Reflections on the July 9 March in Malaysia: In Search of a Just Equilibrium in Malaysia's Political System *Siti Nurjanah Arab countries are on the verge of change. It started in Tunisia, on January 14, 2011, when President Zine El Abidine ben Ali resigned after 23 years in power, and was followed in Egypt, when Hosni Mubarak resigned after a 30 year reign. Popular uprisings sparked revolutions throughout the region, from Yemen at the tip of the Saudi Peninsula, to Bahrain in the Southern Persian Gulf, to Syria in the West Mediterranean, and to Libya in North Africa. One way to look at the ground realities of the Arab Spring is – as U.S. President Barak Obama did in his May 19 speach about the uprisings – as a crystallization of the frustration felt by a citizen who was denied his basic rights, his right to a living and to dignity. Poverty and senseless treatment of government's official drove Mohamed Bouazizi to commit self-immolation. This set the revolution in motion in Tunisia and soon became contagious throughout the region.1 Frequently, when poverty and humiliation meet, it provokes outrage and revolution. People who live in poverty are especially angered when the government which they expect to be sympathetic to their misfortune acts to worsen it. Arab countries that are in motion for change, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, share declining economic growth and high unemployment. These twin factors often become the leading ingredients in deepening and complementing political unrest. Similarly, an authoritarian government often becomes a catalyst for political uprisings. Before the incident, Mohamed Bouazizi articulated publicly his threat to immolate himself if the local authority kept refusing to receive and hear his complain over police violence and the confiscation of his vending cart. His action was a declared and premeditated act of protest to the government's degrading treatments that many have shared. Relative to the economies of North Africa and the Middle East, Malaysia's economy is strong. But similar to the polities of North Africa and the Middle East, Malaysia's politics have been authoritarian. Malaysia has been ruled by semi-authoritarian government for more than five decades. Malaysia has the longest ruling government – a dominant political party coalition – in the "democratic world." The Bersih [Clean] 2.0 Movement of Malaysia had a similar presumption to the Arab Spring. Were there any similar circumstances that drove people of different places and environments to go to the demonstrations? Clearly, both economic and political factors were at work. But what other factors contribute to the momentum and influence whether a revolution and struggle for change change a regime? Does the Malaysian government and do the Malaysian people identify with the Arab Spring and the struggle to establish democracy through peaceful revolution. Or does the absence of the military in Malaysian politics prevent Malaysians from identifying with the protesters in Arab countries? While separated by thousands of miles, there are some similarities between Malaysia and Arab countries. Islam is the state religion of Malaysia, as in most Arab countries. Malaysia is based on a constitutional monarchy and ruled by semi-authoritarian government. The major difference between Malaysia, on the one hand, and Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, on the other, is that Malaysia is economically stabile with a sound security status, while Egypt, Libya and Tunisia have frequently experienced economic hardship. More importantly, instead of a strong military presence, Malaysia is ruled by a civilian government, controlling the country through police coercion and surveillance. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were controlled by military figures at the head of governments who relied heavily on the military to sustain their power. Arab Spring versus Malaysia Bersih Some observers have drawn parallels between the Arab Spring and the Malaysian July 9, 2011 march. Wong Choon Mei, Malaysian Chronicle columnist described the July 9 incident as “Malay's own first mini-Arab Spring.”2 And the Malaysian Premier, by denying that Malaysia’s protests were parallel to those in Arab countries, also unwittingly confirmed the notion, saying, “It's not so much about electoral reform. They want to show us as though we're like the Arab Spring governments in the Middle East.”3 Arab Spring and Malaysia's Bersih 2.0 embody similar revolutionary notion and illuminate revolutionary energy after a long period of enduring poverty, poor governance, oppressive, and unjust governments. Bersih is a coalition of non-governmental organizations that are campaigning for electoral reform. On June 19, Bersih’s chairperson, Ambiga Sreenevasan, spoke to the public and laid out the plan for the July 9 march. She declared that the group was to be non-partisan and sent invitations to all parties to join the march to “walk together with the people” to fight the current electoral system. All levels of elections in Malaysia are alleged to involve widespread electoral frauds and violations, inlcuding use of force and of “money, media, and machinery” at he behest of the National Front (Barisan Nasional) coalition. Malaysian scholar E. T. Gomez refers to the nexus of official use of “money, media, and machinery” as “3Ms” of Malaysian electoral politics.4 The opposition parties were denied an opportunity to galvanize public opinion through the media and public fora, and the United Malays National Organization-led (UMNO) coalition also blocks opposition parties from arguing against UMNO political hegemony, except during an eight to ten day campaign period before elections. After the Bersih march, the Election Committee has shown interest of Bersih demand to extend the period of campaign.5 The struggle of Malaysian people against the ruling semi-authoritarian government for deeper democracy became more apparent before 2008 general elections, when the Bersih 1.0 movement started to kick off in November 2007. The movement had a powerful effect on the voters and granted the opposition parties a landslide political victory in 5 states in the 2008 general elections. The goal of the Bersih movement is to alter the political system and begin changing the electoral system, as opposed to hastily terminating the regime, as the Arab Spring aimed to do. Malaysia's electoral system is tightly regulated and designed to ensure the United Malays National Organization-led (UMNO) coalition of National Front (Barisan National) keeps winnings. The Bersih movement is determined to demonstrate that it is non-violent, transparent, even engaging all parties including the coalition party members, as oppose to underground and reactionary movement as it is of Arab Spring. The Malaysia Bersih has publicly announced its plan and sent out invitations for march, including to the coalition party members. Despite 50,000 Malaysian people marched and demanded more fair and freedom, the crowd was peaceful and still the government crack down the crowd violently. The demand was heard and circulated by media, the movement also acknowledged by the King and better understood by the ruling party its political heftiness that the movement has carried.6 Racial based economic policy Malaysia has one of the most stable economies in the region. It is one of the top 20 exporters in the world, and has an inflation rate (consumer price) at or below 3%. The only inflation surge was in 2009, which reached 5% when the other countries in the region reached above 10% on average. And Malaysia's economy saw inflation of only 1% the following year, in 2010. The unemployment rate is low, at 3.5%, much lower than the countries of the region, which reach 7% on average. In fact, the real unemployment figure is most likely much lower than 3.5%. Many women don't enter the workforce for religious reasons; and many workers, especially women, coming from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Nepal, fill these jobs. Malaysia is the only country in the region with large numbers of foreign workers, to meet its domestic and export-oriented labour demand. The troubling aspect of this fine economic figure is that Malaysia economic policy takes a sectarian appraoch. If we only pointed our attention solely to this figure, it would be rather baffling to understand why the Bersih movement was so widely supported. Malaysia's economic strategy is based on racial political segregation. This was first articulated within the National Economic Policy (NEP) and continues today within the National Vision Policy (NVP). The NVP incorporates the very essence of discriminative policies of NEP and NDP, favoring “proportion of Bumiputera share capital ownership and control of corporations will be increased to at least 30 per cent."7 The racially discriminatory regulations would not be so effective without a political system that has cut and diced the society into pieces based on their race and religion, from the educational system and cultural system, to prohibitions on inter-religious and inter- racial dating and marriage. Under the NEP, the Malay (Bumiputera) granted a long list of privileges to Malay from scholarship, housing, business ownership, employment, assisted saving and more, as oppose to other two ethic groups, Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian- Indian. Malaysia's growing economy is among big factor of how the status quo can last for more 54 years. Within Malaysian society, there are only two groups of ethnic that need to be satisfied, which is the Malay and the Chinese, at the expense of the Indian (Tamil) Malaysian. Indian approximately make about 7% of the total population, faces the utmost unjust treatment has the longest history of constant fighting for equal treatment. Score of historical protest often led by the Indian Malaysian, but without wide support and solidarity of the majority—the Bumiputera, the fight for change of political system will be difficult to achieve tangible result.