ANALYSIS OF MALAYSIAN DEMOCRACY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AGUS
YUSOF
MOHD. FAUZI B FADZIL
DR. KU HASNITA KU SAMSU
INTRODUCTION
Agus Yusof1 (2013) states that most thinkers are of the opinion that even though there are a
great many shortfalls in the democratic system of Malaysia, it is still considered a democratic
nation as it had never failed in holding elections since its independence in 1957. To what
extent these elections were fair and free is, however, open to debate. He adds that most
thinkers classify the democratic system in Malaysia as 'neither democratic nor authoritarian',
and according to him, there are quite a number of thinkers who feel that Malaysia practices
semi-democracy, quasi-democracy or statis-democracy which means that Malaysia only
practices a portion of the democratic principles - in other words, Malaysia has not achieved
political maturity. This contention is supported by representatives from the ruling government
and the opposition parties, namely Saifuddin Abdullah and Khalid Samad (2014). This
statement of Agus will be assessed in this writing by means of five democratic principles, that
is: freedom of organization; free and fair election of government; free judiciary, guarantee of
right to assemble and voice opinion; and finally, respecting the wishes of the majority. The
statement of Agus regarding the lack of maturity of democracy in Malaysia had been
discussed in 2010 when certain groups in Malaysia began questioning this system. These
groups include Institute of Democratic Affairs and Economy (IDEAS) and the Islamic
Renaissance Front (IRF). They criticized the state of democracy in Malaysia based on reports
released by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2010. This report downgraded the Malaysian
status ranking to 71 out of a total of 167 countries in its 2010 democratic index compared to
its ranking of 68 in the pear 2008 (Sinar Harian, 23 Januari 2014). Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the
Executive Director of IDEAS blames the weakness of the government in undertaking mature
democratic practices in crucial institutions of the nation, including the media. Dr. Ahmad
Farouk Musa, the chairman of IRF, meanwhile claims that the right to assemble and voice
dissent is one of the instruments in a democracy that has not been respected by the
government, so much so that the police have ironically become among the source of trouble
1
Agus Yusoff is one of the critical political analysts in Malaysia. He is currently an Associate Professor in
Political Science in the National University of Malaysia (UKM).
1
during demonstrations. Statements by those representing moderate civil rights groups have
posed questions about maturity of the democratic system in Malaysia. However, there are also
positive comments about the democratic system in Malaysia. For example, Dewan Rakyat
Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has said that the parliamentary democratic system in
Malaysia has a bright future based on content development of democratic principles
(BERNAMA, 28 April 2014). These statements clearly depict that there exist diverging
evaluative viewpoints regarding the political maturity in Malaysia. Therefore the objective of
this literature is to attempt to verify the extent of the truth of the statements of Agus regarding
the democratic system practised in Malaysia.
A MATURE DEMOCRACY
Saifuddin Abdullah (2010) has suggested that a democracy is mature when society expands
and increases the participation of the people, including youth and students in institutions of
higher learning, in the structures and process of making decisions at every level and in every
field in a fair, transparent and responsible way. This would mean the involvement of all strata
in society in the democratic system without sidelining any group based on age or race. The
Malaysian Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Haji Najib Tun Abdul Razak's view of a mature
democracy envisages achieving a balance between human rights and national interests in the
formulation of laws. He believes a mature democracy needs to be seen from a broad and
universal context, and needs to encompass party-based politics, people's rights and basic
human rights as enshrined within the Federal Constitution, which should be upheld by doing
away with draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act 1960 and Restricted Residence
Act (Mohd. Ayop Abd. Razid, 2012). The view of Guy-Uriel Charles (2010) with regards to a
mature democracy relates to a society that respects the principles of democracy; for him,
changes in matters that are not considered core components of democracy do not jeopardize
democracy, as these are only changes in terms of policy. According to Gopal Singh (2013),
democratic maturity is a situation where the opposition in a democratic system exists not just
to oppose the ruling party mindlessly, but rather to ensure that the whole system operates
according to core democratic principles, and that there exists a choice for people to choose
better governance by means of their decisions in future. This writing uses the definition of
Guy-Uriel Charles regarding a mature democracy. As he had not outlined the core democratic
principles clearly in his writings, this study has outlined core democratic principles that need
to be respected, namely: freedom of organization; election of rulers who are free and fair; free
2
judiciary, guarantee of right to assemble and voice opinion; and respecting the wishes of the
majority.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The origins of the word democracy come from the Greek words 'demos', meaning 'people' and
'kratein' meaning 'to rule'. These two words come from the Greek word 'demokratia' meaning
'power of the people'. As such, the meaning of the word literally means governance by the
people. Western thinkers from pluralist and Marxist groups both accept the concept of
democracy; Abraham Lincoln (1863) has defined democracy as ruling of the people, by the
people, for the people. Haris Soche defined democracy as the rule of people, giving power to
people to organize, defend and protect themselves from coercion and mistreatment from
others who had been given these powers to rule. Hennry B. Mayom sees democracy as the
general wisdom determined by representatives who are monitored by the citizens through
elections based on principles of political equality and conducted in an environment of
guaranteed freedom. The International Communist For Jurist defines democracy as rule of an
authority whereby the rights to make political decisions are carried out by citizens of the
country through their elected representatives, who are then made responsible towards the
people through this free election process. C.F Strong, on the other hand, defines democracy as
a ruling system that the majority of the adults participate in based on a representational system
that guarantees that rulers are entrusted to act on behalf of the majority group. Finally, Samuel
Huntington describes democracy as a political system based on the strongest collective
consensus and chosen through general elections that are fair, honest and periodic and in this
system, the candidate is free to compete to secure himself a voice and that all adult citizens
are given a right to express themselves. The principles of democracy have been debated upon
from different angles;
Bingham Powell outlined the democratic principles as rulers
representing the wishes of its citizens and competitive elections being held according to
schedules with rotating candidates, with the involvement of adults (either as electors or
candidates). Elections are done in a free manner and citizens have basic rights (freedom of
speech, freedom of gathering, organization and forming political parties). Robert A. Dahl
outlines democratic principles as that whereby rulers are chosen, where there is oral and
written freedom, free and fair elections, alternative information, right of choice encompassing
all, freedom to form organizations and freedom to become a political candidate. Afan Gaffar
explains democracy as having these elements: safeguarding of the constitution, freedom of
organization, freedom of judiciary, education in citizenship, being unbiased, political acumen,
3
free general elections, and respecting of majority rights Benhard Sutor states the principles of
democracy as guarantee of rights to hold demonstrations, gather and express views, set up
parties, have the right to information, to oppose, freedom to form associations, hold free
elections, freedom to form alliances and coalitions, and candidates being elected for stipulated
terms only. This writing establishes that democratic principles need to embrace the aspect of
freedom to form organizations, election of leaders in a free and fair manner, free judiciary,
guarantee of freedom to gather, voice opinions and finally respecting the wishes of the
majority. These principles are chosen as they represent principles that have all been mentioned
by western thinkers who have expounded on the issue of democracy.
The concept of mature democracy has been discussed in a number of countries where its
society has started developing into a complex society. The development of a democratic
system in a certain nation causes more political parties to emerge, and this in turn, forces
academicians to lead political activism so that they do not sidetrack from mature democratic
principles. Among the scholars who have spoken of the concept of mature democracy are
Gopal Singh (2013) in his writing titled “Mature Democracy & Principles: Transformation In
Indian Democracy – Part II”. He feels that to ensure mature democracy operates smoothly, the
concepts of transparency and accountability are paramount. He sees the concepts of
transparency and accountability as being important especially in the context of India, that is
ridden with corruption in both ruling and opposition parties. He praises referendum and public
hearings, methods employed in the west, that act to help the public to make decisions about
critical national issues because these methods revert to the principles of democracy itself,
namely that of rule by the people. An article of the Boston Ethical Society (2002) discusses
the concept of mature democracy in the democratic situation in America. This literature
criticizes the administration in America that has diverged from the concept of 'voluntary
associations' advocated by deTocqueville, whereby the people act as the client and technocrat
to the government. The relation existing between society today and earlier leaders who had
formulated the American constitution is also criticized in this writing. It talks of needed
changes in democratic understanding according to the times and that it should not be bound
by earlier understanding so that it remains relevant and mature enough for current society.
Thus, this article defines eight tenets to peg down the understanding of democracy so that it
continues to endure throughout the ages. These tenets include elevation of personal interests
and common concerns; respecting individuals and rights (valued relationships and
responsibility); focus on processes; allowances for innovation; and growth in all dimensions
(political, moral, social, and others - not merely on economy); encouraging continuous
4
dialogue; having various dimensions and access to power; creating units that enable
heterogeneity in society; and finally, encouraging continued interaction between processes,
practices and products of democracy. Another piece of literature by Fox News (2006) that
delves on a mature democracy focuses the discussion to the involvement of the citizens in
elections. It talks of mature democracy in the American context where people are losing
interest in participating in elections and this has caused the original spirit of democracy,
namely rule by the people, to be unrealized in the democratic system in America. It enunciates
three critical factors that cause people to lose interest in participating in elections, namely
vicious attacking campaigns between political parties that lead to a situation where one has to
choose between the lesser of the two evils; insufficient explanation regarding options for
resolving current issues; and mistakes made by the administration that caused people to be
exploited. Saifuddin Abdullah (2010) also discusses political maturity wherein he poses the
question whether it actually does exist in Malaysia. He criticizes the sidelining of a portion of
society especially university students from being involved in democracy in Malaysia. This
writing was done before AUKU was introduced in 2012 whereby there were numerous
obstacles for undergraduates to participate in Malaysian politics. Saifuddin suggested two
methods to invigorate a mature democracy in Malaysia - through political integrity (based on
political science, political wisdom and political devotion) and new governance (based on
framework involving government / politics, business and civil society). Academic writing
about maturity level of democracy in Malaysia has not been found by the author to date; there
has been criticism of democratic maturity in Malaysia by scholars such as Agus Yusuf and
Saifuddin Abdullah, but only in social websites (facebook & blogs) and public forums thus
far. Academic literature that discusses the views of Agus Yusof regarding the level of
maturity of democracy in Malaysia is not to be found.
EVALUATION OF MATURITY LEVEL OF DEMOCRACY IN MALAYSIA
Agus Yusof's view of the level of democratic maturity in Malaysia will be assessed through
five indicators: organizational independence, free and fair election of government, an
independent judiciary, a guarantee of the right of assembly and expression of opinion, and
finally, the will of the majority.
a) Organizational Freedom
The Malaysian Federal Constitution in Article 10 (freedom of speech, assembly and
association) (1) (c) states that all citizens have the right to form associations; this means
5
that Malaysia's constitution does not prevent Malaysians from forming associations as long
as they do not conflict with other interests in the constitution. However, organizational
freedom in Malaysia is not fully independent in that it is controlled, even though this
liberty is granted by the Federal Constitution. Every organization that wishes to establish
itself in Malaysia must be registered with the Malaysian Registrar of Societies (ROS).
Statistics in 2014 (January-May) showed 32.9% of applications to establish organizations
were rejected by ROS (Registrar of Societies Malaysia, 2014) and these rejections were
due to a variety of reasons, but there has been rejection of organizations on unreasonable
grounds. ROS basically receives its powers through the drafting of the Societies Act 1966.
This act has specified that the establishment of an organization must be consistent with the
Federal Constitution (not an objective that conflicts with the constitution) and not
prejudicial to, or incompatible with, the interests of the security of Malaysia. It is only due
to these grounds that a society can be banned or have its application rejected. The question
arises regarding freedom of organization in Malaysia when ROS, which is under the
purview of cabinet ministers, ambiguously rejected several applications for the formation
of a number of organizations, although they were not against the Societies Act, 1966.
Among the popular cases include barring registration of three political parties, namely the
Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Parti Al-Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and Democratic Action
Party (DAP) to join a coalition under the Pakatan Rakyat. According to Anthony Loke, the
DAP National Organization Secretary, the Pakatan Rakyat had held its convention five
times since it was formed, and no less than three times, all these three political parties had
applied to register the Pakatan Rakyat with ROS but to date their application has been
rejected without valid reasons being given (Salmiyah Harun, 2014).
Another case that demonstrates restrictions to freedom of organization in Malaysia is the
issue of BERSIH, an NGO that champions electoral integrity. This organization was
deemed illegal by the ROS but its representatives still managed to have an audience with
Yang Di Pertuan Agong (YDPA). Moreover, its representatives were also sent to meet
government representatives to discuss the offer of the government to hold the BERSIH
gathering at a stadium (Utusan Malaysia, 2011). For no tenable reason, BERSIH's
application had been rejected by ROS even though it received solid support from the
public. The peaceful BERSIH 2.0 assembly enjoyed the participation of about 30,000
Malaysians. This figure shows how strong the support was for this NGO but ROS
nevertheless still did not approve this organization (Malaysia Kini, 2014). The symbolic
meeting of BERSIH representatives with the king makes it seem as if the king recognizes
6
the existence of this organization and the government itself has held talks with this
organization, yet the Malaysian people have not been given the rights to have this
organization recognized in a democratic system that is supposed to value the voice of the
majority. However, there does still exist room for Malaysians to form organizations
because according to the ROS statistics, in 2014 (January – May) there was a 63.2%
approval of new organizations. This shows that the right to form organizations is not
completely denied, but certain organizations that are deemed political in nature by the
government have been barred.
b) Free and Fair Election of Government
Article 13 of the Federal Constitution (conducting of elections) has specified some terms
and conditions so that elections in Malaysia can be accepted by all segments in society. It
needs to be stated that the election of government in Malaysia is not completely free and
fair. Discussion of free and fair election of government will naturally lead to debates on the
elections, whereby there have been a few groups, notably NGOs and political parties, that
accused the government of manipulation. Among the NGOs that have raised these
allegations are BERSIH. This NGO has held a series of peaceful assemblies demanding
that elections are held in a fair and free manner; among these demands are cleaning up of
the electoral register, reforming postal votes, granting access to independent and free
media, a minimum campaigning period of 21 days, strengthening of public institutions,
stamping out corruption and finally doing away with dirty politicking (BERSIH, 2013).
The ruling government reacted to the demands of BERSIH by forming a Parliamentary
Select Committee (PSC) to review and implement these demands of BERSIH (Kuala
Lumpur Post, 2012), but after the PSC had finished drafting its report in response to
suggestions to enhance the election system, during elections there were still allegations that
the demands of BERSIH had not been fulfilled completely. BERSIH representatives say
that of the eight demands, only one had been met, that is of using indelible ink for marking
fingers, but the rest had been totally ignored. Even when the election commission had
implement the demand of using indelible ink in PRU13, there is still controversy arise with
the implementation. There is several cases where the voter can wash the indelible ink from
their finger after they had voted, this situation is different with what had been claimed by
election commission where they said the indelible ink can sustained for seven day, the
BERSIH representative said there is no used of using the indelible ink to stop people from
7
voting more than one if the ink can be washed easily (Nahar Md Nor, 2013). The 13th
General Elections was the dirtiest in the history of Malaysia (Syed Mu’az Syed Putra,
2012).
Other than the issue of BERSIH's demands, there were also other issues, resulting in
allegations that the election system of the government in Malaysia was not free and fair.
Among the issues were delineation of electoral boundaries. The opposition accused there
was conspiracy involving the Election Commission (EC) in the demarcation of electoral
boundaries, and gerrymandering in many locations had given the advantage to certain
politicians to win in the General Elections (Media Selangorku, 2013). These accusations
were supported by the NGO, Tindak Malaysia, which stated that there was
malapportionment2 in GE13, causing a situation where the Putrajaya constituency was
weighted as equivalent to nine constituencies (Kapar had a population nine times more
than Putrajaya). Additionally, the ruling government won 133 seats compared to the 89
won by the opposition although the opposition obtained 51% of the popular vote (The
Malaysian Insider, 2014). Even so, the situation in Malaysia is not as bad as in certain other
countries in the Middle East, for example Egypt during the reign of Hosni Mubarak, where
his party won 95% of the popular vote, sweeping almost all seats in parliament. Also,
independent observers were prevented from entering polling centers when there were
reports of fraud and buying of votes. In some other places, the ruling government
candidates openly gave out money and food to voters in the vicinity of polling centers
(Utusan Malaysia, 2010). Thus by comparison with some of these countries, it can be said
that there is still some measure of fairness and freedom left in Malaysia.
c) Independent Judiciary System
Article 121 (2) & (3) of the Federal Constitution relating to the federal judiciary has
specified the powers of the judiciary and this entity comes under the purview of the king,
without being bound by the Executive and Legislative arms. The freedom of the judiciary
is suspect and this had been admitted even by the Malaysian prime minister, Dato’ Seri
Haji Najib Tun Razak during the Conference of Magistrates and Judges 2011 (Norakmah
Mat Youb, 2011). Doubts regarding the independence of the judiciary first appeared in
2 Imbalance of population size among constituencies.
8
1988 when there was a Malaysian constitutional crisis. At that time, there was a suspension
of its service and subsequently the removal of the Chief Justice Tun Mohamad Salleh Abas
from his post by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, which went against the provisions of the
Federal Constitution. This can be seen as a shackle to the judiciary which had been
guaranteed freedom under the Malaysian Constitution, and the beginning of interference by
the Executive towards the Judiciary (Malaysia Today, 2008). In 2008, the government
under the leadership of Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had made ex gratia payment to
Tun Salleh Abbas in relation to the 1988 crisis. This compensation payment showed that
the decision made in 1988 against Tun Salleh Abbas was wrong and it was almost as if the
government had admitted, by means of the compensation, that the freedom of the judiciary
had been compromised during the crisis (The Malaysian Insider, 2011).
Since this crisis in 1988, the citizens had started to question the freedom of the judiciary
more vociferously especially in cases relating to politics. Among the judicial issues that
were questioned involved an NGO called JUHAM that questioned the rejection of the
Elections Petition by electoral courts all over Malaysia after the GE13 (Ahmad Zamri
Asa'ad Khuzaimi, 2013). Before that, there were other cases that eroded the credibility of
the judiciary in Malaysia when it brought sodomy charges against Dato’ Seri Anwar
Ibrahim (DSAI), first involving Sukma Dermawan Sasmitaat Madja in 1998 and then
Saiful Bukhari in 2009. The latter charge was queried by various quarters on its credibility,
and when the case still proceeded even though there were many dubious factors, it then
became an issue. The counsel for DSAI revealed that most of the evidence needed to
implicate the opposition leader in the sodomy charge against Saiful Bukhari Azlan was not
found in the medical report that was furnished by the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital.
However the case still found its way to court (S. Pathmawathy, 2009). Most members of
the public also questioned the freedom of the judiciary when it chose to proceed with the
case although there was no concrete evidence (Malaysia Kini, 2009). An article written by
MGG Pillai titled, 'The Constitution – A Crutch for a Lame Judiciary' highlights how since
the constitutional change of 1988, the judiciary had lost the judicial powers that had been
reserved for it. This illustrates that since 1988, the judiciary in Malaysia has not been
independent (Chief Registrar Office, Federal Court of Malaysia, 2011). However, the
judicial system in Malaysia has been gradually improving in recent times and the delivery
system of the judiciary has proven itself effective when a senior lawyer revealed that he
managed to clear eight cases in a mere four months, compared to earlier times when it
9
could take up to five years to clear a single case; this was stated by Chief Justice Tun Zaki
Tun Azmi (BERNAMA, 2011). In the Malaysian judicial system, the lack of independence
only arises in cases relating to politics, whereas most other cases, especially those relating
to social and economic ones, are not skewed. Thus the judiciary seems to be biased only in
cases relating to politics.
d) Guarantee of Right to Assemble and Voice Opinion
Article 10 (1) (a) and (b) of the Federal Constitution relating to freedom of speech,
assembly and association gives the right to each citizen the freedom of speech to voice
opinions and gather in a peaceful manner without being armed. The right to gather and
voice opinion in the Malaysian context includes peaceful assembly. The general view of
the moderate Muslim clergy (National Fatwa Council) allows for peaceful assembly with
certain conditions, namely, not rioting, causing disturbance, damaging public property and
not have intent to overthrow the ruling elected government (Tribune News, 2012). This
guarantee of right to gather and express opinion that has been enshrined within the
constitution has not been respected by the Malaysian ruling government. The desecration
of this right took place in one of the biggest peaceful assembly in Malaysia, namely the
BERSIH assembly after the BERSIH committee had agreed to conduct the rally in a
peaceful manner. The ruling government had made the organization illegal and forbade the
people from participating in this demonstration. Upon the intervention of the Yang Di
Pertuan Agong the BERSIH committee had agreed to shift the venue to a stadium.
However the Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Haji Najib Tun Razak and his cabinet are alleged to
have betrayed this agreement to permit the rally to be held at the stadium (Pahang Daily,
2011). Malaysian citizens who participated in the peaceful BERSIH assembly were
obstructed by the government through the government machinery including the police and
city council staff and this peaceful assembly was broken up by police using water cannons
and tear gas. Barricades were also erected by the Kuala Lumpur City Council (DBKL) to
restrict the movement of the participants in this peaceful assembly. Besides the BERSIH
peace assembly, Malaysians were also barred from attending a number of other peaceful
assemblies by the government. Among these are the People's Revival Assembly, Black Out
505 Assembly, Janji Demonstration Assembly, and Hijau Assembly. The liberty to
assemble and express opinion in Malaysia can still be considered satisfactory if we were to
10
compare with Middle East countries, as throughout the peace assemblies, there were no
cases of any individual being beaten to death as what had happened during the Arab
Springs revolution in Egypt (Andreas Gerry Tuwo, 2014). There had also been peaceful
assemblies that were allowed in Malaysia by the government and this shows the right to
assemble and express opinion is accommodated in Malaysia, except that there are
restrictions towards groups that are not aligned with the ruling government (Berita Harian,
2014).
e) Wish of the Majority
The Federal Constitution has not literally made any special provisions regarding the wish
of the majority but it gives power to the wish of the majority through conducting general
elections every five years by means of Article 113, relating to conducting of elections, for
citizens to choose their government. The situation in Malaysia is such that the wishes of
the majority are not really appreciated. This was proven by the results of the GE13 when
the majority of Malaysians chose Pakatan Rakyat compared to Barisan Nasional, as the
popular vote in that election was won by Pakatan Rakyat, having secured 51% of the votes
(Jahabar Sadiq, 2013). This anomaly was not only evident at national level but also at state
level. During the power grab in Perak in 2009, the majority of the Perak people had voted
for Pakatan Rakyat to govern Perak, but the power grab had caused the wishes of the
majority of the people to be disregarded. The Perak state government thus was installed not
according to the wishes of the Perak people (Norhayati Umor, 2012). The same situation is
also found in Selangor; a study conducted by the Universiti Malaya Centre for Democratic
and Elections Research (Umcedel) found that the majority of voters in Kajang wanted
opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to become the chief minister, but the chief
minister of Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim rejected the results of the study, saying it did
not reflect the wishes of the overall voters in the Kajang by- election, thus manipulating the
wishes of the people (The Malaysian Insider, 2014). Another study conducted by Umcedel
reported that the majority of Malays and Chinese (69%) wanted to see Barisan Nasional
administration make a pact with the Pakatan Rakyat after the recent elections (The
Malaysian Insider, 2013). Prime Minister Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Haji Najib Tun Razak
offered the Nation Reconciliation Plan to the Pakatan Rakyat (official website of Najib
Razak, 2014) but it was rejected, especially by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim (Amin Iskandar,
11
2013) and Lim Kit Siang (Malay Mail, 2014). There have been a number of cases in
Malaysia where the wishes of the leaders have been placed above the wishes of the
majority of the people but the situation is still under control as the majority still have space
because in the more than 50 years since independence, the ruling government is still
elected based on the voice of the majority (popular vote), despite the odd situation during
the GE13 due to the system of 'first past the post'.
CONCLUSION
Generally, this article agrees with the opinion of Agus Yusof (2013) regarding democratic
maturity in Malaysia. Malaysia has yet to achieve political maturity fully and only a portion
of democratic principles are practised in Malaysia currently. Malaysians in general are
thankful for the peace and prosperity enjoyed by the country since independence but the
achievements of more than 50 years since independence cannot deny the shortfalls found in
the Malaysian democratic system. The Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin
Yassin concurs that times are constantly changing and it requires the people to be in tune with
developments in these times by increasing knowledge. Having said that, this not only involves
the people – it also involves those in power (Mohd. Farid Md. Alias, 2011). The democratic
system created by the founding fathers of independence in earlier times has within it practices
in governance that are not appropriate for current times. These practices may have been
suitable 50 years ago, but now, changes need to be made to this outdated system so that
democracy in Malaysia continues to develop to more robust levels. Malaysian leaders have to
start believing in the maturity of Malaysians in making decisions in a democratic system.
Doubts that the people will make wrong choices through the democratic system have to be
cast aside, and trust needs to be placed upon them in these modern times. The spread of
information and ideas is happening without restrictions and this situation has made Malaysian
society smarter in making decisions. Leaders should start dismantling obstacles in the
democratic system and allow the people to make their own decisions. In this way, the goal of
attaining democratic maturity will be greatly facilitated.
12
REFERENCE
Ahmad Zamri Asa'ad Khuzaimi, Petisyen Pilihanraya: Malapetaka Kepada Sistem
Kehakiman Negara, Harakah Daily, 3 Ogos 2013, <http://www.harakahdaily.net/>.
Amin Iskandar, Hamas Leader Meets Najib, Anwar To Take A Second Crack At National
Reconciliation, 9 Disember 2013, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
Andreas Gerry Tuwo, Bunuh Aktivis, Polisi Mesir Dihukum 10 Tahun, PEMILU 2014, 4 Mac
2014, <http://pemilu.okezone.com/>.
Bernama, Demokrasi Di Malaysia Punyai Masa Depan Cukup Baik: Kata Speaker Dewan
Rakyat, 28 April 2014.
BERSIH, 2013, Risalah 8 Tuntutan Bersih 2.0 (BM, Cina, Tamil), <http://www.bersih.org/>.
Boston Ethical Society, Mature Democracy: Governance in a Postmodern World, 7 April
2002, <http://kenwhite.us/mature_democracy_talk.htm>.
“Cina Melayu Mahu BN Jalin Kerjasama Dengan PR – UMCEDEL”, The Malaysian Insider,
19 September 2013, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
Chief
Registrar
Office,
Federal
Court
of
Malaysia,
19
April
2011,
<http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/>.
Dato’ Dr. Agus Yusof, 2013, Sembang Politik bersama Dato Dr Mohammad Agus Yusoff & Dr
Abu
Hassan
Hasbullah,
13
Oktober
2013,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHyBq_OJYTo>.
Dato' Saifuddin Abdullah & Yang Berhormat Khalid Samad, Diskusi Siri-2, 1 Februari 2014,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekkmmOtuOUI>.
Debra Chong & Ida Lim, Malaysia Negara Sekular, Bertentangan Kenyataan Menteri, Kata
Pakar Undang-Undang, The Malaysia Insider, 23 Oktober 2012.
Fathul Bari Mat Jaya, Talbis Iblis - Celaan Terhadap Bid'ah & Pelaku Bid'ah, 2 Januari 2012,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPM6yF9Bp20>.
Fox News, Mature U.S. Democracy Hobbled By Disinterested Voters, 5 November 2006,
<http://www.foxnews.com/>.
13
Gopal Singh, Mature Democracy & Principles: Transformation in Indian Democracy – Part II,
20 Disember 2013, <http://www.boloji.com/>.
Guy-Uriel Charles, Can Mature Democracies Be Perfected?, 9 Election Law Journal 157-159,
2010, <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2433>.
“Himpunan Bersih 2.0 Tetap Mahu Diadakan Di Stadium Merdeka Seperti Yang Di Rancang,
Malah Penganjur Mahu Najib Razak Tidak Mungkir Janji”, Pahang Daily, 2011,
<http://pahangdaily.blogspot.com/>.
Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Malaysia, 2014, Statistik Pendaftaran Pertubuhan,
<http://www.ros.gov.my/>.
Jahabar Sadiq, Undi Bangsa Malaysia Menambah Kepahitan BN, The Malaysian Insider, 8
Mei 2013, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
“Kajian Umcedel Putar Belit Keinginan Rakyat, Kata MB Selangor”, The Malaysian Insider,
25 Februari 2014, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
“Krisis’88: Peguam Lancar Laporan Bersih Nama Hakim”, Malaysia Today, 30 Ogos 2008,
<http://www.malaysia-today.net/>.
“Kit Siang Slams BN Go-Between For ‘National Reconciliation’ Stall”, Malay Mail, 11
Februari 2014, <http://www.themalaymailonline.com>.
Malaysia
Kini,
Ambiga
Patut
Sahut
Cabaran
Nazri,
2014,
<http://www.freemalaysiakini.com/>.
Mohd. Farid Md. Alias, Belia Pemangkin Transformasi, Utusan Malaysia, 9 Jun 2011,
<http://www.utusan.com.my/>.
Mohd. Ayop Abd. Razid, Ruang Demokrasi Yang Matang, Utusan Malaysia, 20 April 2012.
Nahar Md Nor, Dakwat kekal yang tidak kekal: Punca utama penipuan dalam PRU13?, 11
May 2013, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
Norakmah Mat Youb, Kebebasan Badan Kehakiman Dilindungi, Kuala Lumpur, Berita
Harian, 19 Julai 2011.
14
Norhayati Umor, Bekas Setiausaha DUN Perak, Abdullah Antong Masuk PAS Dedah
Konspirasi
Rampasan
Kuasa,
Media
Selangorku,
16
Ogos
2012,
<http://www.selangorku.com/>.
“Pakatan Jadi Kerajaan Jika Persempadanan Adil, Kata NGO Pilihanraya”, The Malaysian
Insider, 15 Februari 2014, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
“Persempadanan Semula: Apa Lagi Helah SPR?”, Media Selangorku, 14 Julai 2013,
<http://www.selangorku.com/>.
“Penyokong Ikhwanul Muslimin Anjur Protes”, Utusan Malaysia, 30 November 2010,
<http://www.utusan.com.my/>.
“Penambahbaikan Sistem Penyampaian Kehakiman Berkesan, Kata Ketua Hakim Negara”,
BERNAMA, 14 Oktober 2011, <http://www.bernama.com/>.
“Rashid – Tubuhkan Suruhanjaya, Kaji semula Dan Adakan Sistem Baru”, Kuala Lumpur
Post, 24 Disember 2012, <http://www.kualalumpurpost.net/>.
Saifuddin Abdullah, 2010, Wujudkan Masyarakat Demokratik Matang, Official Web Portal Of
Saifuddin Abdullah, <http://www.saifuddinabdullah.com.my/>.
Salmiyah Harun, Harakah Daily, KDN, ROS Digesa Segera Luluskan Pendaftaran Pakatan
Rakyat, 18 Februari 2014, <http://www.harakahdaily.net/>.
“Salleh Abas Sacked For Noise Pollution Complaint, Says Dr. M”, The Malaysian Insider, 8
Mac 2011, <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
Sinar Harian, Dr. Farouk: Demokrasi Malaysia Tahap Pincang, 23 Januari 2014.
S. Pathmawathy, Peguam: Tiada Bukti Anwar Liwat Saiful, 18 Jun 2009, Malaysia Kini,
<http://www.malaysiakini.com/>.
“Sodomy
Case:
Lose-Lose
For
BN”,
Malaysia
Kini,
2
Disember
2009,
<http://www.malaysiakini.com/>.
“Statement On National Reconciliation”, Official Web Portal Of Najib Razak, 29 Januari
2014, <http://www.1malaysia.com.my/>.
15
Syed Mu’az Syed Putra, 2012, Bersih 3.0 Harus Sebab Hanya 1 Daripada 8 Tuntutan
Ditunaikan,
Kata
Mat
Sabu,
The
Malaysian
Insider,
5
April
2012,
<http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/>.
“Ulama Malaysia: Demonstrasi Haram!”, Jakarta: Tribun News, 7 Mei 2012,
<http://www.tribunnews.com/>.
Utusan Malaysia, Bersih Tetap Pertubuhan Haram, Utusan Malaysia, 7 Julai 2011,
<http://www.utusan.com.my/>.
Wan Hashim, Hubungan Etnik Di Malaysia, Penerbitan Institut Terjemahan Negara Malaysia,
2011.
“100 Orang Ahli UMNO Buat Perhimpunan Aman Bantah Tindakan Ghazali”, Berita Harian,
13 Mac 2014, <http://www.bharian.com.my/>.
16