从大马政治乱象看投票的意义 （不惑生命學堂：大選與政治課（一））

 週三在不惑生命學苑講堂分享有關大選和政治課，首堂講解投票的意義。

很高興可以看到最高峰有120人出席聽課，留到最後一刻交流的都還有70位，覺得老爸老媽們其實還很關心政治，想要從中再學習。

接下來的三堂課我要更好好準備，希望能成為推動力讓大家繼續關注大選課題，成為理性成熟有要求的選民和公民。

臉書影片鏈接在此。

同樣的內容也重複在11月1日的愛FM節目

如何不需含泪投票？

上届大选其中一个热门关键词是“含泪投票”，据说这是一些选民的心声：为了绊倒国阵和前首相纳吉，毅然出来投票，选择网开一面不看重候选人，一心把希望寄托给最有胜算的在野联盟：希望联盟（希盟）。后来的选举成绩让人出乎预料，成功替换了联邦政府，再加上在今年看到纳吉被定罪入狱，有些选民觉得当时的决定是对的，值回票价。

可是自从上届大选后，选民也发现一些中选的希盟议员“阴暗”面，有些问政能力和服务素质欠佳，甚至还很会“跳”（槽），明显的是这些议员乘著政治海啸的大好机会，凭著旗帜效应（选党不选人）进入国会殿堂。那么，来届大选选民还需要“含泪投票”吗？

首先，需要厘清为何会有人“含泪投票”这现象，这意味著什么？含泪，可能因为心理上知道这样做有些不妥，感到委屈或无奈是因为好像没有其他更好选择，甚至觉得可能会受骗或感到后悔，但为了成全“改朝换代”这心愿而甘冒风险。可以归纳说，对于投票决定，这些选民存有高度的不确定感，因此投票时需要“含泪”。

所谓“前事不忘，后事之师”，过去5-6年的经验告诉我们很多事，特别是在上届大选前政治狂热时期我们看到的民众舆论和政党动作。选民一旦知情，掌握了足够的资讯，作出理性的判断后，就可以消除不确定感，自然就不需要再含泪投票了。

这里我分享一些心得，要如何做个精明且有要求的选民，同时也是受到赋权尽责、积极的好公民。要记得，选民只是公民身份的其中一部分，要履行公民责任就不止是每5年投一次票就可以了。

首先，人民的立场要明确。在民主社会里，人民才是老板，人民要摆在中间。这个自我定位态度很重要，不然人民看到人民代议士就低头直呼YB这里那里，久而久之，这些YB就会觉得自己高人一等，觉得自己党的老大更像老板，而不是人民。

2016年的《公民宣言》（Deklarasi Rakyat）犯下的重大错误就是把所谓“救国”任务交给政治人物，把这些人物摆在中央，结果最后这场运动沦落为马哈迪家族御用的宣传平台，为他们增添光环。后来官方脸书网页发文帖子都找不到任何公民社会的影踪。

当天《公民宣言》记者会推介礼的合照就是一个经典，所谓公民社会代表被边缘化到坐在前排的一个角落，即使是堂堂原任净选盟主席玛利亚陈也不能幸免于如此的安排。

政党利益不等同人民利益

要知道，政党利益，不等同于人民利益，如果公民社会没有持守社运的脉动，就有可能会被政治人物骑劫了改革议程。不要再相信会有“救国”英雄，不要再造神或追捧政治明星，公民社会要有自信，因为人民是老板，面对政治人物至少可以有不亢不卑，平起平坐的姿态。

选举对政治人物来说，应该是人民给他们的大考，不代表平时他们可以怠惰。所以人民平时要监督和了解这些代议士做了什么，比如说：他们提出了什么政见、政策和理念，是否有出席国会或州议会会议并积极问政和参与辩论、有没提供选民应有的服务；对选民曾经承诺过什么，然后又兑现了多少；最后还要看该代议士的态度是否亲民，还是自大高傲，平时遵从党意多过民意？这些平时的表现应该成为最重要的评估指标，而不应该只是凭他们在大选竞选期的宣传和演讲作出判断。

第二，人民对候选人和政党要有要求，要他们认真看待。人民要像老板可以“面试”，问候选人他们对于某些课题有何想法和解决方案，同时认真看待和记录他们的承诺。即使是首次上阵的候选人，选民应该检验过去那人的公开言行举止和背景，看看是否记录良好、值得信赖。一般上大选竞选期间看到都是候选人一方的单向宣传，所以如果人民能向候选人多公开发问，并取得回应和承诺，那就更理想了。

所谓路遥知马力，日久见人心。人民依然需要长期监督和观察这些政治人物，就可知道和分辨出哪些人值得信任和支持。

然而要体认到一个人的力量通常是不足的，人民互助团结就是力量，形成不可忽视的声音。要靠群众舆论和要求施压，除了平时要关心课题，人民也要积极参与公共事务和结社。所以，第三，人民可以通过结社结合群众力量，共思对策和解决方案，并从中寻得倡议宣导的最佳策略，然后集体行动。有了团队互相支援，各自扮演特定的角色，要达到改革目的或许会比较容易。

要记得公民社会应有自己的角色，采取主动去落实，不能完全寄托于政治人物。同时，要知道推行一些政策的改变需要长期耕耘，特别是游说大部分群众，让他们有所醒觉。

提升辨识能力避免被骗

近来政府和社会积极打压诈骗集团，并大力宣导如何避免受骗和上当。事实上，投票和政治也是一样，要避免“诈骗”。所以，第四，选民个人得保持高度理智，理性判断和分析一方的说辞。若一个人多懂一些，就不怕容易被人骗。平时，人民也得提升自己的知识和政治醒觉，就会懂得判断和分辨出哪些人正忽悠人民，信口开河乱讲话或乱承诺。同时，或许你也会发现，其实对于某方面，自己懂得比政治人物还要更多！

因此，当你懂得比较候选人和政党优劣，排除劣质和不可信任的，做足了功课后，这就有可能把你投票的不确定性拉得更低。如果你还需要在这一方面的协助，如今大马行动方略联盟旗下的MyPJ推出和筹备著一个国席候选人大比拼资讯网：mp-profiling.info，以方便选民作出最理想判断。当你相当确定和有信心哪位候选人和哪个政党是你真心支持的，不管最后选举成绩如何，你都不会感到后悔，也不需要含泪投票。

你的理性判断不应轻易被政党人士和其支持者鼓吹的策略性投票和弃保效应（统称“大局论”）左右。若你经过深思熟虑后，认为其中一个选择包括第三党、独立候选人或甚至是投废票最能反映你的理性选择，你就不再需要犹豫或含泪了。

记得，投票时要保持微笑，不要再为政治人物流泪，因为不值得。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2022年10月15日 

東方臉書鏈接

Encourage voting, not blaming voters lazy to vote (Original unedited article text)

 

“Are you ready to vote? Do you know who you want to vote for? Or vote against?” I asked in a talk organised by Agora Society in Skudai on 7th October, before the Parliament was dissolved. Many in the audience raised their hands and expressed their willingness to vote. On whom they want to vote for, it is still a big question mark. First, they are not sure which candidate would stand in which constituency, often this depends on the seat negotiation outcome and party leader’s decision. Another problem is that they really do not know who to vote for, perhaps they are not satisfied with the immediate past Member of Parliament. However, when asked who they really do not want to vote for, they reacted with certainty.

Some worry about voter turnout rate, if it would ensue the trend found in the immediate past state elections in Melaka, Sarawak and Johor. While it is true that in the Johor state election, 43% eligible voters were added to the electoral rolls as a consequence of automatic voter registration among those 18 years old and above, lower polling rate is still a fact. Even if we disregard the Undi 18 effect, why did the preceding state elections also appear to have lower voter turnout rate?

Lower voter turnout rate could indicate that a significant number of out-of-state voters did not come back and vote. This may have a disproportionate impact on certain political parties. In the past Melaka and Johor state elections, politicians from Pakatan Harapan blamed Election Commission for choosing a polling date which caused inconvenience to their voters coming home and vote, but often disregarded why the out-of-state or even local voters felt disappointed and indifference towards them.

Since the Melaka state election, academician Wong Chin Huat and his organisation collectively labeled those absentee voters as Parti Aku Malas Undi (PAMU). I strongly disagree with the negative label, because the narrative seems to assert moral blame on those who failed to turn up or did not come back to vote as ‘lazy’.

Voting in Malaysia is only a civic obligation, unlike in Singapore and Australia it is mandatory to vote. I encourage people to vote, whether it is a spoilt vote, a vote for the third force or an independent candidate. But I can also understand why some cannot go home or do not want to come out and vote, it is not because they are ‘lazy’.

Previously, some had fallen ill to COVID-19, therefore were not allowed to vote, forced to become PAMU. However, just to make it to vote, the out-of-state voters have to pay a considerable economic cost to come back, or there could be instances where these people had very important matters to attend to, they could not leave home or their area.

Maybe the bigger question is, what if the contesting candidates and parties and the entire election campaign fail to appeal and inspire voters to come back or come out to vote? The former have to review and do soul-searching, not to blame the voters.

PAMU’s another narrative goes like this: because you are ‘lazy’,  you let strangers make a decision on behalf of you. This shows the proponent’s consequentialism tendency: what if you decide to spoil the vote or vote for third force, or even vote for a heavily defeated second party, it is still the same case as strangers making the decision of who is elected! Isn’t it election the time to reflect people’s voices and judgments, that they should decide which candidate and party they truly support, then cast their ballot? Not going home or not coming out to vote may also involve mindful consideration and conscious decision, must they be lazy?

Of course, voters can have their free will when deciding their vote, for example, some could react emotionally just to cast a protest vote, that means vote for the opponent to those they definitely do not like, regardless of the opponent’s quality and past records. There are also parties and their supporters attempting to persuade voters to do tactical voting, that means asking voters to forgo all third force or independent candidates just to increase the chance of electing the second most likely candidate. ‘You must see the BIG picture, defeat the XX party’, so the narrative goes.

Isn’t this mindset shaping the political culture of sending in and sheltering ‘parachute’ candidates or less quality ‘yes men’ type of candidates? Is this acceptable? Some voters look at the politicians on the stage and then look away with disappointment and indifference, affecting their willingness to go vote.

Therefore, tactical voting and ‘big picture’ mindset could be one stumbling block why in the coming GE15 the voter turnout may not go as high. So, political parties and politicians have to give the people a very good reason why they need to vote for them. Just by attacking their opponents, it may not be sufficient to persuade the voters. If the parties and candidates did not do their job well, social activists still use PAMU to morally blame the voters for not coming out to vote, I’m afraid it could backfire.

 

中国报大选评论节目《选象环生》（10月14日）

上周五我代表群议社在中国报新开设的大选评论节目《选象环生》亮相，给予选前大趋势的点评，其中包括政党之间的博弈。

现场直播录影

以下是在线座谈会分享的内容：

年尾雨季倉促舉行大選，誰會得利？誰等不及了？

水災的話，沒人得利啦，人民最辛苦！現在有政客改口風說，他們是趁季候風來到之前要大選的，而不是在雨季水災舉行大選

那麼盡快舉行大選的話，誰會得利？選情最好、急著要快點大選的那方咯 – 肯定是巫統，其他國陣成員黨跟著陪跑。

他們相信他們可以大勝，至少收復多數在2018年失去的馬來人土著為主的西馬國席，他們相信也可以收拾土團黨裡跳槽過去的‘叛徒’，同時打敗公正黨和誠信黨，就足以在西馬稱王，成為最大聯盟共主，主導執政聯盟，進而組織政府。

在國會解散前，Ilham Centre做的8月份民調顯示，除了小部分的巫統和國陣黨員，其他絕大部分的選民都不支持盡快舉行大選。而在巫統最高理事會裡，包括官司纏身的巫統主席阿末扎希和其他成員都威逼首相依斯邁盡快宣佈解散國會、準備大選。官司派擔心，要是蹉跎下去，就要等到明年3月了，到時如果官司案件判決對他們不利，他們就處於政治劣勢。阿末扎希甚至需要辭去主席一職。

縱使現在全球經濟不景氣，我國也受影響，但也不至於情況太壞以至於讓依斯邁領導的政府聲望受損。

雨季要來擔心水災，確實擊中了這一班急著要快點大選的政黨人士的要害-- 所以越拖延的話，水災風險就越大。畢竟2022年的今天與1999年不能相提並論了，氣候變化和帶來的衝擊是越來越頻密，水災也會更嚴重。

巫統要冒這個風險，就是期盼可以在水災來臨前舉行大選。然後，那些一直批評巫統要在雨季水災時舉行選舉的，現在就陷入兩難：第一，如果這些政黨執政的州屬也要同步舉行大選，就會自相矛盾，自打嘴巴，講不過去了；第二，萬一到了選舉投票日都沒水災呢？；第三，他們給人的印象似乎是抗拒選舉因為怕輸---如果要真的檢驗這些政黨是否有雙重標準，就要假設目前選情優勢在希盟這裡，他們還會說同樣的話嗎？如果會的話，我就服。

國州分選的利與弊

站在憲法的角度，州務大臣或首席部長有絕對的自主權力決定是否要解散各自的州議會，沒有人可以強迫他們。在2018年前，除了砂拉越，其他州屬一直以來都是隨著全國同步選舉的，聯邦政權也在這之前從未替換過。如今，一些州屬如沙巴、馬六甲和柔佛已在早前分選了啊！

當初有政黨批評分選是浪費公帑，現在是他們抉擇的時候，是否依然要堅持同樣論述而不分選？我個人肯定不認同‘浪費公帑’這說法。

據說檳城執政黨另有看法，主要是擔心一旦分選，到了明年遊子或不願從外州或國外再次回來投票，這會衝擊他們的選情。再加上，如果國陣真的贏得了聯邦政權，他們將會有聯邦政府的資源便利集中在他們的州屬競選，希盟州執政黨將會面對更大的選情壓力。

可是，另一方面，國州分選對檳州、雪蘭莪和森美蘭來說也有好處。比如說，如果這次全國大選國陣勝選當了政府，州執政黨就可以利用國陣聯邦政府的執政弱點來攻擊對方。但這一步也不是沒有風險的，萬一在那半年裡聯邦政府他們的表現還算理想，還有錢派，人民沒有很大的不滿，怎麼辦呢？

另外的好處包括，州執政黨還可以研究大選選情成績，希望可以及時改進表現，特別是那些高風險州選區。州執政黨還可以拿出悲情牌，背水一戰來激發士氣催鼓選票，號召選民試圖保住聯邦在野黨執政的州屬。但這是否能奏效，就要看該州政府在民間的口碑如何了，選民是否滿意他們的執政表現？若純粹要選民策略性投票，未必會能達到效果。

不過伊斯蘭黨主導執政的州屬也不願同步選舉，說明了不同政黨雖然有不同考量，但不謀而合。伊斯蘭黨肯定面對更大的民間壓力要準備抗水災，再況且環境部和自然資源部曾隸屬伊斯蘭黨部長的治理。吉打、登嘉樓和吉蘭丹的水災風險也要比其他州屬大得多了，他們要小心不要惹民怨也很應該。況且剛才我說的分選優勢也適用於伊斯蘭黨。

國陣在來屆大選的勝算大？為何？

國陣一直都是巫統坐大。目前還未看到馬華和國大黨大力翻身的機會，雖然他們這次有望斬獲更多。

巫統有沒有掌握更大的勝算？他們認為有的。

首先看局勢：國會解散前，首相已經是掌握在巫統的手上，巫統掌握的重要且有戰略性的內閣部門還有：通訊與多媒體部，鄉村發展部，房屋與地方政府部 。 

議席方面，2018年大選後，他們只剩下54席，然後土團黨拉攏多位議員跳槽了失去了多個議席，最後只剩38席。這筆賬巫統一定要算。

巫統的信心來源不是空穴來風：他們自從2019年3月的士毛月州議席補選和11月的tanjung piai的國會議席補選後，就一直處於選情強勢。西馬半島最近的馬六甲和柔佛州選成績是很重要的選情指標，一再宣告巫統的議席和選情看漲：在馬六甲，國陣增加了9席，奪回執政權；在柔佛呢，州選才在今年舉行，國陣增加24席，以超過三分之二的議席執政，並在議席數目重挫土團黨主席慕尤丁的影響力重鎮。首相依斯邁的經營的大馬一家形象不壞，超出一般人很低的期望，基本上看民調和選情，國陣在西馬半島處於上風。

再看在野聯盟：希盟公正黨在黨選黨爭後，安華-拉菲茲團隊似乎未磨合成形，與其他盟黨之間仍有存在芥蒂和對某些課題的分歧和爭議（比如說在MUDA青年黨要加入希盟的事情）。事實上，喜來登行動後，希盟失去政權，重奪不了，加上輸了幾場重要的州選，士氣也低落。目前仍沒看到希盟端出了什麼具體的政策方向，給選民信心、方向和希望，他們準備好重新執政。

土團黨出走後，再分裂出來鬥士黨，再分裂出來全民黨，加上慕尤丁已失去了首相寶座，很多他的內閣成員大將都是從別黨跳槽過來的，基層薄弱，恐怕不討好，要被敵對政黨討伐收拾叛徒。土團黨領導的國盟有存在危機感 --即使是他們目前坐擁第二大馬來土著主導的聯盟，如果來屆大選在議席上依然是大敗，國盟還能不能繼續存在，就要看伊斯蘭黨會不會嫌棄了。

沙菲益的Warisan也不再是昔日的希盟盟友，感覺整個在野勢力正分裂，唯有力量與巫統國陣抗衡的是基層雄厚的伊斯蘭黨，以及行動黨和公正黨競選的非土著為主的議席，特別是城市議席。這些議席即使勝選加起來或仍不足以否決巫統和國陣極可能在西馬贏得的議席多數。

巫統內部，官司派以及官職派已握手言和了？

是否已握手言和，恐怕還不能確定。但可以猜測的是，阿末扎希一定有與依斯邁談判有些協議，依斯邁一定也是在能得到一些條件保證或協議承諾之下，才會同意解散國會舉行大選。

我猜測，巫統依然會推舉依斯邁為首相人選，主席阿末扎希雖然掌握大選候選人的委任狀大權，也必須同時推薦和提名官職派前議員參選。如果國陣大勝和執政，恐怕阿末扎希的陣營有更多籌碼左右依斯邁的政治決定，包括依斯邁的首相任期長度。目前表面的握手言和是雙方最理想的雙贏局面。如果大選後，阿末扎希翻臉重新複製柔佛州選替換州務大臣人選的戲碼，恐怕政局會動蕩。

伊斯蘭黨對巫統和土團的曖昧態度，為什麼？

伊斯蘭黨一直是一個很務實的政黨，會採取一個讓本身政黨處於最有利地位的決策。伊斯蘭黨身在國盟其實相當理想，避免受到更強勢的巫統在議席上牽制。

為何會對巫統和土團黨曖昧呢？選後的議席多寡就可以看出哪邊有勢力和籌碼。如果巫統大勝土團黨，伊斯蘭黨又能保持上屆實力或更好，那麼如果巫統需要招攬伊斯蘭黨共組政府，或許伊斯蘭黨也會心動，尤其是在不必加入國陣的情況下共組聯合政府。國盟呢？如果土團黨接近全敗，氣數就快已盡，那麼這個聯盟就沒有什麼競爭力，沒有什麼未來可言了，伊斯蘭黨還會需要呆在裡面嗎？

國盟在這場大選中有何優勢？

目前來說，是土團黨需要伊斯蘭黨更多過伊斯蘭黨需要國盟或土團黨。土團黨希望伊斯蘭黨的強大基層可以幫忙推動國盟的競選機器，以及期望伊斯蘭黨基層在土團黨競選的議席可以催票和換票，集合反對巫統的馬來票。伊斯蘭黨則希望能有多一點策略的伸縮性，比如說在他們領導的州屬繼續用自己的旗幟吸票，在其他州屬呢，他們希望土團黨支持者或反巫統的馬來票可以集中投過來國盟這邊。

國盟要在馬來選民市場裡樹立自己的品牌，成為一個反巫統的替代必然選擇。其中，我想他們肯定會標榜自己比較清廉反貪，以及有執政能力，畢竟很多黨員都曾來自巫統。問題只是，慕尤丁的形象在倒台前已嚴重受損，若是首相人選未必是個好招牌。

“Bossku”的缺席，對國陣的選票有什麼影響或衝擊？

Bossku在社交媒體的風趣幽默談笑風生會讓一些網民懷念，納吉即使有案件在身，有很多貪污指控，他在民間似乎還是很受歡迎的。這個有點讓人覺得愕然，因為上屆大選，納吉兩夫婦的貪腐濫權形象曾是國陣競選的負資產。突然間在國陣下台後，納吉浴火重生。證明了很多選民是健忘的，或其實也沒太在乎貪污腐敗課題。

國陣巫統一貫的競選強項很少是在社交媒體，他們主打的是“穩定和發展”牌，靠鋪天蓋地的宣傳，以及走入社區（派錢）的把戲。目前的其他領袖也似乎沒有類似bossku的旋風。但這些旋風就一定能轉換成選票嗎？我也懷疑。我認為要支持國陣巫統的，不會因為看到納吉寫的和講的幾句話就會被遊說了。

如今納吉入獄了，官司派的巫統領袖還會利用他的案件裁決喊冤，企圖催鼓一些同情票，但我不確定這是可以行得通轉變成大量選票的大選課題。

另一方面，希盟也不見得可以再炒納吉的課題催鼓選票，但可以推測他們要向支持者派定心丸，要支持者繼續投票給他們因為真的可以帶來一些改變，納吉案件裁決反而變成了希盟的最大‘政績’--這個也其實蠻諷刺的，因為這企圖要掩飾希盟22個月庸碌執政的政績蒼白。

希盟現在的選情局勢如何？華裔選民會繼續投票給希盟，尤其是行動黨？

在國會解散前，希盟擁有90個議席，公正黨36席，行動黨42席，誠信黨11席，和沙巴UPKO1席。目前公正黨和誠信黨面對極大的生存危機挑戰，特別是馬來混合選區的選情不利於他們。

在馬六甲公正黨全軍覆沒，在柔佛僅贏一席（而且還是華裔候選人勝出）。如果希盟在馬來選民的得票率低於三分之一，或顯著更低的話，公正黨的議席或會被削減一半或更多，誠信黨也不太妙。那麼選舉後的希盟可能更弱，如果希盟贏得的少過60席，而行動黨就佔了其中的三分之二，那麼這個政治聯盟盟黨之間的影響力比重就失衡了而變得不穩定。公正黨和誠信黨的馬來政治人物會更失去信心，因為會被看成是非土著主導的政治聯盟，這對希盟未來是否能繼續走下去造成一定的挑戰。

華裔選民對行動黨和反對陣線的華裔領袖有一些情意結，這個是近來幾屆大選可預測和可掌握的選情趨勢。為什麼這麼說呢？因為國陣裡的馬華和出走的民政黨依然一蹶不振，沒讓人看到希望和信心，政策和政治上也沒有提出什麼有見地的想法，或促成什麼改革和改變。

一般華裔選民會問，如果肯定不要投給國陣，那還可以投給誰？還有什麼選擇？這就是基本上無奈的“鐵票”和含淚投票的來源。

也因為有政黨人士和社運人士一昧教唆選民要策略性投票，集中在希盟因為比較有勝算。也因為棄保策略，原本可以有的選擇，包括第三黨如社會主義黨、獨立但優質的候選人，這些都不被認真看待，甚至被認為是攪局者。我認為這樣的心態和思維一定要改，因為選票在你手上，你自己作理性的決定哪個候選人和政黨最值得你支持的。

經過上次大選後希盟執政22個月的表現，間中發生內鬥內亂，過後發生喜來登事件，應該給選民一個省思的機會，這次投票要理性和謹慎一點，自己要對候選人和政黨做最好的判斷。

Calling Malaysians lazy won’t get them to vote

Are you ready to vote, I asked the audience in a talk organised by the Agora Society in Skudai, before parliament was dissolved.

Many raised their hands to say they were going to vote. Who they will vote for, is another question.

Of course, the candidates have yet to be announced. 

However, when asked who they did not want to vote for, the audience members were far more certain.

Some were worried about the voter turnout rate and if it would follow the trend of the state elections of Malacca, Sarawak and Johor.

While it is true that in the Johor elections, 43% more eligible voters were added to the electoral rolls as a consequence of automatic voter registration and a lower voting age, the turnout was low. Why was that?

A lower voter turnout rate could indicate that a significant number of out-of-state voters did not return to vote. This could have a disproportionate impact on some political parties.

In the Malacca and Johor elections, Pakatan Harapan politicians blamed the Election Commission for choosing an inconvenient polling date but failed to address the possibility that the voters felt disappointed and indifferent.

Academician Wong Chin Huat called the absentee voters Parti Aku Malas Undi, or I’m Too Lazy To Vote Party.

I strongly disagree with the negative label, because it pins moral blame on those who fail to vote as indolent.

Voting in Malaysia only a civic obligation, unlike in Singapore and Australia, where it is mandatory.

I encourage people to vote, whether it is a spoilt vote or a vote for the third force or an independent candidate. But I can also understand why some cannot or do not want to vote; it is not because they are “lazy”.

Out-of-state voters have to spend a considerable sum to return to their hometowns to vote. Other voters could have important matters to attend to.

Maybe the bigger question is, do the candidates, parties and the entire election campaign fail to inspire people to vote? The politicians have to do some soul searching and not to blame the voters.

The other narrative goes like this: because you are lazy, you let strangers make a decision on your behalf.

This shows the proponent’s consequentialism tendency; but what if you decide to spoil the vote or vote for third force? it is still the same as strangers making the decision of who is elected.

Isn’t election a time to listen to other people’s opinions and judgments for consideration?

Not voting could also be a mindful consideration and conscious decision; must one be lazy?

Of course, voters have free will. For example, some could rcast a protest vote, meaning, vote for the opponent of someone they detest, regardless of candidate’s quality and  trackrecord.

There are also parties asking Malaysians to do tactical voting. This involves asking voters to forgo all third force or independent candidates just to increase the chance of electing the second most likely candidate.

You must see the big picture, defeat the XX party, so the narrative goes.

Isn’t this mindset shaping the political culture of fielding “parachute” or “yes men” type of candidates? Is this acceptable?

Some voters look at the politicians on stage and turn away in disappointment and indifference, affecting their willingness to vote.

Tactical voting and “big picture” mindset could be the stumbling blocks to a high turnot for the general election.

Politicians have to give the people a good reason to vote for them. Attacking their opponents is not enough to persuade the voters. 

122nd article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 17 Oct 2022 

鼓励投票，而非怪罪选民懒惰不投票

 

国会终于解散，大选终究要来临了。你准备投票了吗？知道要投给谁？或不投给谁？

这些是我上周五在柔佛士古来一场由群议社举办的讲座所抛出的问题。出席者当中很多已有相当的政治醒觉，皆表明会去投票，但要投给谁仍是个大问号。一方面是因为不确定政党领导会派遣哪位到哪区，还胥视盟党谈判协商的结果；二来是他们真的不知道要投给谁，或许他们也不满意前任议员。所以当我问到出席者是否已知道不要投票给谁，他们就有些反应。

政党人士及一些学者担心投票率延续多场州选的低迷: 马六甲（2018:84.52%vs2021:65.85%），砂拉越（2016：70.01%vs2021:60.67%），以及柔佛（2018：74.5%vs2022:54.92%）。纵使柔佛州选是首次让18岁以上年轻人自动登记为选民，合格选民因而增加了43%，投票率还是低迷仍是个事实，特别是年轻选民很多都没去行使投票义务。即使不问因18岁投票政策而涌现的新选民，那么为何早前其他州选投票率依然偏低呢？

由于较低的投票率意味著许多外州或国外游子没有回乡投票，这对某些政党有些冲击，特别是在都市里工作没回来投票但又没登记为邮寄选民的游子，这些政党会以为皆是他们的支持者。过去的马六甲和柔佛州选，希盟的政治人物总爱归咎选委会遴选的投票日不方便（支持他们的）选民回家投票，却不正视为何那些外州游子或甚至本地选民对某些政党失望到冷漠和无感。

自从马六甲选举以来，就听说学者黄进发和其组织集体标签那些缺席投票的选民为Parti Aku Malas Undi（我是懒投票党，PAMU）。我认为如此的负面标签相当不妥当，因为这说法有道德谴责意味，怪罪选民不出来或不回来投票就等于“懒惰”。

首先，在我国投票绝对是公民义务，不像新加坡和澳洲等国家大选投票是强制的（缺席者需通报和解释）。我本身的立场是鼓励人民出来投票，即使是投废票、第三党或独立人士。但我也可以明白和谅解为何有人不能回家或不愿出来投票，这绝对不是因为“懒惰”。

在甲柔州选时，有人因为确诊了不能去投票，被迫成为PAMU。然而，为了行使投票这权利，这可要外州游子付出相当大的经济代价或有人刚好碰上重要事走不得，这些也是当中不投票的考量因素。或许更大的问题是，一旦参与竞选的各政党和候选人，以及选战的方向无法吸引和说服选民非得要回来或出来投票，为何该检讨和反省的那一方不是政党和政治人物，而是选民呢？

影响投票意愿

政治学家熊皮特曾经提出民主竞争的类比，把选民比作顾客，政党和政治人物为企业。政治人物要争取选票就好比公司追求盈利，政党提出的政策和承诺就是其政治产品和服务内容。所以，如果公司推出的产品和服务获得差评，你还会期待顾客去买单吗？顾客不买，为何还要给人道德谴责？

PAMU另一个论述就是要说，因为你“懒”，所以只好让“陌生人代你作决定”。这正好印证了倡议者的“结果论”倾向─那么如果你投废票或第三党，或甚至是大败的第二党，那么依然是陌生人代你作了决定（谁是当选议员）啊！选举不就是应该展现选民自己理性判断的心声，自己决定哪位候选人和/或政党是自己属意支持的而投下神圣一票？不回家或不出来投票况且也不是一种心理挣扎的决定与抉择，他们一定是懒惰吗？

确实选民可以有自由意志决定自己如何投票，比如说有选民可以带有情绪投反对票，即投给已确定不喜欢的一方的对手，而不管这对手候选人素质和过去记录如何；也有政党和其支持者游说选民要策略性投票，弃保第三党（即使该候选人素质多优越）来增加他们的胜算─“要看大局！”是这种投票方式的论述来源，成为了后来俗称的“大局论”。

难道这些是社运人士应该去倡导的吗？这种态度形成的政党政治文化，若对天兵和素质欠佳的yes men候选人，继续包庇纵容，难道依然称得上是可接受的事吗？难怪有些选民看了台面上的这些政治人物感到失望和无感，进而影响他们的意愿去投票。

我认为策略性投票的“大局”情绪和要求选民“含泪投票”，正是其中一个要害原因为何投票率在来届大选会难以走高。要鼓舞选民积极投票，政党和政治人物就要给人民（顾客）一个很好的理由为何要投票给他们（买他们的产品），纯粹攻击对手的产品未必会让选民买账。如果政党和候选人没把分内事做好，社运人士却一味以PAMU道德怪罪和影射选民不出来投票，这恐怕会适得其反。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2022年10月12日 

東方臉書鏈接

马来西亚人的困境：柯嘉逊非凡的人生经历

 鲜少社运人士可以像柯嘉逊博士那般行文流畅和多产。今年六月嘉逊出版了他的回忆录，题目为“马来西亚人的困境：我的回忆录和宣言”。 219页确实难以承载嘉逊过去40年众多的非凡经历，特别是他亲眼见证的重大社会政治事故。更挑战的是，他居然能把那么多人生经历的细节如准确的事故日期和时间点、动作和牵涉人物记得清楚。若没有自律，养成每日撰写日记的好习惯，就不可能完成这样的任务。

嘉逊能出版如此一本回忆录，除了说明了他努力工作的态度，也展现了他的原则和自律表现，值得许多当前的社运分子效法。他的重要著作书表的长度，恰恰好地证明了他的专业态度、理想和公共知识分子精神。他的心思放在打造一个进步的国度，却同时保留他的诚信和原则。他无畏惧地分享他的想法，启迪民智和壮大社会。嘉逊的坦言及勇为或让人感动，幸运的是我们能通过文字一起经历他走过的路，他的记忆依然很清晰。

在马来亚和沙巴独立日前夕阅读完毕柯嘉逊的回忆录，让我深有感触。它启发我对爱国及社运工作坚持的意义，有著更深一层的思考。我与嘉逊在个人经历方面有些相似之处：我生长在较富裕的非土著家庭、在英国（和德国）升学深造、参与学生运动、周游列国、与外籍伴侣结姻缘目前居住在大马，及透过社运为国家付出。

当然，我比嘉逊幸运和舒服得多——在英国我无需打工、旅游时也不用搭顺风车（大力推荐阅读嘉逊回忆录里的经典和精彩的旅游记），而我在海外念书时也常可回国。要知道嘉逊时代是没有直航班机，也没有电邮或视频通话服务——这些便利恐怕年轻一代视为理所当然了。

就如嘉逊，我也常被当地英国学生，尤其是我在国内的亲友问及我回国的决定，或是待在海外继续我的事业或可能就这一生。通常问的人本来就可能已有预设的猜想。嘉逊的回应很直接简单：“当然，我会。我念完书后就回国！”他说到做到，我也一样。

嘉逊回国带来极大的社会影响和分别——他在社会政治运动中扮演著至关重要的角色，推动进步议程和华教运动。或许最熟为人知的贡献就是他联合创办了人民之声，致力于为自由、人权和民权奋斗。

一党专政威权国家

大家应该要了解，嘉逊活跃的初期是在80和90年代，那时的马来西亚还是个一党专政的威权国家，领导的首相是在位最久、铁腕统治的马哈迪。马哈迪对付社运分子和打压街头示威活动从不手软、也不心软。嘉逊肯定也相当刻苦努力启发和动员民众，同时必须承受来自国家机关的骚扰以及面对更大的逮捕风险。

让嘉逊身受最深痛苦创伤的是他在80年代末茅草行动中被扣留的445天。如此的遭遇对其他扣留者也是改变一生的难忘经历。嘉逊被扣留的故事其实也突显了内安法令的各种弊病和迫害。即便这法令在2012年被废除了，但也被后来的国家安全罪行（特别措施）法令取代。另外，嘉逊也描绘了扣留所内的糟糕卫生状况，可惜如今疫情后仍没看到显著地改进。

在内安法令下被扣留，只有意志坚强及有气节正直的人才能承受国家机关最高程度的打压。然而，不久前在2018年，就有一些政治人物轻松和轻易地说已“原谅”了马哈迪在茅草行动所扮演的角色。即使到了今天，马哈迪仍然不忏悔，把责任推搪到当时的总警长身上，并给予各种荒唐的借口。或许只有那些有直接政治利益的个人愿意用“原谅”取代原则，但那个人绝不会是嘉逊。如果你读他写茅草行动中被扣留的那一章，你就可以明白为何他有他的坚持。

最后，嘉逊提出了他的宣言要解决源自于种族主义和种族歧视的大马人困境。他也要争取更多的民主，为了国家发展要打造非种族代表的替代进步阵线。 2018年的大选揭露了很多政治人物和社运人士的机会主义行为。这确实是一个历史时刻，让大家睁大眼睛见证哪些人真正把持著自己的原则和价值观，哪些人已向现实主义或既得利益低头了。

柯嘉逊忠于自己的诚信与原则。我衷心希望嘉逊能继续成为许多社运人士的启发来源和好榜样，让他们能在往后为国家社会重大课题继续付出和贡献。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2022年9月7日 

東方臉書鏈接

Move beyond the national symbols: how to spot a patriot? (Original Essay)

The recent Merdeka Parade at Dataran Merdeka was the biggest official celebration since COVID-19 pandemic. Many also express patriotism outwardly in the form of national flags hanging and waving, singing or humming patriotic songs. There is nothing wrong with showing the love for your country, nor anything wrong with not explicitly displaying the love in such a way. That does not mean that one does not love the country, just like there is no need to carry your lover’s picture and draw a heart shape to show that you indeed love the person.

Samuel Johnson once said “patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundrel”, but it does not have to be this way. It is true that for some people who might have stolen the nation’s treasure and sold the country, they still could be seen on the podium waving the flag, singing the national anthem and proclaiming their patriot credentials. Thus, we have to judge the substance more often than the form, actions really should speak louder than words, to show who are the real patriots.

Pertinent questions are, what does one really love and care about the country? What did the person actually do to showcase that?

In Mandarin language, ‘Guo Jia’ these two words are the direct translation to ‘country’ but literally it has two components: ‘Guo’ (country) and ‘Jia’ (home). So, the interpretation is that a country is made up of many homes. What is the meaning of a country if not for the people who make the place their home? Thus, when one loves the country, one should love and care for the people and communities who stay there. If one really loves their home, one should also care about their home surroundings, to protect and preserve their beauty, order and functions.

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” famously said by the United States President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural speech in 1961. In fact, there are plenty of things a patriot can do for one's own country.

1) Be a law-abiding citizen: though bad law one should not just follow blindly but protest or disobey. Many laws are basic and necessary for upholding social justice, order and security. For example, traffic offences such as speeding or running at red light would not only put oneself but others in great risk.

2) Be a tax-paying citizen: one should fulfill social obligation as a taxpayer (if qualified) when they reach the age of employment, this allows the government to redistribute the public resources catering for the needs of communities and development of the country. Tax evasion would be floundering the law, going against the first point.

3) Care for the people: especially the vulnerable and needy communities, and being inclusive treating people from different ethnic, religion, language, culture, age and gender alike with courtesy and respect. Probably this shares the spirit like the second great commandment of Jesus: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’. Brotherhood and kinship feelings should be mutual for each other, therefore one should not exploit, take advantage or have ill intention of other fellow residents. Instead you would care about social welfare, if you truly love the country and the people.

4) Contribute one’s best talent and effort: for nation building, make the people and country proud. Whether it is about winning the Badminton World Championships or Olympics medal, or producing a scientific achievement at an institution abroad, no matter if the person carries the direct representation in the name of country or merely quietly brilliant as a Malaysian, all these would count. Some contributions might not be at the top level like winning awards, but valuable and meaningful service for the community, these efforts should be recognised and commended as acts of a patriot with a golden heart.

5) Concern about the country's future: criticizing the country’s current sociopolitical systems is not because one is asking ‘what the country can do for oneself’, but striving to make Malaysia a better nation. This should not be seen as an act of ‘tarnishing the country’s image’ especially if one’s intention is to be constructive and helpful at improving the current situation. Therefore, if one truly cares for the country, even the person staying overseas would also keep abreast with the current affairs and latest development in the country via various means. Patriots would not give up easily on their own country and desert their fellow people even if things go tough with them on a personal level.

Hope these five points would add dimensions to think about the meaning of patriotism, instead of judging oneself by the display of national symbols. Because love is a feeling, there are many ways to express it.

Move beyond displaying national symbols to be more patriotic

 

The recent Merdeka Parade at Dataran Merdeka was the biggest official celebration of its kind since the Covid pandemic. Many expressed patriotism outwardly in the form of hanging and waving national flags and singing patriotic songs.  

There is nothing wrong with showing love for your country, nor is there anything wrong with not explicitly doing so.   

It’s a case of substance over form; actions really should speak louder than words to show who are the real patriots. 

In Mandarin, the words “Guo Jia” means “country” and is made up of two components: ‘Guo’ (country) and ‘Jia’ (home).  

The interpretation is that a country is made up of many homes. Thus, when one loves the country, one should care for the people and communities who stay there.  

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” was famously said by the US President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural speech in 1961. In fact, there are plenty of things a patriot can do for his own country. 

1) Be a law-abiding citizen: Respect the fact that many laws are necessary for upholding social justice and security. For example, do not commit traffic offences such as speeding or running a red light as these actions would not only put yourself but others at great risk. 

2) Be a tax-paying citizen: One should fulfil one’s social obligation as a taxpayer. This would allow the government to redistribute public resources to cater for the needs of communities and the development of the country. Tax evasion would be flouting the law.  

3) Care for the people: Help vulnerable and needy communities, and promote inclusivity by treating people from different backgrounds alike and with courtesy and respect in the spirit of the second great commandment of Jesus: “Love your neighbour as yourself”. 

4) Contribute one’s best efforts towards building the nation: Make the country proud, whether by winning championships or medals, or attaining scientific achievements at institutions abroad. Some contributions might not be major but valuable and meaningful services to the community should be recognised.  

5) Being concerned about the country’s future: Criticising the country’s current socio-political systems means striving to make Malaysia a better nation. This should not be seen as an act of “tarnishing the country’s image” especially if one’s intention is to be constructive. Even one staying overseas could keep abreast of the latest developments in the country via various means. Patriots would not give up easily on their own country.   

I hope these five points would make you think about the meaning of patriotism, instead of just superficial displays of national symbols. 

116th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 5 Sep 2022 

The Malaysian Dilemma: Extraordinary life journey of Dr. Kua Kia Soong

Here's my thoughts after reading Kia Soong Kua's latest publication titled "The Malaysian Dilemma: My Memoir & Manifesto".

Dr. Kua is a well known activist and public intellectual in Malaysia, his memoir is full of inspiring stories especially about his struggles for building a progressive non-racial nation for Malaysia, quite relevant to recent month reflection for National Day and Malaysia Day celebrations.

I highly recommend you to pick up a copy and read!

***

The Malaysian Dilemma: Extraordinary life journey of Dr. Kua Kia Soong

Few social activists could be as eloquent and productive in writing than Dr. Kua Kia Soong, who had published his memoir in June this year, titled ‘The Malaysian Dilemma’. 219 pages is definitely not sufficient for his extraordinary experience going through many major sociopolitical events in Malaysia for the past 40 years. It must be even more difficult for him to precise so many details down to exact event dates and time, actions and characters involved. It is not possible without self-discipline of keeping records in a personal diary on a daily basis. For Kia Soong to be able to produce such a memoir, this speaks a lot more than just a commitment to work but also principles and self-discipline that many contemporary social activists lack of. His long list of important publications is living testament to his work ethics, ideals and public intellectualism. While preserving his integrity and principles, his heart and mind are for building the progressive nation, sharing his thoughts out loud to inspire and empower the people and society. You would be touched by his honest words and courageous actions, to live through the periods and incidents he once experienced and still remembered vividly.

Completing his book prior to the Independence Day of Malaya and Sabah this year, gave me a surreal feeling. It invokes my deep thoughts about the meaning of patriotism and persistence in social activism work. On a personal level, there are a few similarities I could draw relating to Kia Soong’s experience: I grew up in a well-to-do non-bumiputera family, went to the United Kingdom (and Germany) to further my studies, was involved in student activism, travelled vastly, married a foreign spouse and am currently settled back in Malaysia, serving the country as part of the social activism. Of course, I did these far more comfortably than Kia Soong - I did not have to work or do part-time jobs in the UK nor did I need to hitchhike while travelling (you must read the epic journeys described by Kia Soong - such wonderful travel log stories), and I could return home more frequently during my overseas stint. There were no direct flights and certainly no emails, or Zoom calls during Kia Soong’s time, something that young generations have often taken for granted.

Like Kia Soong, I was also often questioned by local UK students and even more so by my friends and relatives back home, usually with much presumption, about my decision to return home instead of staying abroad for my career and perhaps for the rest of my life. It was a good reply from Kia Soong to those queries: ‘Of course, I am. I’m going back to my country when I’ve finished my studies!’ He did, so did I. Having Kia Soong back in Malaysia make a huge difference in social impact - since he returned, he played a pivotal role in sociopolitical activism pushing for progressive agenda and chinese education movement, and perhaps his most recognisable contribution was co-founding SUARAM and working to fight for freedom, human rights and civil liberties.

One should also appreciate that during the eighties and nineties, the period which Kia Soong started to get active, Malaysia was still an one-party dominant authoritarian state under the iron-fist rule of longest-serving Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who had no qualm at repressing social activists and quashing street demonstrations. Kia Soong must have struggled even harder at advocating and mobilising people, and ran a far bigger risk of arrest and harassment by the state. The most traumatic experience he had, perhaps life changing to many others as well, was being detained for 445 days under Operasi Lalang in the late eighties. His stories in the detention camp highlighted many wrongs about the Internal Security Act (which was eventually repealed in 2012 but replaced with a similar one in the name of SOSMA), as well as the poor detention conditions (which we still do not see much improvement even after the COVID-19 pandemic). Only those with strong will and full integrity could withstand the highest level of state intimidation under the ISA detention. As recent as 2018, some politicians were so light-heartedly talking about ‘forgiving’ Mahathir Mohamad for his role in Operasi Lalang - still to this day, he is not repentant, passed the blame to the Inspector General of Police during that time, and gave plenty of ludicrous excuses. Perhaps only those individuals with political interest at stake would be willing to trade their principles with ‘forgiveness’, but definitely not Kia Soong. It is easy to see why if one reads the chapter he wrote about his Operasi Lalang detention.

Finally, he offered a Manifesto to resolve the Malaysian Dilemma in the form of racism and racial discrimination, striving for greater democracy and building the progressive front as non-racial alternatives to national development. The 2018 General Elections exposed opportunistic behaviour among so many politicians and social activists - it was an eye-opener to witness how many of them actually stand true to his or her principles and values, and not bend over to realism or vested interest. Kia Soong stays true to himself, with unwavering integrity and principles and I sincerely hope he could continue to be the source of inspiration and be the great example to many in the social activism circle who are willing to commit to great causes for the country.