Deliberative Democracy Vis-A-Vis Civil Society Movements in Malaysia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(21), pp. 8399-8409, 23 September, 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.1121 ISSN 1993-8233 ©2011 Academic Journals Review Managing the state-civil society relations in public policy: Deliberative democracy vis-a-vis civil society movements in Malaysia Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani College of Law, Government and International Studies (COLGIS), University of Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: 604-9286679, 6013-5990891. Fax: 604-9286565. Accepted 13 July, 2011 This paper is trying to examine the state-civil society relation and also argue from the theory of deliberative democracy in explaining the roles of civil society in Malaysia. Carolyn Hendriks sees deliberative, from two fundamental approaches; there are micro deliberative which concentrates on defining the procedural conditions of a structured deliberative forum and macro deliberative which are more concerned with the messy, unstructured deliberation which takes place in the public sphere. With the combination of civil society and deliberative democracy, this paper will open up the discussion on the state-civil society relations in Malaysia. It manages to trace that Malaysian civil society movements, in engaging and managing the relation with the state, have employed both deliberative methods of deliberative democracy. In fact, Malaysian civil society has gone a step further by joining the opposition party and contesting in the election for power due to hostile relation between the state and civil society. However, the reality is that there are too many considerations that need to be contemplated by the state and civil society in their relations, especially when it involves national security and race issues. Key words: Civil society, deliberative democracy, Malaysia. INTRODUCTION The preservation of inter racial harmony appears to be (NGOs) should be closely monitored as they have the the legitimising factor that props up the argument sup- ability to influence public opinion, endanger public order porting the ruling elite’s domination of the government, and even obstruct well-planned, national development. proposing the idea that political organisations should The state has labelled advocacy-oriented NGOs together consent to the larger programmatic mission of the state- with the organised left, dissident student movements, representing-the-nation (Nair, 1999). Generally, the labour groups, and opposition political parties an ‘internal government, including the prime minister, does not set a other’ against whom society must struggle to remain high priority on civil society movement in Malaysian peaceful, unified, and secure. Before, NGOs and other democracy. Indeed, the government is of the view that dissident groups were labelled ‘communist’, now, they opposition parties and civil society’s activists, often are lambasted as ‘Western’ or ‘non-national’. For encouraged by foreign countries and organisations, are a instance, former Federal Territory Minister Abu Hassan hindrance to the country’s economic development and Omar declared in December 1986 that seven groups – jeopardise its stability (Milne and Mauzy, 1999). Former two opposition parties and five NGOs – were out to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (1982) argues that the destroy ‘the country’s political and social fabric’ (Tan and activities of movements in civil society that tend to Singh, 1994). Thus, the role of this group in politics is so meddle in politics should be curbed as they clearly aim to essential to ensure the smoothness of democratic system weaken government authority and do not contribute to in Malaysia, credibility of the judiciary, effectiveness of the public good. The government is of the opinion that the police institution, and media. The political organisa- opposition parties and non-governmental organisations tion is likely to be seen as the group that will maintain 8400 Afr. J. Bus. Manage. the effectiveness and efficiency of all those political insti- A range of restraints however still remains in place or has tutions for the public good, although, they will probably been added, including the effective denial of judicial face a risk of government’s sanctions. review of government decisions (Amnesty International, Restrictive laws and the full authority vested in the 1999). Minister of Home Affairs to decide on the establishment Concern for political freedom in Malaysia is not high and activity of any association under the Societies Act because political competition is not as great as, for 1966 (1998) has diminished the role of political organisa- example, in Western countries. Singh (1990) points out tion and political speech. The Societies Act 1966 (1998) that lobbying methods used by pressure groups in consolidates the various existing ordinances that Western countries are ‘just not available or possible in regulated and restricted the formation and activities of Malaysia’. The result is a very narrow and officially societies, clubs, organisations, associations and political defined sphere of the political within which state agents parties in Malaysia. The Act requires that all non- and political parties are the only legitimate actors; politics corporate groups of seven persons or more, be formally thus becomes that which is party-mediated and electoral- registered as a society by a civil servant, the Registrar of driven (Nair, 1999). However, the opposition and political Societies, responsible to the Minister of Home Affairs. If a NGOs try to involve in any policy-making decisions even society’s designated ‘office-bearers’ (president and though the government will not tolerate them lobbying on member of the governing body) fail to conform to the the issue of free speech and media freedom. For orders of the Registrar, they are liable upon conviction to instance, the opposition party and NGOs have organised a fine or imprisonment of up to five years. Ordinary several activities lobbying to the government to improve members of an ‘unlawful’ society, or persons who allow the human rights conditions in Malaysia. such a group to meet on their premises, are liable to a In the case of civil society activism in challenging the fine or imprisonment of up to three years. Under the Act, government policy on democracy, the year 2007 saw as amended in 1981, Section 5(1) states that: several large protests against the government and its policies. One of the cases was the 2007 BERSIH (the “it shall be lawful for the Minister in his absolute Joint Action Committee for Electoral Reform) rally held in discretion by order to declare unlawful any Kuala Lumpur on 10 November, 2007, where 40,000 society...which in his opinion, is or is being used for people defied ban attending the rally. The non-violent and purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with the peaceful rally organised by the opposition parties and interest of the security of the Federation...public civil society movements to campaign for electoral reform order or morality.” was denied a permit by the police and was marred by the confrontation between the police and the rally participants Section 13(1) (b) gives the power to the Registrar to: nearby Masjid Jamek. Police used chemical-laced water bombs and tear gas in a violent crackdown. The police “prohibiting the society from having, directly or arrested 34 people, released a night later, and injured indirectly, any affiliation, connection, communication several more (BERSIH, 2007). In separate BERSIH’s or other dealing whatsoever, with any society, demonstration, two people suffered bullet wounds from organisation or other body whatsoever outside Police actions during a BERSIH information rally held in Malaysia....” September in Batu Burok, Terengganu. Meanwhile, nine people were arrested for their participation in the Interna- In 1981, the category of a ‘political’ society, subject to tional Human Rights Day and twelve more were arrested specific restrictions, was introduced. A ‘political’ society for organising or participating separate rallies calling for was defined as any group or body that sought ‘to government reform (North, 2007). influence in any manner, the policies or activities of the In the same month, the Hindu Rights Action Force Government of Malaysia, or of the Government of any (HINDRAF), a coalition of 30 Hindu NGOs committed to State, or of any local authority’. Once designated the preservation of Hindu community rights and heritage, ‘political’, a society’s membership was effectively had organised a rally turned riot of 10,000 people on 25 restricted: under previous legislation, members of certain November, 2007 to submit a petition to the British High professions, including university lecturers, are not Commission. The group had led agitations against what allowed to take part in political activity, and would they saw as an ‘unofficial policy of temple demolition’ and therefore be prevented from joining a political society concerned about the steady encroachment of shariah- (Amnesty International, 1999). The 1981 amendments based law. Abdullah first responded defensively, calling introduced a clause that allows the minister to categorise on the protestors to stay at home. The police also denied an organisation as ‘political’ – suggesting that the Act every request for protest permits, under the guise of could be used against any pressure group seeking to protecting public safety. When those measures did not comment on, or influence government