Undemocratic Democratic Country

A planned rally by supporters of the defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in Tehran has been banned by Iran's interior ministry, but protesters still looked set to take to the streets later today.

The news came as reports spread that dozens of leading members of the opposition had been detained.

Mousavi is reported to have appealed to the country's guardian council to challenge the result of the elections, alleging widespread fraud.

However, the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the results were fair and compared the protests to the passion shown by football fans after a game.

Earlier, Mousavi's supporters had been handing out leaflets and sending internet messages calling for a rally in Tehran's Enghelab Square at 4pm local time. But it is now unclear whether protesters will take to the streets.

A message broadcast on state radio said: "The interior ministry issued a statement and said no permission had been issued for a rally ... the holding of such a gathering would be illegal."

Yesterday, Iranians protested against what many have called a "stolen" election.

Read more here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's hard to comprehend why a country decided to identify themselves as a democratic country when it is not democratic at all. It's even harder to comprehend why a country holds election when those in power has no intention to play in a fair, democratic and constitutional way. Who are they trying to impress? What are they trying to achieve? It's really mind-boggling because in the end, the world will still know that they did it an undemocratic way to stay on power. It's much easier to holding onto power with the help from their political allies (i.e. police & army) than going through all those cumbersome and tiresome electoral process only to be scorned by their own people and the world.

For me, winning an election with dirty tactic is no different from a coup d'etat. It is most amazing to me that the so called western democratic countries are only interested in turning an undemocratic country to a democratic country without giving a hoot whether real democracy exist or just a lip service to appease them. They do not mind if a country is practising dictatorship so long it bears the democracy title and held general election without fail even if it's rigged, but will constantly bark at those countries without democracy title even they are better in human rights & freedom of speech than the former. This is nothing but hypocrisy.

Take for example, Singapore. It's declared as democracy. It held general election every 5 years. Everyone has a chance to vote unless he/she decided not to. It looks and sounds like democracy, but is it? Now this will lead to a meaningless debate without the definition of democracy. "There is no universally accepted definition of democracy, there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties." (Wikipedia, Democracy) Singapore may pass the first test but fail the second test miserably. Under these circumstances, Singapore really should not be considered a democracy.

Malaysia, another famous democracy. I would say it failed both the test even with the most leniency. Many of our citizens couldn't vote because someone already voted using their votes. We have no freedom to wear color of our choice. We are not allow to vent our dissatisfaction with peaceful demonstration. This is most obvious absurdity and deviation from democracy. And yet, we claimed to be democratic. At least Myanmar is brave enough to declare publicly that it is under dictatorship, unlike Malaysia/Singapore/Iran which practice dictatorship under the disguise of democracy to pacify the west.

Now, the western democracies has to be consistent. When they bark & sometimes sanction Myanmar/China/North Korea/Cuba for their undemocratic and dictating way of governance, democracies such Malaysia/Singapore should not be let off the hook for breaching the spirit of democracy. Breached democracy is non-democratic and should be dealt with similar punishment or at least a scoffing from the west. They shouldn't practice double standard for their own interest. Instead, due punishment should be consistently given to those who breach even the least of democracy.

Malaysia is Still 'Malay'sia After All

When our hope soars high that Malaysia finally overcome the shadow of race and religion in its politics aftermath the last general election, we are again inflicted by the flirtation of PAS and UMNO, signaling racial politics is here to stay. The issue of Ketuanan Melayu and Islam still dominate the political ideology of the Malay in both camps.

When the non-Malays thought that they can depend on PAS to end the rule of UMNO in the next general election, they realized that PAS is actually just another UMNO that never hesitate to play racial card to garner support from their own race.

When the non-Malays are hopeful that NEP will be abolished and equality among races will eventually prevailed, their dream is shattered by the support of PAS on the 30% of share for Bumiputras.

If PAS ditches Pakatan Rakyat and cooperates with UMNO, the Pakatan Rakyat will be seen as a non-balanced coalition where it is predominantly non-Malays. The Malays are not ready to take the risk by voting their future into the hand of non-Malay. Eventually everything will be the same as before 8 March 2008, or even worse.

Believe me. Racial equality is not happening. Malaysia is still 'Malay'sia after all. The non-Malay has no place in this land. Of course, of course, I'm always hopeful I was wrong.

Has Tiananmen Square 1989 Protests Changed China After 20 Years?

I was 11 years when I watched in the television about the Tiananmen tragedy. Tankers rolled in to the street (at time, I didn't know it was Tiananmen Square), many people were running in different directions screaming and gun shots can be vividly heard from the background.

It is now 20 years after the Tiananmen tragedy. Frankly, I did not take notice of the severity of the tragedy until I realized that it bore some resemblance to the situation in Malaysia just recently. The university students in Beijing were protesting for a greater freedom of speech and had pressured the communist government to give serious effort in combating corruption. They took the street, or to be more accurate, the square for almost 2 months before the communist leaders gave permission for the military to quench the heat of the protesters. Armies were given authority to open fire against the protesters, be it students or workers who joined in the protest, without any sort of pre-warning (i.e 1, 2, 3, tangkap). It was said that thousands of people died and injured from the commotion, including the security forces. Hundreds more were being arrested and prosecuted. Some are still being held by the authority to these days in an unknown location (sounds familiar right? i.e ISA).

The courage of the protesters of the day to stand up against the government for their rights is commendable. Their heroism were being applauded around the world, probably except China herself and other communist countries (Singapore included), for taking a brave step for democracy. Many of the students' leaders fled China and seek asylum in western countries where they were granted citizenship.

The protesters who died left behind their loved ones (especially parents) whom every year during the anniversary of the tragedy, trying to commemorate their son or daughter within the square, faced intimidation and almost definite arrest from the authority. To prevent them from going to the square during the anniversary, police were deployed at the individual's house. The police are also to ensure that no foreign reporters will be able to interview them.

For 20 years, the government of China banned the discussion of the tragedy in any form within the media. News reporters were either being sacked or prosecuted if it was mentioned in the news. In 21st century, internet is not spared from the censorship. Thousands of chat rooms and major offshore internet sites such as Hotmail, Twitter and Flickr have been blocked, including Youtube which has been banned 3 months before this anniversary because of its showing of Tibetan riots. China is determined to completely ban any reference to massacre of students in Tiananmen. Worth mentioning though is, this page in China's history also had been completely taken out from their history books. This is a typical human's nature where we only choose to see the plank in others eyes while ignoring the plank in our very own eyes - this I refer to the decried of Chinese against the Japanese for altering their history books to wipe out the atrocities of Japanese during WWII, while doing the same thing on their shameful episode of history.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see that the young Chinese today have little knowledge about the incident, or would care to find out more about it. To them, an event that had happened 20 years ago has little relevance to their life, not to mention a thorough research onto the topic. One of the young people, upon interviewed, said that China has changed much throughout these years, especially on freedom of speech. He further attested that the current generation can virtually talk about anything without fearing any repercussion from the authority.

Has China changed?

There are many perspective to this question. From economy perspective, since the open-up in the 80s, China is the only country in the world that has enjoyed a 2 digits economy growth for 20 years. The author, Xinran, has a description for the impact on China from the rapid modernization.
"... my country was destroying the old to bring in the new. I saw now that this millennia-old empire of ours was being rebuilt by mindless modernizers who took their cultural bearings from McDonald. In the two decades that Mao had been dead, modernization had taken a heavy toll on every Chinese city, with arrogant local planners still gleefully bent on continuing this iresponsible destruction of the ancient past." (Xinran, China Witness; published by Chatto & Windus 2008, pg 16) That's a change too.

From military perspective, China has the largest combat ready army in the world. They will soon build their first aircraft carrier to counter the threat from the West. Last year, China had its largest budget jump on the spending of its military. China becoming another super power like America is increasingly evident and real (not as perceived by the western media not long ago that China will need 30 years to catch up with America militarily).

But what about from the human rights perspective? Has China allow more freedom of expression as described by the young Chinese? Can the Chinese not fear for their slightest dissenting voice? I doubt it and many would agree with me. Firstly, those young Chinese had been living under the government's propaganda for ages, I don't expect them to see thing as differently as the outsiders. The onlookers see most clearly. Secondly, I doubt any Chinese would speak his/her mind when facing a foreign camera.

For 20 years, I would say China government has not changed the slightest. Instead of moving forward, China has moved backward in term of freedom of expression. It is evident from several current events such as the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen massacre & the earthquake in Szechuan last year that killed more than 70,000 people. In both events, China government has put a stop to all kind of dissenting activities related to the tragedy. Parents were being arrested for demanding investigation into the shoddy work of those school buildings collapsed during the earthquake, or compensation from the government. Tiananmen parents whom out of love wanted to commemorate their sons/daughters death during the massacre were being chased away and put under house arrest. News and even discussion on Tiananmen of all sort are outlawed be it the mainstream media or the internet. Yes, the human rights in China has changed, but it has changed from bad to worse. Not the other way round as claimed by the young Chinese. At least 20 years ago, the student protesters were still be allowed to occupy the square while awaiting a negotiation with the communist leaders for up to 2 months before a crackdown was ordered.

A lesson to be learned by Malaysian?

After 20 years, the young people in China especially those living in the urban, amid economy and financial prosperity, are caring less whether they have real liberty of speech or clean leaders without mark of corruption. For them, as long as they have clothing to wear, food to eat and internet to surf, the rest are less important to them. Little that they know this is a common strategy among most Asian countries and their power-crazy leaders to silent the people against their corrupted behavior. They have forgotten or probably not knowing how the last generation 20 years ago tried to seek a louder voice for the next generation, end up sacrificed. It is most unfortunate for the current generation.

For a conclusion, China has not make any good advancement on human rights issue. To the contrary, their human rights record has worsen. Some official being interviewed said things will get better in the next 10 years. I wonder how. If 20 years did not change much, how much can 10 years change? Although it was not successful, the last generation had done their part, it is now up to the current generation to dare to change for better and live with dignity. Perhaps then the official's wise word may come true.