Human Rights and Good Governance: Strengthening the Partnership of
Civil Society and Elected Representatives in Upholding Principles of
Human Rights in Malaysia
Paper
- presented at "The Vital Role of
Malaysian Parliamentarians in Strengthening Human Rights and Democracy
in Malaysia" Seminar Organised Organised by ERA Consumer Malaysia
by Teresa Kok Suh Sim
(Kuala Lumpur,
Saturday):
In a democratic society, NGOs or civil societies, are seen and recognised as
pressure groups. Pressure groups are important as they play a vital role in
pushing for social reforms and changes in the political system.
Civil societies and political parties, although sharing the same goals, for
example fighting for the betterment of society and champion causes which
they believe are necessary, operate at different levels.
The main differences between civil societies and political parties are,
but not limited to:
i) Political parties strive to make changes through getting a mandate from
the masses so that they can represent the people in the highest
decision-making bodies, i.e. Parliament and/or the State Assemblies. In a
more democratic environment, unlike what we have here, grassroot politics at
its purest could be seen when the public have the right to vote for their
own town councillors, district health board reps etc etc. Civil societies
have the luxury of not having to go through the painful process of having to
gain a mandate through the ballot boxes to push a cause;
ii) Political parties and elected representatives are generally "Jacks of
all trades, masters of none" as they have to attend to, and handle, all
sorts of complaints from their constituents. NGOs, on the other hand, are
generally more focused: most concentrate on a particular field and/or
subject, for example: women's rights, environment, human rights, police
watch etc. NGO activists also have the expertise to specialise in a
particular field. Most elected reps are not career politicians and, thus,
few have specialist knowledge.
iii) Political parties have structure, a fairly large membership, and a
hierarchy. Leaders and elected representatives of political parties have to
spend heaps of energy and time handling organisational matters. They are
also sometimes forced into internal politicking to canvass for support as
political parties operate on the principle of consensus. NGO activists are
largely free from such hassles as they do not have mass membership and
complicated structures. This allows them more time to concentrate on the
issues they are pursuing. In other words NGO activists can be more freely
motivated by universally worthy ideals rather than restricted by standing
party
policy subjected to political correctness in varying degree.
iv) Politicians and their parties have to resort to various means to raise
fund for the parties or their service centres. Opposition parties,
unfortunately, do not have the patronage of wealthy donors. Unlike some
countries where there is central funding for parties -- whether in power or
the opposition --- based on membership and/or numbers of elected
representatives, there is no such system here. In Malaysia, receiving
donations from foreign funding agencies could easily lead to accusations of
being foreign stooges, agents and moles. NGOs need not worry over such
labels as they need not contest for the hearts and minds of voters; and,
v) Politicians have to be seen as politically correct while NGOs specialise
in the promotion of various causes, that when viewed in a single dimension,
could be misinterpreted as politically incorrect. NGOs can also serve as a
reminder that the truth of a matter is not always confined within the common
paradigm of the political correctness of the day alone but perhaps beyond
it.
Before I was first elected to parliament in 1999, I was a NGO activist. I
now see myself as being a little of both. I have my responsibilities to my
constituents yet the fire of activism still burns in me. As an elected rep,
I can, while being just a NGO activist, cannot:
1) Voice the people's concerns and plights at the highest law-making domain,
Parliament, and be an effective public watchdog;
2) Question Ministers face to face;
3) Obtain official data and information which are of importance to NGOs, the
media and the public;
4) Be in a better position to communicate with official channels, agencies
and departments; and
5) Hold the government of the day accountable.
The DAP was, perhaps, the first to recognise the importance of having a
close working relationship with NGOs that share some common ground with our
party's objectives. It is worth noting that unexpected events such as the
detention of our leaders and elected representatives, and the gang rape of
human rights during Operation Lallang 1987 resulted in the initial
cooperation between us. The Executive then saw the DAP and some NGOs as
common enemies; we, however, saw that our destiny was the same as we have
quite a lot in common. The government took that chance to cripple us; we
took that chance to be born again in a special relationship that remains
stronger by the day.
The appreciation of the DAP towards NGOs’ activists is also reflected in
invitation to Sdr Ahamad Nor, the
trade unionist as well as Chinese educationists like Dr Kua Kia Soong and
Lee Ban Chen to join the party and contest in the general elections. In 1996
the DAP cast that relationship in stone by establishing the NGO Affairs
Bureau.
Our working relationships with various NGOs has had some degree of success.
Our MPs, working closely with
NGOs, have been actively debating issues ranging from children's rights to
oppression of freedom in Burma. Amongst our achievement thus far are our MPs
have whole-heartedly supported in Parliament in debating
NGOs’ issues like the bill which successfully lobbied by women’s groups,
i.e. the Domestic Violence Act
which was passed by the Parliament in 1994. Similar cooperation also
evident in the debate of Child Act,
freedom for East Timor, rights and dignity of migrant workers.
We hope NGOs understand the problems faced by us. As parliamentarians we
have an obligation to work across
a broad spectrum of social-economic issues. While NGOs have specific
interests, we deal with all the issues
raised by the various NGOs and hundreds of other issues which are not
adopted by any NGO. Frustrations do arise when certain NGOs expect more
attention than others. We hope they understand that while our goals
are unlimited, our resources are limited. Everyone knows there's an acute
shortage of medical professionals in the country, but how many actually
stand up to say we are also facing an acute shortage of quality Members of
Parliament? You have to stand by us for us to work with you. Getting more of
us elected means having additional resources to fight causes dear to your
heart, and ours'.
I hope some NGO activists can face realpolitik. They may mean well, but this
is Malaysia, and we have to approach and deal with issues in ways that are
perceived to be acceptable by the public. The roadmaps to democracy, justice
and freedom are different for different societies. What may be common and
acceptable
in South Korea, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia and the Philippines may
not be the same here, and some
tactics adopted by some NGO activists actually backfire. The Malaysian
public is not into loud mass demonstrations, but it may be necessary at
times to prove a point.
This sums up the strength and limitations of being either a NGO or political
party. In summary, their continued existence and relevance are dictated by
their ability and inability to scratch each other's back to perpetuate the
success of any cause, issue or agenda.
In short, in a democratic environment both must co-exist as neither could be
effective without the cooperation of the other.
(20/3/2005)
* Teresa Kok Suh Sim, DAP Publicity Secretary & MP for
Seputeh
|
http://dapmalaysia.org