The following article by Murtaza Haider (PhD),Associate Dean of research and graduate programs at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University in Toronto was originally published HERE. I am sharing it because I believe the Pakistani experience sounds exceptionally familiar!
Excerpt:
As the vote count subsides, allegations of electoral fraud rise. Almost all major political parties in Pakistan have hurled allegations of voter fraud in the May 11 elections. Some activists have taken to the streets. They should, however, head to a computer lab to analyze precinct counts for voter fraud.
Statisticians have devised algorithms to identify certain types of voter fraud, such as ballot stuffing and manipulated counts. Other types of electoral fraud, such as harassment of candidates, voters, and poling staff do not necessarily require any statistical proof since such overt acts could be identified without the use of analytics.
Millions of Pakistanis have voted in the May 11 elections to show their support for the democratic process. Democracy, however, is not confined to casting votes. Dispute resolution through peaceful means is also a hallmark of the democratic process. Pakistanis may want to learn from others who have relied on scientific method, courts and the rule of law to resolve electoral disputes.
Recall the American presidential elections in 2000 in which President George W. Bush was declared victorious against the Democratic candidate, Al Gore. The election was decided arbitrarily by the US Supreme Court that halted the vote recount in Florida and upheld the decision by Florida’s Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who declared Mr. Bush as the winner in Florida. The victory in Florida delivered Mr. Bush the presidency of the United States.
However, Mr. Gore was found to be the real winner of the US Presidential elections after the recount was completed months later. By that time, Mr. Gore had already conceded and Mr. Bush had begun his first tenure as the American president.
The important lesson to learn from the American example is that while Mr. Gore and Democrats believed that they were denied victory by the US Supreme Court, who decided to uphold a decision made by a partisan State official, Ms. Harris, the American people did not resort to destruction and violence. They accepted the Court’s decision even when most were not convinced by the verdict. Mr. Gore emerged as a statesman, winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts to protect the environment. Ms. Harris’s political career was later stalled by political scandals.
CLICK HERE for more.
Here are a few video clips which I believe are very good music videos that carry excellent messages. To be fair, I have posted videos from both sides of the divide and just sharing these videos which I find are most refreshing as they have approached issues differently.
It has been quite rare to find inspiring debates/speeches with all the community sanitary output that is being spun by various quarters. Even the advertisements from both sides of the divide leave much to be desired. What has happened to creativity and intelligent framing of political messages? Has the country moved backwards so much that it is so difficult to find thought-provoking and people-centred speeches that do not deride or poke fun at the other side?
Kudos to all the singers, producers etc involved in the following videos. I commend your efforts to communicate the message in your heart. I particularly like #1 and #2. Amazing and poignantly moving!
Please note that this is not an exhaustive list as I have not seen every single GE 13 video. Taste differs from person to person. I am sure there will be more videos coming up as the day draws nearer. If you know of other videos, please share via the comment box.
Five stars for musical quality, video editing, message, vocal quality, relevance, ability to engage masses, unity, concept and most of all, love for MALAYSIA!!!!
Namewee certainly has talent, perspective and creativity. I love the way the subtitles are in Tamil, BM and Mandarin. It is so fantastic to hear Tamil rap! Well done, Namewee, Ashtaka and 5Forty2!!! Wake up, Malaysians!!!
I stumbled upon this very moving video by Poon Poi Ming when I was ploughing through list after list of videos on GE 13. Thank you for a sensitive and caring compilation to remind us of WHY we have to vote wisely. Very thoughtful production, indeed! God bless you, Poon Poi Ming. Excellent choice of song and singer as well!
3. Love is in the air by Bukit Bintang BN Candidate :-)
A very entertaining and hilarious video. I commend the courage, effort and esprit de corps of those in this video as they were natural and obviously had a great time recording it. Very sporting! :-)
4. This is it!!!
5. Undi Anda Suara Anda
6. Sabah Avatar
7. Next is Ubah!
CLICK HERE for the song if you have not watched it yet.
8. Malaysian Gangnam Parody
9. Superman in Penang
If you know of other interesting videos related to GE 13, please share them in the comment box.
Thanks!
Have a wonderful weekend!
Recommended reading:
An Election of Greed
Media Greed During Elections
Mrs Blankenship goes out to vote
- lack of interest
- apathy due to overload of inane, lackluster election propaganda
- the role of new forms of campaigning via social media and android applications
- branding
- expanded PR methods
- more sophisticated buntings, banners, pamphlets etc
According to THIS SITE, we all need information literacy for a few reasons including:
Being information literate ultimately improves our quality of life as we make informed decisions when buying a house, choosing a school, hiring staff, making an investment, voting for our representatives, and so much more. Information Literacy is, in fact, the basis of a sound democracy.
As U.S. Representative Major R. Owens has said "Information literacy is needed to guarantee the survival of democratic institutions. All men are created equal but voters with information resources are in a position to make more intelligent decisions than citizens who are information illiterates."
Well-moderated forums discussing critical issues such as economic problems, legal issues, cultural policies, labor concerns, education and so on woud definitely raise the pitch of debate by a few notches ensuring that speakers are able to contend with intelligent and informed voters. Once that is in place, there is a greater possibility that only candidates of calibre stand for office.
When one partakes in fallacious thinking and then divides the world into black and white spheres where neither shall the twain meet, it could either signify the effects of subliminal programming or could herald the dawn of a new age whereby immaturity and narrow mindedness rule the day.
I believe that when people disagree, it shows they care, albeit to different degrees about different aspects of a particular issue/problem/situation. The argumentative state could indicate attempts to unravel better solutions to the issue. If that is the case, why are there others who try to stifle any expression of opinion - supportive or contrarian?
To disagree is not equivalent to betrayal, unkindness, disloyalty or insensitivity.
There is no use in:
- sweeping issues under the carpet
- being delusional by pretending with a smile that all is well
- being blind by living in oblivion that a particular issue does not exist when many are aware of its existence
- condemning voices of dissent
- taking an angry or retaliative or childish stance
If the rough and rocky road of angry rumblings is taken, surely tension will be the name of the game and it does no good at all. In fact, it only exacerbates the situation because progress is not attained and the cold wall of denial or confrontation or inertia drains people thereby making it even more difficult to reach conciliation. Then, the longer the problem will be unresolved and the more frustrated and negative would be one's reaction or perspective to change for the better when mutual respect fizzles through the air.
To me, it is largely due to how different individuals/groups communicate their frustration or concerns and how the other party reacts - positively or negatively. That makes all the difference.
At the same time, some may choose to remain silent. If that be the case, this cold wall can be interpreted as support, tolerance and/or ambivalence to the heart of the matter. Some may say they don't have the courage to say or do anything about it and then they are written off.
The more vocal ones are more than often ready to vocalise but have inertia in really getting down to the brass tacks of serious work. It is easier to be an arm-chair critic than to be in the thick of things doing real serious work - as an employee, team member or a volunteer.
In an environment where critical thinking skills are absent, where herd mentality rules, when the pressure to conform reigns or when one is subject to propaganda, it is very easy to forget that each concerned person should review and discuss critical issues and work it out together for a favourable win-win situation.
For example, I have my concerns about the state of education here. And I do have legitimate reasons to rant because I am directly involved in education and can see and assess the downhill trend. At the same time, apart from ranting, I have also given many suggestions many times as to why the problem exists, how it can be tackled and why there seems to be no progress, only regression.
However, there are also non-teaching Malaysians who share similar views and they can listen to explanations, make rational observations and discuss honestly in an environment where positive energy can flourish. In that way, differences in opinion can be appreciated, valued and taken into consideration while viable solutions are being worked out.
To me, there is nothing wrong in looking at what's happening, listening attentively and questioning passionately because of a heart that cares.
I advocate inquiry and not the dogma of advocacy or authoritarianism where one party says 'SIT' and everyone else sits.
Honestly, I perceive this is the root of the matter in this country where differences are played up, loyalties questioned, inquiries treated with disdain and quelled and then opinion leaders proclaim only theirs is the right way with the right answer and the right solution. Everyone else is wrong so zip up. Tragically, such overtures reflect the immature and low mentality of leaders who indulge in the 'gospel' of advocacy and then avenues of dialogue are slowly sealed one by one.
Why can't we have healthy debates? Why must it be angry debates/accusations in a win-lose kind of communication model?
We have to differentiate diversity, freedom of expression and also accountability. To give a blanket judgement that one has to accept A and reject B and that is the way it goes for otherwise, you are an outcast is a move which robs us of our thinking faculties to differentiate and to assess what would be the critical problem.
And this situation begins in the classroom right from kindergarten to even university or at the work-place. For instance, I always tell my students that they are free to disagree with me in issues discussed in class. If they feel natural disasters is an act of God whereas I may feel that it is due to man's irresponsible acts, it is completely fine with me and I will still give them the marks they deserve based on the rationality and maturity of their arguments, style and flair in sewing the whole case together and other aspects of the marking scheme.
The reality is this - for at least two to three months, few dare to offer their opinions. Why? Because they were shot down by teachers or classmates or they faced negative responses such as 'This is not in the syllabus' or 'Don't try to be funny..' and other attempts to derail their journey to inquire and to learn. When they grow up, they may carry with them this baggage of nonchalant ambivalence and kow tow to others who are perceived to be more credible and vocal and in a better position to argue to fight the case.
We see this in the political sphere. When one party says one thing, attacks ae launched, denials churned out at supersonic speed and red herrings thrown along the way for good measure.
Tragically, a few intelligent ones even spin the whole story to detour the whole focus of the discussion to a topic based on popular sentiment that is known to trigger umbrage. And then - tar da - people are led by their noses and rant and curse on that non-related issue, forgetting the main issue all the way. And they also forget to pick out nuances in the main issue because they forgot to ask, to inquire, to do research and then to collate, digest, analyze before they verbalize.
Sighs.
And that, dear reader....is the state of affairs in this country.
Where outspoken ones take the wrong track, miss the journey and face consequences.
Or how cunning ones are employed to confuse the masses.
Or non-thinking ones go with the flow.
The time has come to be rational, logical and fair in our assessment of conflict/issues/people.
Pin point the main issue and do not target the person. Forget not who is affected. The victim has the right to voice the heart of the matter. On-lookers may not have the same frame of reference. As such, they would view the problem or the road to the solution differently.
Let us focus on solutions and stay away from dramas and problems. Leave that to Hollywood, Bollywood, Hong Kong tv stations or Korean soap opera experts.
Observations should come first before opinions and we have to do our research to test the veracity of arguments/evidence.
Give others respect and listen to their arguments without any interruption or cajoling.
Question to illuminate, not to humiliate or to interrogate unless we are in a formal position that empowers us to do so,
Ask pertinent and not leading or loaded questions that could affect the response of the receiver.
Respect others always. Speak when we have the opportunity or else remain silent until the next opportune moment arises.
I always tell my students that they need to pay special attention to the tone and style of their writing and I try to practise what I teach.
Much like fashion where one adopts a particular style of dressing by choosing certain types of clothes, style in communication is our choice of words used in any form of communication.
Tone is the effect of those words.
Hence, to maintain peace, harmony and order in our society, especially during the election campaign period, let us respect and honour fellow citizens and set the right tone in our forms of communication be it at a ceramah, dinner, email, interposed or interpersonal communication and encourage a healthy discussion and debate.
Sometimes there could be no right or wrong response but it is important that we do not comment on what others say lest it triggers a row. The best bet would be to listen respectfully. I know it is very difficult, especially when one is aware of certain problems or unresolved issues and all one can see is the brick wall ahead with no road behind it.
Laughing is a good way to defuse a tensed situation, especially when we listen to witty, clever and amusing responses. Such a relaxed ambiance could encourage congeniality and a willingness to accept differing opinions till we agree to disagree.
However, logically speaking, each of us must now list out pressing issues of this country, our concerns. And to question our outgoing ADUN, candidates who are contending for those seats and to ask them to present their views and solutions.
Now I am not at all proposing conflict avoidance because the absence of a healthy debate and/or dissent and differences could be causal factors for faulty decisions!
That way, we can have a healthy and open debate to empower us to make intelligent decisions in our voting when deciding WHO IS THE ONE WORTHY OF OUR VOTE and whether or not, THEY CAN DELIVER - based on their record of service, character, manifesto etc.
As the nation moves into a major decision-making mode, may diversity be celebrated in such a way that we can attain harmony and unity, not factionalism.
Let's embrace differences without compromising ethics, values or principles. May God bless Malaysia with leaders - fine men and women of God who are intelligent, courageous, ethical, responsible and the heart to serve the people - truly, honestly and sincerely.
It is about 25 days to GE 13. So far, apart from the usual accusations, in-fighting and the works, there has not been much been said about the necessity for all parties concerned to field candidates with quality in calibre, leadership, skills, knowledge, service etc.
According to this paper:
A final concern is with two of the mechanisms that may produce voter response to incumbent quality. One possibility is that voters are sufficiently aware of incumbent qualities to make independent evaluative judgments consistent with variation in incumbent quality.
A second is that voters react primarily to challengers, whose entry signals a weakness in incumbent performance or quality, and whose campaigns convey critical information about incumbents to voters. While we cannot fully specify the conditions of each of these mechanisms, our comparatively rich measures of challenger quality increase our control over the challenger-entry hypothesis, which can give us greater confidence that residual evidence of citizen response to incumbent quality is not due to uncontrolled variation in challenger quality.
The question of mechanisms returns us to the importance of reassessing candidate quality to advance our understanding of political representation and the electoral process.
If challengers are essential in conveying information to voters about the quality of
incumbents, the emergence of strong challengers is all the more critical to the
congressional electoral process.
If, on the other hand, citizens have the capacity to judge their Representatives independently, our confidence in their ability to enforce the 2fundamental conditions of representative government is enhanced. This is true not least because House elections are typically not competitive and the entry of highly qualified challengers is the exception rather than the rule.
Thus, evidence that voters are sensitive to incumbent quality independent of challenger entry may increase our confidence in citizen control of the electoral process.
CLICK HERE for more.
For me, I believe that we should take a candidate-centred approach i.e. a detailed look at the candidate who should ideally be ready to have open dialogues or debate with constituents or candidates from opposing parties.
According to THIS PAPER:
The change from partisan to personal electoral politics is generally attributed to changes in the political environment that increased the salience of individual politicians' attributes and weakened traditional party organizations { changes in campaign advertising technologies such as the rise of television, the replacement of patronage with civil service employment, and an increase in the personal resources available to elected o cials for constituency service.
These factors led voters to see parties as increasingly irrelevant, and party attachments
weakened. Campbell (2007, p. 68) describes the process as follows:
CLICK HERE for more.
You can read about that book AT THIS LINK.
Recently, she released another publication 2012 Election Lessons Learned: How Voters Stood Up Against Suppression, ID, and Intimidation which you can download AT THIS LINK.
Excerpt:
The right to vote is just that – a fundamental right which is the cornerstone of American democracy. In the 2012 election, that sacred value was challenged in a way we have not seen in a couple of generations, perhaps since the civil and voting rights movements of the 1960s. Some powerful people tried to deny this right; legislatures in many states decided that the freedom to vote should be restricted, and they erected many unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to registration and voting.
The measures taken were so blatant and widespread that they served to energize coalitions of citizens to fight for voting rights harder than ever, and made many voters more determined to vote and have their vote count. The U.S. Department of Justice was compelled to intervene through its powers under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because the laws enacted in several covered states were clearly discriminatory in purpose and/or effect. State and federal courts also struck down or delayed many of the worst of these laws. And where identification laws did come into effect, some were made more flexible and less of a burden on voters after having gone through Department of Justice and court review.
READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE HERE.
The Malaysian Insider announced HERE that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak just announced that the Dewan Rakyat has been dissolved. This long awaited move paves the way for the 13th general election which may be held as soon as April 20 or a week later on April 27, depending on the Election Commission’s (EC) arrangements.
According to the report, the PM said he met with the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong this morning and received His Majesty’s consent to dissolve Parliament. To facilitate the GE, 11 state assemblies will also be dissolved today and tomorrow. On March 27, the Negri Sembilan state assembly was dissolved automatically while Sarawak had its state election in April 2012.
With this move, the EC will meet in the next few days to set the dates for nominations and polling that must he held within 60 days of the commission receiving the notices of dissolution from the state legislative assemblies that have yet to be dissolved.
Two hundred and twenty-twp parliamentary seats and 505 state seats are up for grabs in the forthcoming GE.
Let's pray that the road ahead of us will allow us to have a peaceful, free and fair electoral process in our nation's journey to establish a new government.
CLICK HERE to read DECLARATION ON CRITERIA FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS and HERE for the expanded version.
Another good article is from Democracy Web AT THIS LINK.
May there be godly and upright men and women who will be standing for elections this time. May they have a sincere desire to serve the nation and uphold integrity, transparency, efficiency, honesty and show the commitment to fulfill all promises made to the people during their term.
The Parliament has yet to be dissolved and many Malaysians like me at the stage where we just want to get it over and done with and move on to the next phase of this nations's development. The fact remains that since the unexpected result of the 2008 election, more have been fooled and deluded by all the pressies, sweet promises and new melodies that are being sung in various keys and rhythmic tempo till the actual day of reckoning.
It is saddening to note that there are many who have indulged in political forgetfulness. Some may have forgotten what their candidate DID and/or DID NOT DO. Not only do they forget the service record of candidates but also all the challenges or struggles faced in the history of this nation, and how empty promises were never kept.
Tell me, please. In the past few months when leaders talk about the elections, have they ever had the guts to talk about THEIR SERVICE record? Few have done. Whilst some may have done that sincerely, there could be others who have tried to ride on the glory of others and pass these off as their own. And what have they been telling us? The results of their fault-finding mission as to why the other side is NOT good whilst they are the best. Fair? Mature?
The saddening likelihood is that come this election, history is likely to be repeated when people forget the past so much that they will vote blindly or supposedly loyally by voting the party of their choice without considering the quality of the candidate thereby ensuring that the insanity not only persists, but has become endless.
Judging from the past, when the campaign trail gets more exciting, voters can become irrational in their judgement when the speeches/statements heat up and get scandalous, spicy and thrilling. In the process, as a result of disinformation, in a bid to assuage the pain, many may subconsciously remember no more the pain, misery and disappointment suffered under their ADUN or MP.
Instead, time is wasted when opposing camps argue over who is right and who is wrong with little regard of the people's needs except when making promises that are not likely to be kept!
What is sorely needed is an honest to goodness assessment of the suitability of each candidate and leave it to the people to judge and to confirm whether or not he is a political serial liar, exaggerator or just a charismatic speaker or whether indeed he has ALL the qualities of an elected representative.
Is it rational for voters to vote a second time for their representative who has failed to deliver what has been promised in the previous election and if history shows he/she has been nothing but a political liar? A particular candidate who has failed to deliver the package of promises promised in the last election must be written off. Also, those who have served for MANY terms. They need to give way to young blood to be at the helm while they retire gracefully for a good rest.
I am so fed up to see HOW SELFISH are some politicians who do not regard the needs of the people in different constituencies but treat the whole election process as a lottery whereby they DECIDE to stand for election in DIFFERENT constituencies because of party rationale/agenda and reasons that are NOT related to the people's needs. Shouldn't each candidate ASSESS the situation in each constituency and evaluate for themselves if indeed they are the best candidate for that area instead of flying from north to south in an effort to ensure victory? Selfishness or patriotism?
The sad truth is that many media reports may not present an accurate depiction of reality and instead, help or distract people to forget their past experiences and to accept half-baked statements or promises that were never delivered in the previous or coming election. Why? Because one can be easily beguiled if we do not critically think about situations, speeches and quality of candidates.They may have even one too many chances for the representative to serve the people and not just look at the dollars and cents over here.
How I wish there will come a time when voters are savvy to the means and content of communication and be immovable and never persuaded by sweet talk and whatever meaningless handouts that beggars will not even accept.
I guess we are all tired. Tired of lies...games...broken promises...and the worst deal is that many others will succumb to the same pattern. What a crying shame!
I wonder how many of us are aware of the job description of elected representatives and whether we have realistic expectations of what they need to do to serve the people and whether they only vote for candidates who can work for their interests or that of their families and neighbours.
The other dangerous trend is how die-hard supporters of a candidate (who may also be key personnel in the election campaign) unconsciously puts themselves in the centre thinking that the elected representative owes them a debt which can only be settled when they ask the candidate for a favour next time. Hence, leaders should concentrate on IMPROVING THEIR PARTY and CANDIDATE instead of being selfish and trying to achieve their hidden agenda.
As the election draws close at hand, let us really do our homework and check up on the party and the candidate so that only the best candidate with the most suitable personality, experience and aspiration is elected and who is truly willing to serve the community is elected. Let us guard ourselves from becoming victims of propaganda, disinformation or misinformation. Think, analyze, reflect, digest and really assess election manifestos, speeches, election paraphernalia and do not simply believe what the content of what you read, watch or listen.
Whatever the case, don't get fooled again by either the party, person, propaganda, presents etc but seriously gauge the QUALITY of the candidate and their sincerity and willingness to serve the PEOPLE and not their masters!!!
