The democratic hoax of Bersih (Part 1)

Back on the day of Bersih 1.0 on November 10, 2007, this blog wrote a Malay pantun series entitled Dilemma November Sepuloh Haribulan.

The pantun series was republished on Malaysia Today. Raja Petra had then a sense of fairplay to publish the other side of a view. It is hardly the case today since he declare that MT is a propaganda machine with no intention to seek the truth and righteous ways.

Back then, Raja Petra had approach this blogger and mooted the idea of Bersih for support. However, there was suspiciously something conniving and deceitful in the intention and manner Bersih was run. This blogger couldn't come to agree.

The pantun series encapsulate this blogger's argument against Raja Petra on that year's malam raya (the eve of hari raya) at our mutual friend's place, Kamal Amir in Taman Tun Dr Ismail. The essence of the disagreement piece was in these phrases:

Ribuan mahu bersuara berkata
Amalan demokrasi dikata agenda
Dalam perlembagaan hak tersedia
Aman dan damai sebaik cara

Tujuan dan cara mungkin berbeza
Fikiran dan sikap ku terbuka
Itu hak mu untuk bersuara
Tersurat dan tersirat mesti sama

Terbuka mendengar dan berbicara
Bagi ku jalanan bukan cara
Mahu berkumpul untuk apa?
Cara feudal silam erti tiada

To begin with, Bersih's stated and unstated objectives differ.

In the light of another Bersih 2.0, let me declare that Bersih 1.0 was a democratic hoax intended to deceit the public into thinking it was a ! worthy c ause but had the intention to initiate public disorder with the hope to attain power through unconstitutional means.

If this blogger can't agree with Bersih 1.0, like hell will this blogger agree with Bersih 2.0 with it's clearly stated intention to replicate the Tahrir Square revolution in Kuala Lumpur. Be it for 2007 or 2011, Bersih people are anarchist masquerading as democratic reformist.

It was and still is about seizing power through undemocratic means.

The first Bersih was originally drummed up as Yellow March. The concept was mooted by former Semangat 46 activists aligned with Tengku Razaleigh whom can be considered as royalist faction within UMNO.

They claimed that Dr Mahathir had eroded the power of the monarchy during the constitutional crisised of the 1980s. Raja Petra wrote at large about the constitutional power of the monarchy and the erosion of power arising from constitutional amendments.

Until the Perak crisis came about, Raja Petra had given much publicity and accolades to the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah.

The idea they thought would appeal to the public was that it was impossible to remove Tun Abdullah Badawi from his Prime Minister seat through the normal democratic process through general elections or party elections.

The only way possible as suggested was to revive the royal power or royal discretionary power. By re-empowering the Agong or Sultan again, executive abuse and the concern of the time was infiltration of foreign interest in Government policies and GLCs could be addressed.

That was the simple idea promoted. But the problem was it was too simple. It was also playing on the politics of the past whose train has left the station.

The idea of giving Sultans, of which few are not sufficiently educated and experianced in administration, discretionary power does not appeal to this blogger.

Feudalism has no romantic value like reading of old hikayat to this blogger. That is where! Dr Maha thir appeal to this blogger. He is against feudalism.

Before slogans using the word rakyat became plenty, this blogger have long had the rakyat in his heart.

This explains the line "Cara feudal silam erti tiada." It expressed this blogger disagreement to return to the feudel past described as a meaningless end game.

In our argument that malam raya, this blogger expressed without inhibition to a member of the Selangor royal family that the idea of feudalism and royal discretion is not appealing. While acknowledging the sovereign status of the Sultan, this blogger vehemently disagree to any idea of giving em-powering the Sultan beyond their present power.

To set the point home, this blogger blamed the royal and ruling elite for several centuries of indiscretion that led colonisation and the malaise of the Malays today.

In another set of pantun phrases, this blogger expressed below:

Apa yang disuarakan tidak diyakini
Tidak berapa jelas dan pasti
Jalanan Putrajaya menyorok intipati
Siasah dan agenda "keadilan" mengaburi

Kerana bukan suara rakyat hakiki
Ku tidak sama ikut menyertai
Hanya menghulur solidariti bereksperasi
Hak ku juga tidak menyetujui

Ku akui "Raja" yang ada lemah dan cuai
Masih boleh dikejut dan disedari
Struktur demokrasi masih bersemai
Titah dan perintah sudah tidak sesuai

Rasa hati sentiasa gundah
Mengenang masa depan bercelarah
Undang-undang dan aturan perlu gagah
Suasana anarki lebih susah

When the idea of a mass people's rally was mooted, there was supposed to be no politicians and no partisan elements.


That is the reason why some demonstrators were not ! wearing Bersih's T shirt but with Daulat Tuanku writings. There are also those that wore white.

There was not supposed to have Anwar Ibrahim or Lim Kit Siang or Haji Hadi at the Istana gates.

It was only near the November 10 date that Raja Petra told us that PAS was rolled in to make up the numbers. In his negotiation with Mat Sabu, PAS did not want it to be called Yellow March but will walk together but under the banner of Bersih to call for electoral reform.

That was how Bersih came about.

Raja Petra held back that information. He told members of the National Press Club that there were no politicians involved.

This blogger knew already that the agenda of people's march was hijacked and decided to stay out.

We knew of politicians waiting near the finish line at the gate. The plan for Anwar Ibrahim was a last minute thing. He was brought in on a big bike from Pertama Kompleks to deliver the memorandum across the gate.

That could have been the very reason Raja Petra wrote "How politicians hijack revolutions?" However, Malaysia Today's promotion of Bersih 2.0 does not indicate he bothers because he wants Pakatan politicians to hijack any form of people's revolution.

He thinks Pakatan is the people and will true to their words. This blogger does not think so. That will be where we differ although we respect each other as friend.

In Bersih 1.0 or the Yellow March, the people were duped into supporting the idea of empowering a just and wise rulers as the solution to the malaise of the time. The people were duped to think that the army and police is on their side.

There no such thing. Instead the people were used by partisan politicians to build up sentiment against the democratically elected Government.

In Bersih 2.0, the people are being led to think that the electoral process is filled with fraud and it justify doing a massive dem! onstrati on. Again the people is being duped.

The next part will show that their electoral demands are a bunch of hoax just like the idea of re-empowering the rulers was not possible. If election is an exercise in democrasy, the Bersih people and their so-called call for electoral reform have no such democratic intentions.

It is an excercise to grab power through undemocratic process through public disorder. As it is, Bersih is already reported in the blogs and media to be infiltrated with subversive elements such as communist ideology, CIA-backed institutions, and millitant sectarian Islam.

If the power grab failed, their Plan B is about creating a wave of public sentiment against the Government and/or instilling public defiance and provocation against the authorities.

The authorities does not equate with the ruling politicians but within the system of Government and institutions that carry out policies empowered to them by the law or set by the Cabinet.

It has all the ingredients of public disorder and anarchy.