgency. ASEAN had to undertake
economic development more effectively to reduce domestic discontent.
3. The role of President Suharto was crucial for the success of ASEAN. A
proposed on a lower tariff among ASEAN country members were not
supported by Indonesia, as the host of Asian Summit in February 1976.
However, ASEAN manage to make a recovery that describe the terms of Promising
Future . By the mid 1980s ASEAN had established as a rational Third World grouping
and was becoming the most dynamic region of the developing world. By opening up
their economies to trade and foreign investments , the countries of ASEAN achieved
6-8 percent economic growth yearly for more than a decade.
The ASEAN membership also enlarging. From only Indonesia, Malaysia, Philipines,
Singapore and Thailand, ASEAN received new membership from Vietnam(1995),
Mynmar and Laos (1997) and Cambodia (1999)

7. PATANI REBELLION -; CAUSES AND EFFECTS TO MALAYSIA

CAUSES
The root of the conflict are decades-old separatist demands, with many residents of
these three provinces (Pattani Yala Narathiwat) - which weren't incorporated into the
Thai state until the early 20th century -calling on Bangkok to grant them at least
local autonomy.
Analysts agree that the major reason why the conflict has persisted this long is that
the Thai state has, for the most part, shown little interest in addressing local
grievances in the south. The government, and in particular the current military
junta, appears to be unwilling to make even the most basic concessions to the
insurgents. The causes includes the following :-

Economic and social factors have contributed to the rebellion, particularly

given that the southern provinces have lower incomes than the rest of the
country and generally have the lowest levels of education

The three provinces have a long history of resistance in Bangkok. After the
imposition of direct rule in 1992, opposition was led by the ousted royal
families and charismatic Islamic leaders. Protest were strongest when Malay
culture was perceived to be under threats. The introduction of compulsory
state education in 1921 and reports of the closure of traditional Islamic
schools, led to fierce rebellions.

Resistance also increased against the ultra nationalistic policies of the first
Philbulsongkhram government (1938-44) which attempts t ban Malay dress
and Malay language, redefine Malay Muslims as Thai Muslim and close down
Islamic Courts.

EFFECTS TO MALAYSIA
In 1961, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman expressed open sympathy for Malay
Muslims in Thailand noting at an UMNO meeting that those who fled oppression had
been allowed to settle in Malaysia.The policy of allowing dual citizenship was also
adopted around this time to assist southern Muslims.

Senior Malaysia political figures, intelligence agencies and Muslims groups such as
ABIM, also established extensive links with Southern Thailand resistance groups.
Until the late 1980s authorities even permitted these groups to established
operational headquarters in Malaysia.
During Abdullah Ahmad Badawi act as Prime Minister, he had sent his deputy, Datuk
Seri Najib Tun Razak to Bangkok where he agreed to Thaksins request that Malaysia
send Islamic lecturers to the south to teach Muslims a moderate form of Islam and
turn them away from militant doctrines.
In August 2005, 131 Thai Muslims fled across the order to Kelantan, declaring they
had lost faith in the governmentss ability to protect them. Caught in the dilemma,
Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid said Malaysia had no formal refugee programmed but
gave humance treatment to people fleeing violence. A month later he moved them
further from the border to Terengganu and remained steadfast that it could not
deport them back to Thailand without assurance that they would be safe.
During the curse of this conflict, Malaysia used both the OIC and ASEAN to pressure
Thailand.