Barisan Nasional losing two-thirds majority, why we didn’t foresee this happening
Photo by Wizan
By SHANNON TEOH
When I look in hindsight, all the signs were there. Yet none of us wanted to believe it. And even if any of us did, we didn’t think it could be this good.
For most of us, the idea of denying BN two-thirds majority was one conceived in hope rather than expectation. We had the pragmatism to realise that just because many in our own circle wanted to do away with BN’s landslide majority, it didn’t mean that the entire nation did, because it’s a very different Malaysia out there, no matter where in or out of Malaysia you are right now.
That same logic will always hold true. But this does not preclude the logic that if you put several other factors together, then there would be a strong enough groundswell to push back the underperforming, C+ on its report card, “Must do better” teacher’s comment, government of the past four years.
Not everyone in Malaysia was privy to the knowledge of all these factors falling into place but those working in the media, especially those with deep cover contacts, or just pals in high places, had more than an inkling of the disgruntlement boiling just under the surface.
That surface which still presented a smile and a handshake to all candidates who came a-canvassing by. From where I was stationed, however, in the “hot seat” – given how many of these hot seats turned out to be thrashings for BN incumbents, the term now reeks of irony for me – of Skudai, there was more than a hint of the public paying more attention to Johor DAP chief, Dr. Boo Cheng Hau than to his Gerakan counterpart Datuk Teo Kok Chee.
His traveling team of campaign workers always seemed to pick up ad hoc volunteers. There was even one Indian chap who sought Dr. Boo’s help because he had forged an MC to come support his hero on nomination day, only for his picture to appear in the papers the next day. Several others refused to be interviewed, fearing an Emergency era-style clampdown.
These were obvious votes in the bag for Dr. Boo, but still I somehow thought that it would be a tight affair, because that’s what everyone, candidates and Special Branch included, told me.
Even the Menteri Besar visited four times, having been advised that this was the biggest and perhaps only liability standing in the way of a BN clean sweep in Johor.
What a mistake. Not just the assessment, but the wisdom of making an appearance.
Dato’ Abdul Ghani Othman only reminded the locals of the sort of grief they’d endured under BN rule. Crime was on the up all over Johor and an already high starting point for cost of living due to its proximity to Singapore had been getting worse over the past few years. Furthermore, it was widely accepted that Ghani was not exactly on the straight and narrow.
“BN semua ok-la,” one octogenarian MCA member said during one of Ghani’s visits. “Tapi dia-la masalah! Empat tahun tada nampak pun,” he spat while gesturing at the Gerakan boss.
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim made a whirlwind tour of the state too, and drew the biggest crowds in what is otherwise a politically staid state. When he left Gelang Patah – the parliamentary area which contains the Skudai state seat – to move on to Pontian, kids not old enough to go to school, let alone vote were shouting from behind the gates of their homes, “Boo Cheng Hau! Boo Cheng Hau!”
But even up to Friday evening, both candidates were saying it would be “50-50”. 50-50, my ass.
First of all, when have you heard a BN incumbent say “50-50”? They always say “we’re confident”, “we’re sure”, “we’re looking at 70 percent…”
Dr. Boo eventually took home more than double Teo’s total and judging from Teo’s mumbling post-result statement to the press, had jolly well retired his listless opponent.
But this was not an isolated happening of course. During the course of the campaign, many of us received news that DAP Penang had been drawing stadium-sized crowds during their ceramah.
In Kelantan, BN’s No. 1 and No. 2 had given up after awhile and fixed their efforts on swinging Penang back their way.
This sort of panic – concealed though it was – was hard to reconcile with the reality we had in our heads. We still felt that Gerakan would edge it.
We still thought that the Opposition would be held to one state, even though many of our parents who were staunch BN voters, or ex-civil servants or people who had made their fortunes in the Mahathir era, had started attending Opposition ceramahs.
Perhaps all of us thought that, well, I know I’m going to vote Opposition because if everyone else votes BN again, we’re going to be in trouble.
And it ended up in five Opposition states and a denial of two-thirds majority for the incumbent federal government.
After the dust settled on Sunday, it became clear that many of us supposed “analysts” – yes, you can start making the rather done anatomical joke now – had been totally fooled by our own inbuilt reservations, perhaps chiseled in after two decades of programming under Tun Mahathir’s unrelenting hammer.
Some tried to backtrack and said that this “was not unexpected.” Oh, please. Even the Opposition didn’t predict such a thing. When he made met the foreign media in Singapore, Anwar had already started putting forward excuses for why the Opposition wouldn’t secure one-third of parliament.
How wrong we all were. And how glad we are of that.
–
SHANNON TEOH is a contributing writer for theCICAK.
Shannon is in fact, no longer a flighty little lifestyle journalist for the NST. He is still flighty and little, and still more concerned with owning his first BMW than freedom of speech. It’s just that he’s already flipped Paul Tan the bird in an Evo IX and can move on to other things like that game we call politics.
If you liked this article, here are some related posts:
- Barisan Nasional losing two-thirds majority, why we didn't foresee this happening
- Prosperity vs. ignominy, and how the opposition isn't really helping Malaysian politics
- The Malaysian general election is over, expect to see...
- Barisan Nasional's unfulfilled promises, what will you do?
- Study in sweets: A bitter look at election tactics (Part 2)
Responses || Discussion || Debates || Commentaries
Post your opinion
Does your comment encourage responsible, intelligent discussion?
All comments are moderated for impersonations and defamatory, racially, sexually and religiously offensive content.
By the way... since you're sharing your comments, get paid for it.
- The rise of left-wing politics in Malaysia
- Fuel price hike in Malaysia: Bane or blessing?
- Malaysia’s first LGBT weblog
- Kick the overspending, underachieving habit, Malaysia
- The best thing Pak Lah has done: Drastic reduction of petrol subsidies
- FFF2008 announces competition winners!
- Different races all loving each other?
- Part 2, Analyzing Malaysian Parties: Should DAP compromise its principles?
- Why I’m for Tibet being part of China, and against the Chinese Communist Party’s actions
- Is Islam, Judaism and Christianity still relevant today?
Subscribe via RSS
Latest News
Register to receive the best articles, comments, and competitions in your inbox!
Part 1: Creating a new manifesto for Malaysia
Malaysia has a government that treats the constitution as nothing more than the toilet paper that adorns your bathrooms. They run roughshod on it, treating it like joke, a document of whimsy and games. Thus, as a result...Young Malaysians, here are ten steps to become better citizens
A very basic list of things that twenty-something’s can do as citizens.The hunt for subversives: Malaysian Government arrest Bersih, Hindraf activists and lawyers
Does the "Malaysian way" condone detention without trial, arbitrary arrests, tear gas, water cannons, violence and lies?Adultery does not justify battery
How far would you go if your lover cheated on you? Be honest.
Comment of the week
I defend my right as a Malaysian to talk about anything that concerns Malaysia.
Powered by FireStats
Damn straight. However Badawi still is prime miinister and they still hold the majority. It will be interesting to see how Badawi and the BN handle this.
Was this a good comment?
Well, not two thirds though. Being too young to vote, I heard practically EVERYONE around me saying “Oi, remember ah. Opposition ah !” - ah well. Apparently BN is watching over the Opposition delegates like a hawk, waiting to prey on them for even the slightest mistake.
I wish they’d just leave it be.
Was this a good comment?
The results kinda show how politically naive we are. I’ve never seen real competition so I couldn’t even make myself believe even as I was immersed in it. Since we’ve never seen real democracy in action before, we don’t seem to know how to feel or act (as demonstrated by how everyone seems to be so excitedly swinging between euphoria and despair right now)
Well, the next couple of years will be very important for us citizens and is probably a very good time for a journalist to be writing about politics. Try to keep a cool head and cover your ass for the long term and you may accidentally end up looking like a very prescient “analyst”.
Was this a good comment?
What an interesting thesis. So if the media - especially those with “deep cover contacts” - had an inkling of what was going to happen, why did the newspapers saturate themselves with copy supporting the BN in the lead-up to the election? Did those newspapers discharge their duty to the electorate responsibly, do you think?
Was this a good comment?
Thank you for finding it interesting. I guess that’s your idea of diplomacy.
In any case, even though I have no idea how whether the newspapers were acting responsibly or not has anything to do with my article, I shall try to engage in that off-topic debate for as long as thecicak moderators allow.
1. They did it because they had a bias.
2. Therefore, yes, you could say it was irresponsible.
3. Supporting BN does not equate to predicting landslide victories for BN. So when you say, “So if the media - especially those with “deep cover contacts” - had an inkling of what was going to happen, why did the newspapers saturate themselves with copy supporting the BN in the lead-up to the election?”, it is a meaningless comment.
4. But they did predict BN victories which did not happen. If you’re asking why the media did it when they had hints otherwise, it is actually answered in the article, in the first paragraph even. I thought you found the article interesting.
5. Alternative media instead was biased towards the opposition. I know Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider were pretty even, congrats to them. But MalaysiaToday, Harakah, any of the countless bloggers and even Al-Jazeera, had a bias. Did this bias have an effect? Or does it only have an effect when the mainstream media does it?
6. Was this responsible?
7. Did they predict the level of victory the opposition enjoyed?
8. As far as I recall only Tun Daim stood up and said there would be three hot spots that BN would have to look out - Kedah, Penang and Selangor.
Was this a good comment?
OK. So why do the newspapers support BN?
What are the newspapers’ biases (you can take the NST as an example if you don’t want to comment on the industry as a whole, fragmented as it is)?
Why did the newspapers fail to write about the information they had gathered, when they “had more than an inkling” that it was true? Are you suggesting they betrayed their professional duty to report the facts simply because they had such a staggering belief in a BN victory?
Was this a good comment?
Yes, Joon Ian, NST is biased. Why, look at their ownership structure.
On another note, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the degree of neutrality maintained by Malaysiakini both before and after the elections. At this moment, it has become required reading for all Internet-savvy Malaysians who can afford their price tag.
Personally I find that between NST, Malaysiakini and occasional doses of RPK, I can get a pretty healthy spectrum of views on local news. And to give NST some credit, at least it feels that in NST the editorial staff is constantly trying to get away with things in the presence of censoring owners, while The Star seems to have degenerated pretty much into self-censorship.
Was this a good comment?
Why do you get that feeling from NST and not The Star? On balance, the NST’s coverage seems to have been far more pandering than The Star, although both did not report events rigorously, of course.
Was this a good comment?
I strongly and wholeheartedly condemn this post for supporting the tacit media mind control monopoly! If the NST is allowed to control minds, I don’t see why I shouldn’t be allowed to as well. Mr. Teoh, I will here engage in a rebuttal of your ridiculous claims:
“1. They did it because they had a bias.”
Nonsense! I see your tricks! Trying to divert our attention from the fact that they had a clear bias! Don’t you see it’s obvious? Your cover-up tactics will never work.
“2. Therefore, yes, you could say it was irresponsible.”
And you’re perfectly alright with this? You can just sit there in your plush office and tolerate this? NST is the root of all evils!
“3. Supporting BN does not equate to predicting landslide victories for BN. So when you say, “So if the media - especially those with “deep cover contacts” - had an inkling of what was going to happen, why did the newspapers saturate themselves with copy supporting the BN in the lead-up to the election?”, it is a meaningless comment.”
How dare you! That comment was not meaningless, it was in fact extremely wise - if NST knew, why didn’t they report what they knew? It doesn’t matter if they weren’t sure, which is essentially the point of your article, and it doesn’t matter if every other media outlet pretends to be sure when they’re unsure, if they were unsure why didn’t they report that they were sure that the opposite of what they thought would actually happen would happen? Instead they twist and turn like snakes, but now they writhe, o how they writhe.
“4. But they did predict BN victories which did not happen. If you’re asking why the media did it when they had hints otherwise, it is actually answered in the article, in the first paragraph even. I thought you found the article interesting.”
Haha, oh yes we did, but we didn’t find it interesting, we found it ‘interesting’. Some journalist you are, with that kind of punctuation awareness.
“5. Alternative media instead was biased towards the opposition. I know Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider were pretty even, congrats to them. But MalaysiaToday, Harakah, any of the countless bloggers and even Al-Jazeera, had a bias. Did this bias have an effect? Or does it only have an effect when the mainstream media does it?”
Obviously it has an effect, my dear naif, but it’s a GOOD effect. As a journalist, you certainly have showed remarkable disregard for the dictionary. Look up BAD EFFECT in there and you’ll find a picture of the NST, look up GOOD EFFECT and you’ll find my padan muka face.
“6. Was this responsible?”
Dictionary, duh. My face, hello.
“7. Did they predict the level of victory the opposition enjoyed?”
Yes they predicted it, but like me they chose to report only other predictions in order to maintain neutrality. Something the NST is not interested in at all!
“8. As far as I recall only Tun Daim stood up and said there would be three hot spots that BN would have to look out - Kedah, Penang and Selangor.”
So what I want to know is, why didn’t the NST hire Tun Daim? Hacks!
I denounce this blatant attempt at apologetics and stand steadfast beside those who have attacked it! Spoon!
Was this a good comment?
it’d be nice if people actually read your article/comment before replying to it. i’ll only say that i personally did not get the feeling nst was pandering more than the star, in fact, the opposite. perhaps pandering to mca is not as diabolical as pandering to umno,, but that’s really, really, really going off-topic.
i’ll just say that while there are no official stats yet in the final period before elections, where all msm shot themselves in the foot by running BN threats, there are stats for the leadup to nomination day here: http://www.cijmalaysia.org/images/documents/mediamonitoring_prelim%20report%201_270208.pdf
you can see that in fact, NST was fairer than the Star, but both still with bias.
if you’re saying you were disappointed with msm for their coverage, so was i. but i don’t think that’s what you’re saying.
actually, i’m not even sure why i’m engaging in this debate.
1. nothing to do with my article.
2. defending nst over the star is not the point of my article. although attacking nst seems to be the point of your comments.
3. whether or not a media source supports one particular party is not an indication of what they would predict as a result. that’s like saying because i support liverpool, i’ll not only sing their songs, i’ll predict them going through the rest of the year unbeaten.
Was this a good comment?
It’s going to be another long one!
Firstly, the stats you provide are qualitative and not quantitative studies. Therefore, a newspaper could have been “far more pandering’ while printing less pandering articles and this would not be captured by the numbers. My contention is that the NST behaved in such a way.
Well, in your bio, you note that you used to work for NST. You also allude to the fact in your post. Further, you suggest that journalists with “deep cover” (what a romantic term!) contacts had more than an inkling of the rumblings on the ground.
My question is rather simple. If these journalists were privy to these quotes, facts, and other newsmaterial, why were these things not reported? I still don’t think you’ve answered this adequately. Are you saying, as you seem to be, that it was not reported because the newspapers refused to believe they could be true? That their belief in a victorious BN government was so strong they rejected evidence to the contrary out of hand?
The corollary to that question is, how should a newspaper that is responsible to the electorate behave when evidence and its beliefs collide? Should it ignore that evidence and not report it?
Since you suggest you are privy to the workings of the media, you are in a good position to answer these questions - which is why I direct them to you.
PS You and Daft Oi are both awfully fond of numbered lists!
Was this a good comment?
My exact words were “‘had more than an inkling of the disgruntlement boiling just under the surface”. Whether it would break the surface was not known. I then proceeded to say “these were obvious votes in the bag for Dr. Boo, but still I somehow thought that it would be a tight affair, because that’s what everyone, candidates and Special Branch included, told me.”
So, if you like, you can say that everyone (will someone pity me and at least concede that all forms of media did not predict such an outcome?) rejected “evidence” to the contrary. I certainly won’t begrudge you that. And since sources rejected this “evidence”, journalists could only follow suit. After all, a prediction is not for journalists to make, and i used the term “analysts” markedly in inverted commas for a reason.
As for the line to draw between this evidence and one’s beliefs, we’re talking about religion here. People and journos alike believed that the BN would not suffer such a loss based on experience, which told us that people have reasons, i.e., fear, to not vote according to their convictions.
We were proved wrong.
If you’re trying to look for something more sinister, then I can’t provide you with that, because this was simply a mistake of underestimating the courage of the people.
Daft Oi, I think, the silly cad he is, used the point forms to satirise a very successful opposition tool of rebutting anything the establishment proposes. I think he adapted the idea from a section in this rather ticklish article: http://think.com.my/article.cfm?art_ID=166
Was this a good comment?
OK. So what was the source of these inklings? You say the candidates and SB officers didn’t confirm them, but surely some other group of people must have done or said things to give journalists these inklings? Could this group of people have been - gasp - the electorate? Actually, you say as much in your post when you write that these were “obvious votes in the bag” for Dr Boo.
It appears, then, that the journalists chose to ignore sources whose views didn’t conform to their existing beliefs. Let’s be clear about this: Some sources rejected the ‘evidence’; the others were ignored.
I have no issue with whatever predictions any newspaper chooses to make. Speculation is qualitatively identical whatever the conclusion. What I see has happened is the newspapers didn’t report what they saw and heard on the ground, choosing instead to write reports based on a narrow slice of sources whose opinions - coincidentally - conformed to the institutional and personal biases of the newspapers and journalists involved.
Why does this matter? Because in a democracy, at a basic level, newspapers and journalists are charged with informing the electorate about their voting options. Malaysian newspapers, the NST in particular, have abdicated this responsibility in the baldest way possible. Sadly, there is no saving grace for Malaysian newspaper journalism.
Just my two sen
Was this a good comment?
Your comment boils down to bad reportage, and that’s got nothing to do with my article. I’m not here to say who or what had the best election coverage. I will just say that this is bad reportage on behalf of everyone because nobody, not the local MSM, not the alternative media, not the foreign media, saw this coming. It’s only easy to join the dots in hindsight.
If you want to say that some journalists acted in bad faith in the choice of sources, then that’s a fair enough comment. I don’t agree to it - I’ll still say that based on previous elections, the methodology gave us pretty accurate results - but that’s about the most relevant thing you’ve said so far, and it’s taken you ages to say it.
If you want to postulate on the inadequacies of the media in Malaysia or specifically newspapers, or specifically the NST, why don’t you write an article to thecicak, instead of hijacking the comment space of another article?
Was this a good comment?
That’s a good idea. I’ll leave it at that.
Was this a good comment?
Well done! Haha, let us see what the discredited upholders of the media machine have to say about that!!!
I too think that qualitatively the NST was the worst of all. Quantitative analysis has no bearing whatsoever on the issue, because obviously we need to stay objective, and it just so happens that my subjective opinions are objectively the rightest. I spit upon those who spend their time counting, counting, counting, mere bean counters that they are! I dine on beef, not beans.
I’m surprised that while looking into the issue of the NST’s satanicity we’ve managed to ignore the highly relevant issue of the police force in Malaysia. Because as mentioned in the above article, Special Branch predicted the wrong results! And why would they do this? Because the police in Malaysia have no saving graces and are all bald abdicators! Mr. Teoh, I happen to know through my deep-throat network of sources that your friend’s mother’s cousin is in fact high up in the police force…so don’t think we don’t realise what side you will fall on in this debate. And out of the police force, it is the Banting CID that are the most heinous of all! I know this, because during the elections I watched everything they did and it was very bad, much worse than the Klang CID. What’s that you say? All the police officers acted the same way? I don’t care, the Banting CID are the worst. And don’t try to say this isn’t relevant to your contentions, either. I see through your tricks, with this ‘relevance’ hocus-pocus.
Was this a good comment?
Please stop thinking of the “voting Opposition mentality!”.
Where is the GOD GIVEN letter to say that BN MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY?
Start the culture of VOTING for a BETTER GOVERNMENT and the OPPOSITION NOW as THE GOVERNMENT IN WAITING!
Look at all the DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD. Any party can govern if given the opportunity.
BN is now full parasites and SELF-SERVING politicians. It need cleaning up either internally or the people must vote them out. No KELANTANESE starves because they have PAS as their Government of the Day for the three consecutive terms now. In fact, I heard things are cheaper in Kelantan compared to Penang or Johore!
Political analysts of Malaysia, how wrong you were because of your indoctrination by BN Ministers! Wake up.
Was this a good comment?
Please stop thinking of the “voting Opposition mentality!”.
Where is the GOD GIVEN letter to say that BN MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY in Malaysia forever?
Start the culture of VOTING for a BETTER GOVERNMENT and start thinking of the OPPOSITION NOW as THE GOVERNMENT IN WAITING!
Look at all the DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD. Any party can govern if given the opportunity.
BN is now full of parasites and SELF-SERVING politicians. It needs cleaning up either internally or the people must vote them out. No KELANTANESE starves because they have PAS as their Government of the Day for the three consecutive terms now. In fact, I heard things are cheaper in Kelantan compared to Penang or Johore!
Political analysts of Malaysia, how wrong you were because of your own indoctrination by BN Ministers! Wake up.
Was this a good comment?
OK. So why do the newspapers support BN?
What are the newspapers’ biases (you can take the NST as an example if you don’t want to comment on the industry as a whole, fragmented as it is)?
Why did the newspapers fail to write about the information they had gathered, when they “had more than an inkling” that it was true? Are you suggesting they betrayed their professional duty to report the facts simply because they had such a staggering belief in a BN victory?
Comment published by Joon Ian on 16 March 2008.
———————————————————————————————–
Eh, did you know that The Star and The New Straits Times are owned by Umno?
Was this a good comment?
Eh Shannon, are you the one from Paul Tan’s blog?
Was this a good comment?