Making sense of GE14 from a dissenter's POV

Writing a long article on GE14 and #undirosak, I have to revisit all the abuse directed at me since the fateful forum of Jan 25. I do not deny that the abuse was directed towards all those who supported and advocated for #undirosak, but I cannot stress enough the severity of the targeted abuse towards me personally as "the face/poster girl of #undirosak" (I never claimed to be such).

This is not me looking for a pity party, this is me analysing what happened to the single most hated group of dissenters in the lead up to GE14. If me talking about my abuse is me being self-centric, then tell me who else is going to tell this (side of the) story?

Because part of what happened was how much the abuse I endured was (and still is) downplayed as nothing significant, as something trivial though the directed and targeted abuse at myself for #undirosak received thousands of re-tweets, shares and mob-like support for months.

You may not agree with my opinion on why #undirosak is a valid form of protest, but to keep silent (and silencing me) on the online violence shows how deeply entrenched our confirmation bias is. It also blinds us from looking at #undirosak as people who challenged the system, as dissenters against the establishment - heck, dissenters against the (then) opposition establishment.

It keeps people from seeing how the online violence I endured was actually systematic and structural (cyber) bullying. Ignore your personal disgust/hatred/annoyance towards me, someone named Maryam Lee, for a second and see this incident from a systemic point of view and you will see the invisible structures of misogyny and authoritarianism well-hidden as "defence of our democratic right to vote" at a time when the right to vote was never actually threatened.

Upon reflection on the issue for months, I have come to realise that I have looked at this whole thing the wrong way. While I did have bits and pieces figured out, it was never as wholesome as how a good friend of mine just put it for me a few days ago.

That friend is the ever-critical and ever-awesome Boon Kia Meng, whose writings and analyses on political-economy I have come to appreciate and respect over the years. Kia Meng framed it so well theoretically that it explains a lot of what happened to not just #undirosak but to any dissenters of any establishment, anywhere.

For the longest time, the “left” were not the only ones who questioned those in power. There were many others, who don’t necessarily identify as “leftists” but exercise their day-to-day democratic right to voice their grievances, dissatisfactions and general unhappiness to those who were given the mandate to govern.

Neutralisation of dissent

Before Pakatan Harapan won on May 9, the enemy was clear. The enemy was big-time corruption, the concentration of power in the executive body of government, cheating in the general elections and most importantly, the unchallenged 60-year-rule of BN since independence.

There were many dissenters. Since the political tsunami that shocked Malaysia in 2008, dissenters bloomed like mushrooms after a rainy day. And for years, dissent was against that one common enemy, manifested in mass demonstrations against the then-ruling regime, the popular slogan #AsalkanBukanUmno and the hope-selling mother of all chants, “Ini kali lah!”

For any authoritarian regime throughout history which had to face those who defied orders, the question then becomes this: what do we do with those who dare to dissent? The answer then is still the same answer now: discipline, punishment, and control.

So what happens when the same people who dissented against BN turn their backs on Harapan too even as opposition to BN? Harapan being politically and ideologically similar to BN, does the same thing any authoritarian regime would do: discipline, punishment, and control.

It was unthinkable! “How could these people say Harapan is similar to BN!”, cried Harapan supporters who could not bear the sight of dissent against their beloved political coalition. So blinded by loyalty that dissent against Harapan was seen as treachery to the nation, a mockery to democracy and a crusher to their hopes and dreams.

Please remember that all this was directed at a very small percentage of voters and even fewer individuals. Throughout this period, the #undirosak supporters were the single most hated group of dissenters by both the ruling BN government and the Harapan opposition coalition.

However, the abuse and bullying suffered by them (#undirosak campaigners) at the hands of Harapan supporters were much worse.

This is the informal version of discipline, punishment and control of those who dissent against an establishment without state power. The disciplining of these dissenters was seen as justified, so the punishment ensued and the neutralisation of dissent was achieved.

It is more insidious because it is not an obvious form of neutralising dissent. There was no tear gas, no FRU, no using of the ISA on the dissenters. Their punishment was social - they were bullied into conformity, harassed into voting as if their life depended on it.

Worse, they were demonised into voting by the manipulation of nationalist sentiments to arouse public anger against those who refused to vote. Like religion, nationalism was used to fan the fire of rage against the voting minority who would not let their votes swing to Harapan despite not voting for BN either.

Meanwhile, the majority’s right to vote was never under threat. Nobody was taking away anybody’s right to vote at all. And the political hegemony of both Harapan and BN, are in fact, still very much safe and intact.

---

MARYAM LEE is a writer with a chronic tendency to get into trouble. What she lacks in spelling when writing in English is made up for with her many writings in Bahasa Malaysia. She believes in conversations as the most valuable yet underrated cause of social change. She wants people to recognise silences and give them a voice, as she tries to bring people together through words. - Mkini