Makhan Saikia
It is largely felt that “clean Malaysia” movement will not make much impact on Prime Minister Najib and his party. Mainly because, there is no obvious successor to Najib within the party and the Malaysian Opposition is in disarray with its former leader Anwar Ibrahim languishing in jail. At the same time, neither former Prime Minister Mahathir nor sacked Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin is the ideal leader to oust Najib because their own intentions are highly questionable
Out Najib, Out” is fast echoing in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lampur, and two other prominent cities in the country, demanding the immediate ouster of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Haji Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak. It is a long-drawn movement called “Bersih” (Malay word for “clean”) since the last August, against the present National Front (Barisan Nasional or BN in Malay) led by Najib’s United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) party, but the prime target is no other than the PM.
The story of current upsurge goes back to 2009. Najib established a Government-owned strategic investment firm, named 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) in 2009. It was reported that 1MDB is in debt to the tune of RM 42 billion ($9.6 billion). Where has the money gone and after all why such a huge loss or misuse of this huge public fund? But “then it was reported that the sum of RM 2.6 billion ($700 million) had shown up in Najib’s personal bank account. It has been admitted in installments that this money was indeed placed in that account, but it is claimed to have been donated from West Asian sources as recognition of Malaysia’s role in fighting ISIS and maintaining Sunni Islam predominance. Given the timing (just before Malaysia’s general election in 2013) and Najib’s claim that the funds were used for party’s political purposes, the money was clearly intended and used to ensure victory for the ruling BN….” (Harding).
The origin of Bersih Movement can be traced back to 2007 when it was launched to expose the then BN Government led by PM Abdullah Badawi, who took over the first post-Mahathir Mohamad regime after his long 22-year rule. The Bersih 1.0 galvanised a slew of anti-Government forces, which contributed to the rise of a substantial strength of Opposition parties in the 2008 general election. Subsequently, the Bersih 2.0 in 2011 and 3.0 in 2012 centred on the rots in the BN Government could draw large ethnic Malays across the country. As a result, the ebbing Opposition forces once again came up credibly in 2013 general election. Indeed, the Opposition has forced the UMNO-led coalition, which ruled Malaysia for over 58 years since the country’s independence from the British on August 31, 1957, to be contented with a mere vote share of only 47 per cent in 2013 election. The long years of uninterrupted political dominance by the UMNO has led to arrogance, State corruption and, abysmal record of violation of basic freedoms and a growing intolerance of public scrutiny of the ruling elite in Malaysia.
In its latest edition, Bersih 4.0, organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, is heavily focused on Najib’s recent money transfer scandal and some of his economic policies. Unlike its previous three avatars, Bersih 4.0 has not been able to draw support of the majority of the ethnic Malays. Thousands of protesters wearing their signature yellow T-shirts are shouting “Bersih”. The crowd is mainly made up of young ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities. The Bersih leader, Maria Chin Abdullah who is urging the country’s Parliament to propose a vote of no confidence on Najib, said, “For 58 years, people have been patient with bribes, a political system that cannot resolve 1MDB. Today, we want reform.”
Bersih 4.0, unlike the Bersih 2.0, has five official demands: clean elections, clean government, right to dissent, strengthening parliamentary democracy and finally, saving the country’s economy. Reading the turbulent politics of the past, it is widely believed that without the active engagement and support of the Malay majority demographic, an imminent socio-political change can hardly be expected. Socio-political structure of Malaysian society reflects its pervasive realities. “Years of conditioning through policy and propaganda have created a heavy reliance on the State, which in essence means UMNO, the dominant party in the ruling coalition which Prime Minister Najib helms as party president. While it is difficult to say conclusively that this explains the tepid reaction of ethnic Malays during the Bersih protests,” (Liow), but it is widely felt that majority of them may not come up in arms against the current dispensation in Kuala Lampur.
The Transparency International (TI), the global watchdog for anti-corruption, last year announced that Malaysia, the Southeast Asia’s third largest economy is facing grave corruption crisis. The same year, in a later statement, Jose Ugaz, the chairman of TI, noted, “If Malaysia is to get through its current crisis, then the Government must let those who know how to investigate corruption do their job. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission must be able to act independently and be free from political interference.” The global anti-graft organisation has highlighted the growing autocracy of BN in Malaysia on the eve of the recent Southeast Asian leaders meet with US President Barack Obama in California to discuss world issues and trade. It is alleged that Malaysia under Najib is disregarding its international commitments to fight corruption, under multi-national codes and instruments like the UN Convention Against Corruption and ASEAN Political Security Community Blueprint 2025.
Further, Srirak Plipat, the Regional Director of TI’s Asia Pacific Chapter, who demanded transparency from the Malaysian Government on the issue of 1MDB scandal, expressed strong concern for the security of the potential Government whistleblowers and others who sought to expose any possible wrongdoing involving public funds and called for their greater protection after the authorities hinted at a possible amendment to the Official Secrets Act 1972 to charge journalists who refuse to reveal their sources as well as whistleblowers.
