The NGO-Government Relations in Malaysia:... (PDF Download ...

April 16, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Documents
Share Embed


Short Description

Full-Text Paper (PDF): The NGO-Government Relations in Malaysia: Historical Context and Contemporary Discourse. ... In i...

Description

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

The NGO-Government Relations in Malaysia: Historical Context and Contemporary Discourse Khoo Ying Hooi1

Abstract This article seeks to explain the linkage between the non-governmental organization (NGO) and the government within the context of Malaysia’s historical and contemporary political development. The 12th General Election in 2008 has brought about many changes in Malaysia; one of the most significant developments is the tremendous growth of the civil society groups in the form of NGOs. It shows further steps in the democratization in the country.NGOs are recognized as one of the key players in influencing the policy-making of the government. However, they are most often seen as opposing the country’s national interest or perceived as a threat. The relationship between the NGO and the government in Malaysia constitutes of dubiousness and challenges in the public policy discourse. This article attempts to examine some key concerns about the historical development of the NGO-government relations in the country. Keywords: Civil Society, NGOs, Government and Malaysian Politics. Introduction Over the past years, the concept of civil society has become a household name in political and development discourses because of its perceived relevance to the quality of governance, effective public participation, and sustainability of a healthy democracy (Lee, 2004: vii). The proliferation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) strengthens civil society movement by advocating and supporting the reforms in the country, by organizing and mobilizing disempowered social strata, and by supplementing the traditional institutions of democracy (Gerard, 1998: 9). Malaysia provides a good example where diverse ethnic, religious, and cultural background offers an opportunity to demonstrate how these factors would interact and shape different forms and views of civil society. After more than five decades of Malaysian independence, many ambiguities in the actual practice of the idea of democracy surfaced and deepened from time to time. It is undeniable that the heterogeneous nature of the population and the tendency for every political issue to be transformed into communalism is a significant feature in the sociopolitical context of Malaysia (Zakaria, 1989: 351).Malaysia has the basic features of a parliamentary system of government that modeled from the Westminster system with periodic multi-party elections and constitutionally defined separation of powers entrusted in the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The Federal Constitution in a way was adopted to strike a balance between the diverse communities in Malaysia. The main features of the Federal Constitution were a dual government, Westminster style separation of power with the executive being part of the legislature and an independent judiciary, a monarch elected by a constitutionally protected group of Sultans, special privileges for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and provision of sweeping emergency powers. The Constitution has been amended several times since its enactment. The second part of 76

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

the Constitution provides a provision to protect fundamental liberties, which includes the liberty of the person, equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and assembly, and freedom of religion. All of the liberties mentioned are not guaranteed but are subject to the Constitution as well as the ordinary laws. The Development of Malaysian NGOs According to Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1989: xvi), three essential components in an ideal democracy are extensive political competition, a high level of political participation and guaranteed civil and political rights. The political system in Malaysia is however, often located between democracy and authoritarianism. The restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for example, as well as other legislation with anti-democratic elements indicate that Malaysia is more of a “quasi democracy” (Zakaria, 1989: 349) since it practices Westminster democracy partially. It is also referred to as “soft authoritarianism” (Gordon, 1996: 103-117), or “semi-democracy” (William, 1993: 183205). Since 1955, the Barisan Nasional (BN) has been the only coalition party dominating government. This coalition is comprised primarily of communal parties representing Malaysia’s major ethnic groups: Malays, Chinese and Indians. Government under the BN combines democratic elements with significant restrictions on individual rights. As argued by Meredith and Saliha (2003: 6), despite relative freedom to form political parties, the opposition parties’ activities are often constrained by the overall legal environment. The result of the 12th General Election held on March 8, 2008 however, puts the nation in shock. In the dawn of the election result declaration, there were still unbelief expressions from the people at large, including the opposition. Although the opposition has not managed to win over the 2/3 majority in the Parliament, this election as popularly known as the ‘political tsunami’ in Malaysia has manifested the major gain for the opposition and the civil society as a whole. The citizens found the lack of adequate space for civil and political liberties; state monopoly over economic and social transactions; and the absence of participative rights as objectionable and not in line with the country’s development. Therefore the civil society is smoothly presented as an answer to counter the ills of the political situation in the country. The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) movement founded in 2006 has contributed greatly in keeping the momentum. With not much surprise, the term has now becomes a mouthpiece of the street and not limited to the elitist in the country. In Malaysia, the human rights NGOs especially are always seen as opposing the country’s national interest or are perceived as a threat. In international relations, NGOs at the same time are also referred to as advocacy groups, pressure groups, lobby groups or non-state actors. In contemporary political discourse, advocacy groups act as a buffer between state power and its citizens (Vidhu, 2002: 2). They play a crucial role in creating and sustaining a rights-based society and often deemed as the key for improving the quality of governance, enhancing people power, enabling development and strengthening democracy.The NGO working environment in Malaysia is not vibrant as compared to that in other Southeast Asia countries particularly Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia, despite the fact that Malaysia is notably ahead in economic development. Many factors contribute to this situation, which have their root in the historical structure and also the administrative control of the country, particularly the legislation. In the past years, there have been numerous of attempts by the government to curb the activities of the NGOs. There have 77

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

also been a considerable number of amendments to the law and introduction of new rules to actually restrict the movement of the activists, which makes adverse impact on their activities. NGOs by definition are independent, impartial and neutral agencies, which provide relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction or development assistance. NGO-government relations across the globe have occasionally been tense, where a government has been fearful of being substituted by NGOs and exposed for a lack of accountability and transparency with public funds. Whilst the mandates, organizational structures and approaches differ between agencies, NGOs generally work at the grassroots level to provide aid, services and information both to those in need and to a wider audience of policy-makers, state organizations and donor agencies. In this article, the concept of NGOs only applies to those do not receive any funding from the government. The Federation of Malaya achieved its independence in 1957 while the country was still in a state of emergency in the wake of the communist insurgency. Although there was a Federal Constitution, which guaranteed fundamental liberties, these were restricted by the Emergency Regulations, which suspended these civil liberties. The Emergency Regulations continued until 1960 when the emergency was terminated and most civil liberties were restored (Cheah, 2001: 78). As John (2001: 161) puts it, civil society that was shaped in the post-independence period was significantly influenced by the ways the British instituted the social, cultural, economic and political transformations of the communities. The politics of Malaysia could be well described as strong but with an authoritarian bureaucratic foundation. The now scrapped Internal Security Act (ISA) enacted in 1960, replaced the Emergency Regulations indirectly. The Prime Minister at that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman assured the Parliament and the country that the ISA would never be used to restrain legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent (Rais, 1999: 256). Tun Abdul Razak, the then Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Affairs Minister also assured the public that the usage of ISA would not be abused. On 21 June 1960, he declared in the Parliament that the enactment of the ISA was intended to combat the subversive activities of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). However, over the years, the ISA has been misused and abused repeatedly. The ISA allows the government to detain anyone for any length of time without the right to an open trial. Throughout the 1960s, ISA arrests and detentions targeted those involved in communist activities, particularly members of the then Labour Party, which formed part of the Socialist Front. On 26 November 1966, 70 people were arrested from various opposition parties in connection with alleged links with the CPM. Zakaria (1989: 352) reckons that the period from 1957 to 1969 may appropriately be characterized as “democracy on trial”, because the Westminster model was endorsed with little revision, in spite of the communal nature of the plural society in Malaysia. The overwhelming dominance of the government was apparent even though groups with contesting views from the government were given some coverage in the national newspapers. There were certain restrictions in the freedom of media, which can be seen from the laws that require newspapers and other periodicals to renew their licenses every year while both radio and television are both state-owned. These laws restricted the opportunity of certain groups to communicate freely with the general public (Chandra, 1986: 232-233). Nevertheless, it could not be denied that the years under Tunku did provided some space for organizations not aligned to government interests to function. Opposition rallies were allowed to take place even if permits for public rallies were delayed (Chandra, 1986: 233). The university students at that time were allowed to have their own political clubs in the 78

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

campus and would often issue statements and organize demonstrations concerning various national and international events. Tunku’s multi-racial style of leadership brought about political stability and economic success, until racial riots broke out on 13 May 1969, which was primarily localized to Kuala Lumpur and a few other towns in the Peninsula. The King declared a state of national emergency. Parliament and the Constitution were suspended and the government formed the National Operations Council (NOC) for 21 months to restore law and order in the country. Following the incident that tainted the communal relations, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (EO) was enacted. Even though EO was devised as the direct response to the incidents, it still remains in force; the ISA was nevertheless being preferred widely to curb the perceived racial antagonism (Fritz and Flaherty, 2002: 16). The May 13 incident is one of the key factors that brought the birth and growth of human rights NGOs in the country due to the major political, social, cultural and economic transformation. As emphasized by Chandra (1986: 44), control of the press was becoming obvious right after the incident, and this deficiency gave rise to all sorts of speculations, which, in turn soured the ethnic tensions. The NOC was put under the leadership of Tun Abdul Razak, until Parliament was restored in 1971. The effect of the 13 May racial riot on human rights in the country was immense and drastic. Among the changes that took place includes the introduction of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA), which was motivated largely by the need to provide an administrative basis for the establishment of new universities. However, the amended UUCA in 1975 prohibits students, academics, social groups and political parties the right to organize rallies, at the same time restricts freedom of speech. The Parliament passed the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA), drafted based on the British OSA in 1911 with the rational that it was needed to fight against spy activities and to protect the interest of the nation. The OSA has since used by the government as the key instrument to suppress and restrict the flow of information in the country. Follow up from the 13 May racial riots, ethnic politics became part of student politics. As suggested by Chandra (1986: 13), United Malays National Organization (UMNO) factionalism has become associated with student activism. In 1974, student protests took place in Kuala Lumpur, together with discarded Malay urban squatters and impoverished farmers in Baling, Kedah, which led to the arrest of over a thousand students on the basis of illegal assembly. Over 20 students, academicians, and individuals were arrested under the ISA including Dr. Syed Husin Ali, former Professor of Anthropology in the University of Malaya and Anwar Ibrahim, the President of Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) at that time, who were held for 22 months. There were two attempts by individuals, elites and groups opposed to repression to protect basic human rights by forming organizations in the 1970s. As recorded by Chandra (1986: 66), the first was the formation of Human Rights Organization of Malaysia in 1974 and put under the chairmanship of national poet, the late Dr. Usman Awang. Other protem committee members included Ahmad Boestamam, V. David, Kassim Ahmad, Azmi Khalid, S. T. Gamany and Dr. Rohana Ariffin. Second was the establishment of a foundation committed to the struggle of human rights. However both failed to obtain approval from the authorities. Nevertheless, the era of the 1970s saw establishment of several new organizations in the country. Among these were Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN) or National Consciousness Movement, Penang Consumer’s Society, Women’s Aid Organization (WAO), and the Environment Protection Society. These organizations campaign progressively on various issues such as corruption, protection of the poor, 79

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

environmental care, and the expansion of democracy. From October 1980 to March 1981, the attempts by the government to de-register ALIRAN which had been a vocal advocate of civil liberties was yet another point of some significance and the public had started to show concern on the Societies Act issue. The ALIRAN de-registration issue had therefore created a certain awareness about the importance of defending the role of NGOs in the nation-building process. People had become more aware of the threat to dissent and democracy from some of those who exercised power (Chandra, 1986: 128).By the middle of the 1980s, the amount of controversies on human rights during the administration of Tun Mahathir heightened. The main issue related to the enormous amount of legal and constitutional power concentrated in the executive body at the expense of the traditional Rulers and the judiciary. Between 1981 and 2003, the condition of human rights in Malaysia was heavily influenced by policies engineered by Tun Mahathir himself. He was often criticized by the West for his authoritarian policies and use of state power to suppress opponents via various means such as the media, the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. Despite the arguments from civil society that his regime had restricted citizens’ rights and political growth, Tun Mahathir maintains that it is sometimes essential to restrict the space for civil and political rights in order to provide for the material needs of the populace. He insists that, “freedom from poverty and the wish to develop are also essential elements of human rights” and it is upon these rights that the country prefers to focus (Meredith and Saliha, 2003: 7). According to him, the crisis of liberal democracy lies within its lack of cultural values. He personally favored the importance of a political model based on Asian values instead of individual rights (Zakaria, 1989: 168).Several laws have been introduced in the early 1980s such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (DDA). The various shortcomings in the DDA also raise doubts among public of how it stands in relation to human rights. In 1981, the government amended the Societies Act 1966 which classified NGOs into two categories, “political” and “friendly”. This amendment affected a large number of organizations from performing their legitimate role of influencing government policy. A Secretariat headed by ABIM representing 115 organizations across the sectors coordinated a nation-wide campaign to oppose offending sections subsequently dropped by the government. In addition, the OSA amendments in 1986 imposed certain restrictions to the human rights movements in Malaysia. The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) in response managed to collect some 36,000 signatures to oppose the amendments made; however, the government through Parliament in the same year defeated the initiative (Johan, 1992: 51-54). In March 1986, the government tabled the OSA amendment bill, which established mandatory jail sentences to discourage the leaking of official documents. The amendment received severe opposition from the civil society group such as the Bar Council Malaysia, ALIRAN, the NUJ, the Federation of Consumers’ Associations, and trade unions. As argued by Ayame Suzuki in her paper, “Political Institutions and Opposition Forces in Malaysia: The Political Process of the Official Secrets Act and the National Economic Consultative Council”, the demand by the NGOs and opposition parties for a greater liberal legislation is among the factors that has resulted the enactment of the OSA. During a conference to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) on 10 December 1988, the NGO community in Malaysia with the support from Tunku, Tun Hussein Onn, Dr. Tan Chee Khoon and Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin 80

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

declared to form National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) to promote and protect human rights in Malaysia (Param, 2007). Tunku gladly accepted the offer to be the protem President. HAKAM made history for being the first human rights NGO in Malaysia that registered under the Societies Act, even though it took three years for the approval and was only officially registered on June 14, 1991. The Operasi Lalang incident on October 27, 1987 witnessed more serious events involving the direct abuse of human rights, when 106 Malaysians of varied background comprised of political crackdown on opposition leaders and social activists were arrested and detained without trial under ISA which served as the second largest arrest under ISA. Although most of the detainees were released either conditionally or unconditionally, 40 individuals were issued detention order of two years included Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh plus five other party colleagues, a number of Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) members and many social activists. Operasi Lalang also saw the revoking of the publishing licenses of two dailies, The Star and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and two weeklies, The Sunday Star and Watan. In any case, the incident provided Tun Mahathir’s government with the excuse to further tighten the executive stranglehold on politics by further restricting fundamental liberties. This incident also resulted in a noticeable change in the activism atmosphere within the NGO community in Malaysia (Kua, 2005: 4). The event is one of the tactics to deter social activism that was slowly taking place. Meredith and Saliha (2003: 12) suggested that although political NGOs have been fairly visible since the 1970s, the sacking of the then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim from his positions in the government and UMNO in September 1998 triggered the massive movement for change or Reformasi that brought unprecedented numbers of Malaysians on to the streets and into opposition parties and NGOs. Unexpectedly, the issue of citizens’ right to participate in political activities became a top priority among the laymen. Days before the verdict in Anwar’s first trial in April 1999, his wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail announced the formation of the Parti KeADILan Nasional (KeADILan) or National Justice Party. By late 1999, KeADILan together with other opposition parties – PAS, Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) joined together and formed Barisan Alternatif (BA) or Alternative Front. Meredith and Saliha (2003: 7) acknowledge that this coalition posed as the strongest challenge to Tun Mahathir’s political regime in the 1999 national election, as it was fully supported by an array of civil society organizations. In combination with opposition parties, these organizations have indeed posed a threat at times to the political order Tun Mahathir was so keen to maintain. Johana (2003: 3) reiterated the pivotal role of the Reformasi event, which has led to the participation of many new forces of civil society in political developments and electoral politics compared with the activism trend in the past. Civil society groups and activists were intimidated by the 1987 mass arrests, but the spirit for a greater space of democracy did not fade away. The Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) for example was established in direct response to these developments, while the Bar Council of Malaysia emerged as a strong government critic in the wake of the 1988 constitutional crisis. Others, such as the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and HAKAM were established in early 1990s. Many other independent groups also emerged and made their voices heard as the 1999 national election approached. Among of these groups included the Women’s Agenda for Change (WAC), Citizens Health Initiative, People are the Bosses, Seventeen-Point Election Appeals, Malaysian Citizens’ Election Watch (PEMANTAU), Malaysian Students Council and other initiatives (Johana, 2003: 81

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

12-14). On 10 December 1992, some of the NGOs that attended the book launch of “Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban”, a book on the struggle of the indigenous peoples in Sarawak for their land rights, decided to initiate a Malaysian human rights consultation (Malaysian Charter on Human Rights, 1994). Subsequently from the outcome of feedback from the questionnaire and consultations, 50 NGOs in 1993 representing human rights organizations, trade unions, consumer associations, women’s groups, environmental organizations, academic bodies and organizations of people with disabilities, finally endorsed a Malaysian Human Rights Charter. This historical document identified a broad range of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Initially, the Charter would be a living document, with various NGOs completing periodic status reports. However, follow-up has so far been sporadic. The rights of Malaysians to participate in civil society, and protection of basic civil liberties, are spelt out at length under the second part of the Federal Constitution, under the head Fundamental Liberties. However, virtually all of these freedoms are qualified by an overriding right of the government to decide otherwise if it wishes, in the interests of political order. The steady expansion of executive power since independence has, in practice, left few guarantees of individual liberties. The NGO-Government Partnership in Malaysia The relations between the NGOs and the government in the country could be summarized as that both parties have not been enjoying a harmonious partnership for a period of time. Rather, both prefer to confine into their own boundaries and are reluctant to share the information particularly. According to Verma (2002: 176), civil and political rights are not adequately protected in Malaysia and are curbed by several factors related to the State-civil society relationship, constitutional provisions, and the priority given to community rights. Moreover, the legal supremacy of the executive guarantees its control over political institutions and civil society. In contrast to the individual rights approach, a community rights approach has been common in legislation and in public discourse. Verma (2002: 193) argues that as civil society has not developed an autonomous space because of the government’s dominance over most institutions, centralization of power and the State’s capacity to neutralize political activity have led to a weak form of civil society.On the current situation, specifically in the post 2008 political tsunami, which witnessed the rise of the opposition, generally it was found that the working relations between the ruling government and the NGOs have been deteriorated rather than getting improved. This is also partly due to the tendency of many NGOs to favour the policies proposed by the opposition. However there is one noticeable change since the political tsunami, in many events or activities organized by the government sectors have started to include the representatives from the NGOs by informing them about their intended programmes and plans and by inviting them to events such as training and other projects. Nevertheless, most of the engagements are being conducted in the form of either a dialogue or meeting, rather than to have the NGOs to involve directly with the projects planned. The NGOs in Malaysia have gained a reputation as the leading campaigner for the democracy of the country since the 12th General Election. The Malaysian government has responded fiercely to the rise of the activism field in the country and takes up a defensive approach whenever the issues rise. There are many issues involving the NGOs and the Malaysian government. First is the registration issue of such organization. Simon (1986: 451) illustrates that the decision of the government under the administration of the then 82

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir to amend the Societies Act 1966 in 1981 sparked one of the most concerted protest campaigns seen for many years, involving many of Malaysia’s leading interest groups, as well as opposition political parties, the Malaysian Trades Union Congress, the Bar Council, individuals, and certain sections of the press. The Societies (Amendment) Act 1981 represented a legislative intervention by the ruling group to counter what it perceived as unhealthy deviations from the mainstream of political life, as well as to meet the challenges of certain individual interest groups. The move represented another step in the regime’s continuing effort both to restrict the realm of open political participation, and to manage its direction. As argued by William (1993: 187), politics in Malaysia could be classified as semidemocratic because the government has put many constraint in the societal organizing and also prevented the transfer of federal-level power through the process of elections. For some time there had been official expressions of concern over the political activities of interest groups. In December 1980, the then Deputy Home Affairs Minister Sanusi Junid told the annual joint meeting of his ministry with the National Security Committee and State Security Committees that any harmless organizations could eventually become a security threat. Although Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, peaceful assembly and association, these rights may be limited in the interests of political order. The legal framework governing non-governmental organisations is the Societies Act, the Police Act and a range of other laws restricting speech, the press and assembly. These laws, old and new curtail NGOs’ efforts and discourage would-be supporters. Second is the controlling of media by the government. This has posed serious limitation to the media exposure of the work by the NGOs and this has resulted to the mushrooming of the alternative media in the country. Raymond (1962) points out that, for a democracy to thrive, there must be freedom to do and freedom to answer. One way to do that is to ensure that the press is free to write without fear or favor, and to foster an environment where citizens are free to reply and criticize.Third is the question on the accountability of the NGOs in the country. NGOs’ principles of neutrality and independence from the opposition parties are therefore increasingly being called into question. One significant obstacle faced by NGOs in Malaysia is that the government has the ability to facilitate or obstruct NGO operations. Both NGOs and the government should be sharing the same objective, which is to prioritize assistance to the communities that they serve. But that apparently has faced a lot of challenges in these recent years.There is also a lot of frustration expressed by the NGO about the inefficiency in the ministries and vice versa. The complicated nature of the Malaysian government’s relationship with NGOs is the key to understanding the possibilities that exist for agencies operating here to have a meaningful role for a broader democratic space of the country. Therefore NGOs, to a great extent, must find a balance whereby they rely on their own experience and initiative to assist people, whilst respecting the legitimate role of the government and working to build its capacity. A more respectful and clearly defined partnership between both sectors will improve the effectiveness of their efforts. Conclusion The spectacular growth in the number of the NGOs is fundamentally changing the balance of power. The increased roles of the NGOs are seen as rather unpleasant one by the Malaysian government, which is already handicapped from the insecurity and the 83

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

confidence losing by the citizens. The increasing focus on the civil society which also occasionally being referred as “Third Force” stems in large part from the civil society’s potential contribution to democratic governance. Nevertheless, the credibility of the NGOs declined at the same time attributable to their structural weaknesses and over-politicization and the risk of being co-opted by the opposition. Their tense relations at times undermine the development efforts and assistance that they should provide to the people. The relationship is of course complex and different in many cases. Expectation of both parties is not even. The government should recognize that NGOs are one of the main builders of the community. In general, the NGO-government relations are likely to be more constructive where a confident and capable government meets an NGO that works to pursue mainstream development programmes. References Barraclough, Simon. 1984. Political Participation and Its Regulation in Malaysia: Opposition to the Societies (Amendment) Act, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 57 (3). Case, William. 1993. “Semi-Democracy in Malaysia: Withstanding the Pressures for Regime Change,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 66 (2). Cheah Boon Kheng. 2001. “From the End of Slavery to the ISA: Human Rights History in Malaysia”, in Jomo K.S. (ed.), Reinventing Malaysia: Reflections on its Past and Future, Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Cumaraswamy, Param. 20 August 2007. “Integrity Personified,” The Star. Diamond, Larry Jay., Juan Jose Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.). 1989. Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia, Vol. 3, Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Funston, John. 2001. “Malaysia: Developmental State Challenged”, in John Funston (ed.), Government and Politics in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Fritz, Nicole and Martin Flaherty. 2003. Unjust Order: Malaysia’s Internal Security Act, Joseph R. Crowley Program in International Human Rights, Fordham Law School. Gerard Clarke. 1998. The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia: Participation and Protest in the Philippines, London: Routledge. Haji Ahmad, Zakaria 1989. “Malaysia: Quasi Democracy in a Divided Society,” in Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia, Vol. 3, Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Johan, Saravanamuttu. 1992. “The State, Ethnicity and the Middle Class Factor: Addressing Nonviolent, Democratic Change in Malaysia”, in Kumar Rupesinghe (ed.), Internal Conflict and Governance, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Khoo Boo Teik. 2005. “Limits To Democracy: Political Economy, Ideology and Ruling Coalition,” in Mavis Puthucheary and Norani Othman (eds.), Elections and Democracy in Malaysia, Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Kua Kia Soong. 2005. The Malaysian Civil Rights Movement, Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information Research Development (SIRD), 2005. Lee Hock Guan. 2004. “Introduction”, in Lee Hock Guan (ed.), Civil Society in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Means, Gordon P. October 1996. “Soft Authoritarianism in Malaysia and Singapore,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7 (4). Muzaffar, Chandra. 1986. Freedom in Fetters: An Analysis of the State of Democracy in Malaysia, Penang: Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN). 84

Malaysian Journal of Democracy and Election Studies Vol. 1 Issue 1, 76-85, 2013

Rais, Yatim. 1999. Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia: A Study of Executive Supremacy, Kuala Lumpur: Endowment. Rajendra, Cecil. March/ April 2006. The Culture of Human Rights in Malaysia, Petaling Jaya: Selangor, PRAXIS. Tadashi Yamamoto (ed.). 1995. Emerging Civil Society in the Asia Pacific Community, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Japan and the Japan Center for International Exchange. Verma, Vidhu. 2002. Malaysia: State and Civil Society in Transition, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Weiss, Meredith, L. and Saliha Hassan. 2003. “Introduction: From Moral Communities to NGOs”, in Meredith L. Weiss and Saliha Hassan (eds.), Social Movements in Malaysia: From Moral Communities to NGOs, London: RoutledgeCurzon. Williams, Raymond. 1962. Communications, London: Penguin.

1

Khoo Ying Hooi is a Tutor in the Department of International and Strategic Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Malaya.

85

View more...

Comments

Copyright © 2017 DOCIT Inc.